# Marriott's New Rip Off Rental Pgm



## KathyPet (Jun 19, 2006)

Just got a E Mail announcing Marriott's new rental pgm for owners who wish to rent their TS weeks through Marriott.  In the future if you wish to rent out your week you will call Marriott and advise them that you want to rent out your week.  They will give you a list of available weeks to choose from.(note:   thse list is not a list of all available weeks just the ones they have designated as weeks for rentals)  You will pick one.  THey will send you a rental agreement.  Once you sign and return the agreement they will send you a check.  THe burden for renting the week is on them.  If they fail to rent it they eat the money they sent you.  However you are paying through the nose for this as they have used a average of rental amounts for the entire year to determine the amount that they are going to pay you for your week.  I spcifically asked about Manor Club (non lock off) for a rental over the July 4th holiday as that is the week that we reserved and gave Marriott to rent for us this year.  THe advisor stated that if I got that same week in 2007 and turned it over to Marriott to rent I would receive a net amount (money in hand) of $565.00.   THat is outrageous.  THe advisor said well the purpose was to allow you to cover your maintenance fee.  I told her that would not even cover my maintenance fee at Manor Club.   By the way this new program is not option.  This is the way rentals will work in the future.  There will be no other choice for owners if the rent through Marriott.  What a rip off for owners.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 19, 2006)

I was never enamored of Marriott's rental policy anyway because (1) Marriott took such a big commission, 50% for some resorts, (2) there was no assurance of a rental, (3) you had to make a rent-through-Marriott decision very early to ensure being high on the rental priority list and (5) the renter could cancel with no penalty right up until (at some resorts) the check-in date with no penalty and, thus, no income to the owner. 

I much prefer renting on my own, thus knowing early how much rent I'll get and banking that rent as being nonrefundable.


----------



## floyddl (Jun 19, 2006)

This is a disturbing change as one of the reasons I own 4 weeks with Marriott is because I have been able to get very good value on the rentals.  I typically net $2000 plus for my Grande Ocean week and I made additional purchases knowing that I would be able to rent premium weeks and get good return to offset maintenance fees.  I actually purchased an Aruba surf club week knowing that the rental per night in season was over $1000 and they only take 35% of that.  

I will certainly do the rentals myself in the future.  This change doesn't make a lot of sense as they had a program that was no risk to them and they are now taking on risk but I guess more than offsetting it by shortchanging the owner on his compensation.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 19, 2006)

Marriott makes some dumb moves at times ... like the week 53 deal a couple of years back ... but this one ranks right up there too. To not cover maintenance is ridiculous -- the same for thinking that all Marriott should do it help you do that and not share in the overall winnings and risks.   Marriott will make Ebay and Square Trade even richer.

I haven't rec'd an email on it yet, but it will be interesting to see if they withold taxes on that amount from Canadians as they did in the past.

Brian


----------



## Dave M (Jun 19, 2006)

pwrshift said:
			
		

> I haven't rec'd an email on it yet, but it will be interesting to see if they withold taxes on that amount from Canadians as they did in the past.


Yes, they will. From the new Q&A just posted on the MVCI site for the new rental program:





> If an Owner is not a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident for tax purposes, please note that Marriott Vacation Club International is required to hold 30% of the rental offer for tax purposes.



- - - - - - -

Under the new program, you can request a rental offer online. 

Based on Kathy's post, they have to be joking with the following:





> Q:  How do you [Marriott] determine the amount to pay me for my week?
> 
> A:  The amount is determined based on historical rental rates for the time of year, resort location, rental demand, villa size and view type you own, less normal and customary expenses.


----------



## IngridN (Jun 19, 2006)

Just got off the phone with Marriott...this is a rip off...big time  .

Fortunately, if you have already made arrangements under the old system, you are grandfathered.  We rented our Shadow Ridge unit last year and netted $1,500.  Under this "new and improved  " program, we will receive a whopping $490 for the same date, just over 1/2 of our maintenance fee.

It appears Marriott is not interested in continuing their rental program as I can't imagine anyone taking advantage of it.  In the future we will rent on our own.

I can't wait until our next timeshare presentation...will they tout the fact that you can rent through Marriott and recover your maintenance fee plus some  .
Ingrid


----------



## PerryM (Jun 19, 2006)

*Great news for some!*

Wow, assuming that Marriott isn’t about to compete against RCI in dominating the low end timeshare realm, Marriott stockholders can look for a little extra in their dividends check from now on.

I’m also assuming that the timeshare salesreps are huddled around the sales manager modifying their spiel about renting your week thru Marriott and making a tidy profit.  They will now plug “Marriott takes all the risk” for their timeshare rental and this is really “easy money”.  I just can’t wait until I hear the new pitch in 2 weeks.

On the bright side, I would expect many more rentals of Marriotts to be at cutthroat rates for those of us who prowl the various web sites.  (More rentals means more competition and lower prices)  I’m assuming that more weeks for rent in RedWeek and MyResortNetwork will make their owners even more rich.

Good news all around; well except for us Marriott owners.


----------



## KathyPet (Jun 19, 2006)

Another big negative to this new program is that under the old program you could cancel your rental agreement with Marriott at any time.  So if you put it up for rent with Marriott and also on TUG and Redweek and got it rented through a alternative source you could simply call Marriott and w/d the week from their rental pool.  Now since they have paid you up front I don't see how you can then cancel out.


----------



## GrayFal (Jun 19, 2006)

Unbelieveable....Does Marriott REALLY think anyone would accept this deal :ignore: ?


----------



## floyddl (Jun 19, 2006)

I suggest everyone that cares should drop Mr. Watzka a note expressing your concerns.  

I suspect that they have evaluated this carefully and determined that owners are benefitting too much from the rental program and that they have enough weeks to rent from owners trading for points to support the rentals.

I would think this may backfire and hurt sales as some have pointed out that it makes no sense to own when you can pick up cheap rentals.  This will creat a lot more cheap rentals versus the controled offering that Marriott had.  Not only that but there may be more resales by owners who are frustrated because they can't rent their weeks without the hassles.

I am sure they have an angle that I don't understand and will tell us all that they are actually doing us a favor.


----------



## KenK (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't think I read that Marriott will RENT a week for those rates to a renter...but just give that amount to the owner.


I really don't believe Marriott rented any weeks for the averages they say they did.....they don't even let II have those prices on the last minute rentals....and God forbid Marriott give the GI a good rate....never can find a Marriott listed on the govarm site.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Jun 19, 2006)

*Suspicions*

I suspect:

1. Marriott does not want to be in the rental business, that is managing owner rentals. My bet is that their overhead costs are greater then their profits (sound like the airlines?);

2. This is a move by Marriott to force more weeks into the "exchange company pool," thereby providing greater opportunity for owners to make exchanges (not to suggest that some owners will stop renting; Marriott will make it less appealing to rent, and forces some inventory into the exchange pool (or increase the number of weeks exchanged for points, so that Marriott can then rent those weeks for premium $$$);

3. The Securities and Exchange Commission is having a feast on some hotel companies selling condo hotels, and their representation of rental potential income. I suspect it will not be long before "rental potential income" are words not spoken by Marriott salespeople. I'll wait to see if they go down the road of representing "appreciation."


----------



## taffy19 (Jun 20, 2006)

Marriott rented our MDSV-I once many years ago and we received a check for over $2,000 after they had taken out their cut. We were happy with that as we still had a profit after paying our taxes and maintenance fees too. We were not able to use our week and it would have been wasted otherwise. From then on, we rented the timeshare weeks ourselves because we didn't have enough vacation weeks but we had more control over the week in case it wasn't rented. We could have gone there ourselves for a week-end and let our friends use the remaining time instead. We had no problem in renting our winter weeks and we saved the renters a lot of money too and we still came out ahead if Marriott had rented it for us. We even had repeat business as it was such a good deal for the family who rented from us and they sent us all their friends too but we only had one single week for rent. We were almost tempted to buy another week but I am glad we didn't as it is a risk when you count on income.

I wonder if Marriott is trying to average the proceeds and costs to the benefit of all Marriott owners who want to let Marriott handle their rental week for them so they do not have to worry about it. Not all weeks rent equally as well unless you know what week to reserve like most people know here who read this forum. Most people do not have a clue and would rather have Marriott handle the rental for them and are happy with a small profit guaranteed over the maintenance fees. This is a good sales pitch to give to a newbie in timesharing. JMHO.

What I wonder now is what weeks will the Marriott put in the rental pool? Are they going to be the choice weeks like RCI is supposedly doing from the exchange pool or just average weeks and the choice weeks may go to the benefit of Marriott through the MRP's plan? It is all so vague to me. How will it affect our reservations for using our week? Will they get better or worse?

Right now, we can reserve the week we want to deposit with II but Starwood doesn't give their owners this advantage so they never know how well their week will exchange and can only hope for the best. Will Marriott eventually make this change too and will they stop allowing owners reserving 13 months in advance for units that they are planning to rent instead of occupying? I would worry more about this as they can enforce this rule tomorrow since it is in black and white in the documents we sign. 

I still think it is best to buy where you want to go most often and buy for use rather than for renting and trying to make a profit or mainly for exchanges. This way, you won't be disappointed and you couldn't care less about what changes will be made in the future except for the internal exchange system. This only can get better and not worse from what it has been for some of us here. JMHO.

If all savvy TUGgers start renting their own weeks, I see a price war coming on the Internet for the most sought after weeks and timeshare resorts which will make it very attractive to people here who rather would rent than owning a Marriott timeshare week, like Perry mentions above. This industry is changing so fast.


----------



## KathyPet (Jun 20, 2006)

The CSR I spoke to said that the program had been changed due to owners complaints.  I say Baloney to that.  It was changed to allow Marriott to pocket more money.  If they did have complaints it was probably from owners whose weeks failed to rent.  When I rented out I always made sure that I reserved a good week far enough in advance to put my unit at the top of the "to be rented" list in Marriott's inventory.  I have never had a week that failed to rent.  I think that those "Johnny come lately's" who failed to properly plan in advance and got a lousy week that could not rent were the complainers.    Marriott will never see another rental week from me.  I will reserve far in advance and rent it through a alternative source.


----------



## IngridN (Jun 20, 2006)

*KathyPet*,  my sentiments exactly.  We rented thru Marriott for the first time last year, made the decision early, picked one of the best weeks and netted $1,500. I have no complaints about the old system...the new system is unacceptable to me.

*Iconnections*, according to the rep I spoke with yesterday, you still get to book the week you want and if they don't already have their rental slots filled, you can put it in the pool.  I.e., if I call 12 months out, reserve my week and am the first one in the rental queue, no problem.  If I decide to rent six months out, the week I want to reserve and rent is still available to book, however, if enough owners have already put that week into the rental pool (edited to add: or Marriott has sufficient inventory and does not want to add owner rentals to the pool) and Marriott decides they have enough, they will not take my week for rental, but I can then select from other weeks still available.  Under the new program, the early planners can still select choice weeks. 

There is NO profit over maintenance fees.  In my example above, that *choice week* will now net me $490 rather than the $1,540 I netted last year.   Each week has a different price point...if my choice week now nets me $490, I'll probably get $300 or less for a lousy week!

Edited to add:  This change benefits Marriott and no one else.  The owners are the losers here.

Ingrid


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Jun 20, 2006)

KathyPet said:
			
		

> The CSR I spoke to said that the program had been changed due to owners complaints.  I say Baloney to that.  It was changed to allow Marriott to pocket more money.  If they did have complaints it was probably from owners whose weeks failed to rent.  When I rented out I always made sure that I reserved a good week far enough in advance to put my unit at the top of the "to be rented" list in Marriott's inventory.  I have never had a week that failed to rent.  I think that those "Johnny come lately's" who failed to properly plan in advance and got a lousy week that could not rent were the complainers.    Marriott will never see another rental week from me.  I will reserve far in advance and rent it through a alternative source.



I agree with you Kathy...  I am so disappointed in this new rental process.  I rented out two weeks this last year and netted over $1500 for both my units.  One week was a shadow ridge week & one was a waiohai week.  I was surprised that I got top dollar for my Shadow ridge week more than Waiohai.  Anyways, I am renting the same weeks again through Marriott as well.  I'm debating on whether I should pull them and rent them myself to get more experience with renting with outsiders instead of through Marriott.  These weeks are being rented under the old program.  I know I would probably net a little more by renting on my own but I just didn't want the headache of renting.  I'd rather Marriott deal with it.  I will definitely be sending the president a letter or e-mail.


----------



## IngridN (Jun 20, 2006)

ciscogizmo1 said:
			
		

> Anyways, I am renting the same weeks again through Marriott as well.  I'm debating on whether I should pull them and rent them myself to get more experience with renting with outsiders instead of through Marriott.  These weeks are being rented under the old program.  I know I would probably net a little more by renting on my own but I just didn't want the headache of renting.  I'd rather Marriott deal with it.  I will definitely be sending the president a letter or e-mail.



If you have your weeks in the rental pool under the old program, they are grandfathered.  I have 2 weeks in the old rental program for this year and will see it through.  $1,540 for Shadow Ridge through the Marriott program is more than likely more than I would be able to get if I rented it myself.  I would expect to get a similar amout this year as I'm the first in the queue.

Ingrid


----------



## short (Jun 20, 2006)

If Marriott Vac club is to take control of the total inventory like other Clubs they need to control all inventory instead of some member ben. from high demand weeks at the expense of others.  I think this is a first step to an internal exchange system that gives first priority to owners who use there own units.

I understand that folks who have previously rented at higher dollars will be upset but isn't the system primarily sold for folks who want to use there timeshare?

Renting is a side ben. on an as needed basis.

Hope no one is to upset with me but I think this is a good move.  

Short


----------



## msweaver (Jun 20, 2006)

I have to say that there is a potential benefit for those of us who actually use our weeks.  Now there may be much less demand for certain key weeks (like Sundance Week in January at Summit Watch) since the only people calling will be those who intend to occupy or trade their units.  While I am not happy about Marriott in essence taking control of our properties, at least there is the side benefit of making it potentially easier to reserve high demand weeks for our personal use.  Timeshares have always been primarily for the use of owners and not primarily for investment purposes.


----------



## IngridN (Jun 20, 2006)

short said:
			
		

> I understand that folks who have previously rented at higher dollars will be upset but isn't the system primarily sold for folks who want to use there timeshare?
> Short



Tell that to the sales reps...sales would plummet.

IMHO, those savy with the rental system will still reserve choice weeks and rent them on their own.  I rent on my own, thru Marriott, use and exchange...it depends on my needs. That's why I bought Marriott, for the flexibility.  THis year, we won't be able to use as many weeks as we normally do, therefore, I'm renting more than normal.  I own Marriott because of the flexibility the program gives me.  Now one of them is gone and I'll have to rethink my strategy.  

The program sucks because of the $s Marriott is willing to give you.  If they chose to give a more reasonable dollar amount or base their pricing on when you put your unit in the pool it would be more acceptable.

Ingrid


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jun 20, 2006)

*Thud !!!*

After getting off of the phone with Marriott, I can say that this thing sinks like a rock. Marriott is simply not telling the truth! 

I can partly see Marriott's point of view on this situation because they view things from an inventory/demand situation and not all weeks or resorts can pull income for a full week, creating a rental program that is cumbersome to administer. Owners who listed their week witih Marriott to rent were also inclined to think a 50% commission fee ( plus daily tidy fees ) to be hefty or even excessive.  Whether this is true depends upon one's outlook. IMO, we've received a decent price from Marriott in the past.

I call Owner Services & inquire about Presidents week and the week before Presidents week at Ocean Pointe and I'm initially told that there is availibility for rentals. Yet when the rep checks fees, he tells me that Marriott has all of the OP weeks it needs for those dates. Hmm, just how many weeks are enough at a resort where over 90% of owners occupy their platinum weeks?  

He tells me that Marriott knows precisely how many weeks it can rent at each resort and season. Hmmm, does owner feedback provide this "insight"?
It is entirely disingenous for Marriott to insist that this new program is purely a result of owner feedback. Just who are these phantom owners who scream out for change? And what kind of change is this? It looks like a corporate decision which is wholly profit driven.

Here is what Marriott is listing rental prices for at Marriott.com for Ocean Pointe for the dates of 10-17 February 2007 and 17-24 February 2007 (Presidents week) at Ocean Pointe.

10-17 Feb 2007 ( per night ) OS= ocean side  OF= ocean front

LO  (OS) = $260
1BR (OS) = $335
LO (OF)  = $360
1BR (OF) = $435
2BR (OF) = $575

17-24 Feb 2007 Presidents week

LO  (OS)  = $270
1BR (OS) =  $345
2BR (OS) =  $490
2BR (OF) =  $575
3BR (OF) =  $650

Marriott commands big bucks for these high-demand weeks. The 2006 rate for a 2BR OS week was $450 a night ( for which we netted in excess of $1500 after Marriott took commission + tidy fees ). 

Make no mistake about it, Marriott is going to make their money in this no matter how they cut the cake. A decision that I can partly understand. But not when MVCI utilizes the rental option as a sales pitch in which Marriott will seamlessly help one  rent their week. Marriott is simply washing their hands of the burden of handling all owner rental requests. In short, a diminishment of ownership value/flexibility.

The only question that I am unable to get answered by the Owner Service rep is precisely what an owner would receive for an OP rental under this "new and improved" program. Maybe another OP owner can post that information.

Those who still want to rent their unit can do so outside of Marriott. Pricing will mean everything. There are still many resorts and weeks which will command a good price. 

Too bad that Marriott walks away from their own TS sales pitch and leaves owners holding the bag. *That *does surprise me because integrity and product constancy have been strong points in Marriott TS.

Barry


----------



## floyddl (Jun 20, 2006)

Marriott has been gradually evolving away from owner satisfaction in favor of shareholder satisfaction for several years now.  This is just another business decision that they believe will benefit profitability.  I am having trouble seeing how it does that but make no mistake about it, this is a business decision.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 20, 2006)

*You can do it!*

For those of you who have not rented your unit it’s no big deal.  It takes 10 minutes to list your unit in RedWeek or MyResortNetwork.  You need a rental lease that can be found here on TUG for free and pick a rental price.  That’s about it – a total of 30 minutes of your time.

Laugh at Marriott while you pull in just as much or more than before.  It’s easy to find the Marriott rental rate and take a 50% discount and you should rent your unit.

Here are a few pointers that might help you.

When listing in RedWeek or MyResortNetwork your ad is announced to all those folks who have on-going searches – this happens one.  So when you list is very important.  I find that you need to understand your renter:

*Short term planner:*
90 days is about as far out as your renter can plan.  There are exceptions but on the most part this is when your long term renter starts to look.

60 days and normal renters start to look

45 days – lots of activity here

30 days and the panic renters start – they will pay just about anything to get their reservation.  Airline deals can still be found here.

*No money:*
Many renters have little money and want you to extend them credit – half up front and half 30 days before check-in.  I just advise folks to use PayPal and they can finance their rental on their credit card.  I ask for 100% up front and offer NO terms to get out of the contract.

*Cataclysmic personalities:*
Renters seem to live a wild life – all kinds of things happen to them and they want you to insure their vacation by letting them out of the contract for all kinds of things (Grandma died and we must cancel and we want our money back).  Tell them for about $250 they can get renter’s insurance and the insurance company will insure your rental and cover their airline tickets.  Things like hurricanes and floods and all kinds of acts of god are covered.

*PayPal:*
I advise folks to offer PayPal and have a commercial account so your renter can charge the rent on the credit card.  It costs you about 3.5% in a fee charged by PayPal to offer this.  You can send them an invoice via PayPal and they pay instantly.  It takes 30 seconds to open a PayPal account.

*Rental Price:*
50% off the Marriott rack rate is something that your renter will relate to – tell him what a great deal he has.  During hot holiday weeks offer only a 25% discount or no discount at all.  It’s easy to check if Marriott has no inventory and you can raise your rates.

For this 50% discount inform your renter that they:

a)	Finance the rent themselves via credit cards on PayPal

b)	Insure their reservation with a renter’s insurance policy or self insure

c)	Are treated exactly the same as a Marriott owner

d)	Don’t have to pay 10%+ in taxes

*Competition:*
Say you get a week 52 at a Marriott ski resort and want to list it and find others doing the same thing.  They are offering a 50% discount and you know there is no availability at the resort – what do you do?

You can panic and see which of you can offer the lowest rental price or you can allow one or two folks to get a cheap rental while you list for full price or a 25% discount.  Eventually folks will snarf up the cheap rentals and you will rent much higher.  This is very pleasing after you rent and the other owners got hundreds of dollars less than you did.


Hopefully this will bolster your reaction to Marriott’s bold new view of Marriott owners.

P.S.
*Escrow:*
If you act as if you don’t know what you are doing your renter will demand escrow.  Tell them that you will happily fax them a copy of your reservation and a 800 phone number to verify you and the reservation.  You will be amazed how folks you have never met will PayPal you thousands of dollars without a problem.


----------



## minoter (Jun 20, 2006)

My comments will take the opposite viewpoint from the observations on this subject. My experience is that renters of the properties I owner cost me as an owner. I am in the camp that suggests to Marriott that renting should be discouraged. I would hope that Marriott will retain this policy which could  encourage owners to use their property, not withstanding representations made by sales people regarding rental opportunities. I am also supportive of discouraging "trading for points" which Marriott has implemented (to some degree) by not increasing the number of points awarded. The weeks given up for points go into Marriott inventory which creates many of the same problems that renters create. 

Owners care more about the facilities than the transient people that rent our properties. This policy could actually lower maintenance fees because the property will be treated with more care. Most condo association bylaws actually limit the number of units that can be occupied by renters. The more upscale the property, the less rental percentage allowed. I think Marriott is finally getting the message that many owners prefer to use their week along with other owners rather than careless renters. Historically, owners who rent their property represents a small percentage of total owners. Marriott is simply implementing a policy that a significant number of owners prefer.


----------



## Lv2Trvl (Jun 20, 2006)

*Perry - Great response!*

Well - we have been watching all of the postings with much interest!  We have multiple weeks, and have been considering another - can't use them all each year right now (getting closer and closer to retirement and more time), so usually rent one, sometimes two per year through Marriott.  It's been easy - and always more than covered the fees & taxes.

Perry - you really outlined all the steps to renting on our own! Thanks for all of the pointers ...

I am interested to hear from someone that has had a sales presentation and how it is handled.  We actually are going up to Timberlodge at Lake Tahoe Thursday with a presentation on Saturday.  It is a promo stay we signed up for a year ago - and finally have scheduled a couple of days to go ... we will have questions .... will let you know next week ....


----------



## seatrout (Jun 20, 2006)

I would also agree with above.  When I occupied my home resort, I think of it as returning home and try to take care of the place better and hopefully keep my maintenance fees down.  My generall attitude when I stay during a rental stay is difference.

By discouraging rental would also decrease the number of reservation during premium week for those who do so to rent.  I think that most of us who buy timeshare buy it to take our family on vacation and hopefully save some money rather than as a business making entity.  In the same analogy,  I would not be happy if someone say buy buch of house in my neighborhood and put it up for rent.



			
				minoter said:
			
		

> My comments will take the opposite viewpoint from the observations on this subject. My experience is that renters of the properties I owner cost me as an owner. I am in the camp that suggests to Marriott that renting should be discouraged. I would hope that Marriott will retain this policy which could  encourage owners to use their property, not withstanding representations made by sales people regarding rental opportunities. I am also supportive of discouraging "trading for points" which Marriott has implemented (to some degree) by not increasing the number of points awarded. The weeks given up for points go into Marriott inventory which creates many of the same problems that renters create.
> 
> Owners care more about the facilities than the transient people that rent our properties. This policy could actually lower maintenance fees because the property will be treated with more care. Most condo association bylaws actually limit the number of units that can be occupied by renters. The more upscale the property, the less rental percentage allowed. I think Marriott is finally getting the message that many owners prefer to use their week along with other owners rather than careless renters. Historically, owners who rent their property represents a small percentage of total owners. Marriott is simply implementing a policy that a significant number of owners prefer.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Jun 20, 2006)

minoter said:
			
		

> Owners care more about the facilities than the transient people that rent our properties. This policy could actually lower maintenance fees because the property will be treated with more care. Most condo association bylaws actually limit the number of units that can be occupied by renters. The more upscale the property, the less rental percentage allowed. I think Marriott is finally getting the message that many owners prefer to use their week along with other owners rather than careless renters. Historically, owners who rent their property represents a small percentage of total owners. Marriott is simply implementing a policy that a significant number of owners prefer.



I'm not sure how you know this information.  Nowerdays, I think people just do what they want when they want.  It doesn't matter what the rules are because they don't apply to them.   Also, I find lots of resorts just use plain cheap materials to build things and they just wear out over time.   I don't believe your statement at all.  JMHO. 

I really love the Marriott system but the next sales person I hear from is going to get an earful from me.  I will definitely be e-mailing the internal sales rep that I know in Orlando.   Every sales presentation I've been too always talks about exchanging, renting and converting to points.  At this point I don't think any sales presentation should be about any of these things.  i will make that suggestion.  If Marriott keeps modifying things then the sales reps cannot talk about them to sell.  That is an issue for me more than anything.


----------



## iamnotshopgirl (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: You can do it!*

Perry

You make reference to "rental lease" that can be found on Tug. I have been looking for it but can not seem to locate it. Can you point me in the right direction.

bob


----------



## floyddl (Jun 20, 2006)

I think the key point here is that Marriott has sold owners on the ability to use the rental program and some owner like myself have added additional weeks that were nice to haves on the premise that we could rent weeks that we might not be able to use in a given year.  As someone who tries to understand the system and work it to the max I have been using the rental program over the past 5 years with very satisactory results.

Perry makes good points about renting on your own, however, I like the idea of not having to hassle with the rental process and it has been worth a few extra dollars to have Marriott handle it.  I will do it and if I do not like the experience then I will look to sell some of my weeks.

I guess this is an example of how you can't rely on Marriott to maintain the features that it promotes.  It is certainly reason enough to reconsider adding additional weeks.  I was considering the new St. Kitts resort knowing that I could rent my Aruba week on years I chose not to go there and with current program Aruba would rent for over $1000 per week with Marriott taking 35% that would still bring in over $4000.  I don't even have the nerve to call right now and ask what they would rent that week for.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: You can do it!*



			
				iamnotshopgirl said:
			
		

> ..."rental lease" that can be found on Tug.


See the rental section of TUG Advice (link at the top of this page).


----------



## Isles7400 (Jun 20, 2006)

Great Tips Perry.. thanks..

For the 1st time I rented through Marriott last Presidents week,  2BR Grande Vista..  All nights rented and rec'd a check for $1200+.  I thought that was nice..  
Apparantly this new system won'y allow this..   here's my question..  
I have a banked week with II, efficiency unit, expires January 2007.  I figured I would just get a week and rent it out myself..  Found thanksgiving week, 1 BR at Grande Vista, when I went to book it, it says I need a guest certificate and the name of the guest..  obviously, if I am going to rent it I don't know the name of the guest..  how do you get around that??? 
Also..  are you responsible for damages if you rent the week out?? And is ebay NOT a good idea??    Thanks for your help..   Paul


----------



## Dave M (Jun 20, 2006)

*Renting II banked weeks*

II's rules prohibit renting out a banked week, a week obtained through exchange, a Getaway week or any other week obtained through II. Thus, you risk all sorts of trouble if you do rent, including suspension of your II account, loss of deposited weeks and cancellation of the week you rent (with the resulting anger of the renter who spends big bucks on airfare only to show up and find that the week you promised has been canceled!).

From the II Membership Terms and Conditions:





> Members are expressly prohibited from exchanging or renting the Host Accommodations.


"Host Accommodations" include all of the weeks I indicated above.

You can give an II week to friends or family. Whatever private financial arrangements you make should be kept private and made only with someone you trust.

When booking a week, you book it in your name and get a guest certificate later when you know which friend or relative will be using it.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 20, 2006)

*MRP*

Not to add gasoline to a raging inferno – the Marriott Reward Point’s program is an optional benefit of buying from Marriott that could, at any second, be yanked or changed.

Anyone buying a Marriott from Marriott with the idea of using the MRP just remember what Marriott just did to the rental program.

As stated many times by just about everyone “Buy to use” is the primary reason to buy any timeshare.  Relying on other companies (like exchange companies) or relying on optional programs can lead an owner into making a decision that may haunt them later.

If you assume that you will not use Marriott for:
•	Renting
•	MRP usage

Then there is no reason to buy from Marriott unless you want a hard to get unit (Like in Maui) or a hard to get week (Like a week 52).


----------



## floyddl (Jun 20, 2006)

Perry, you are correct.  However, I doubt that Marriott ever pulls the reward point option since that is basically the only thing that currently differentiates them from resales.  That change would probably lead to a class action lawsuit.  But at some point Marriott may deemphasize the Timeshare sales and it is anyone's guess what tough business decisions they might make.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 20, 2006)

*Does Marriott really need the timeshare MRP program?*

Ffoyddl,

I don’t know how much the MRP system plays in convincing Ma and Pa to buy that Marriott.  Definitely it’s something that the salesrep brings up but if they never brought it up would that mean lost sales?

I’m talking about just dropping it from all new sales – the existing owners would be given a time frame when it would be phased out – say 5 years.

If Marriott is looking at making more profits from the split with the Marriott owner why not look at the money lost with MRPs?  The MRP incentives cost Marriott cold hard cash at some point.

To knowledgeable timeshare owners MRP is the only difference between Marriott sales and resales.  How many Ma’s and Pa’s know this?  Maybe 5?  I don’t think Ma and Pa would not buy if MRPs were never brought up.

For Marriott to do what they just did to rentals, it’s not that far a stretch for them to look at MRPs.  This is just a WAG on my part.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 20, 2006)

I don't think your theorized MRP cessation for owners will happen, Perry. Both the resort legal docs and the purchase contract terms give the owner the right to exchange the use of the purchased week for MRPs. 

Even the MVCI website has an admission of the owners' contractual right:





> Owners who purchase directly from Marriott Vacation Club International have the opportunity to trade their weeks for points based on the Timeshare/Marriott Rewards Rules and Regulations received at closing.


Thus, I think the only way that right would be lost is if Marriott does away with the entire MRP program, which it has the right to do. Marriott could also substantially weaken the program by, for example, quadrupling the number of points required for an award. 

Is either doomsday scenario likely? Probably not, unless Starwood, Hyatt, Hilton and others also did away with their programs. Yes, there is likely to be some continuing erosion of point values as the cost (in points) for various awards creeps up, but those changes in recent years have not been significant - either for Marriott's program or for its competitors’ programs. The MRP loyalty issues, which suggest retention of the overall MRP program, are huge for Marriott. The Marriott timeshare owners are only bit players in that drama.

Thus, the owners’ rights to exchange for MRPs are much different from the rental program. Although rentals are touted by salespeople in the selling process, there is no contractual right to rent through Marriott under the terms Marriott has followed in the past.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 20, 2006)

*I remember when...*

Dave,

I remember our first Marriott timeshare purchase as if it were just 6 years ago – so I’m a little fuzzy.  The sales rep pointed out 4 things that still stick in my mind:

1)	Marriott charges only 25% commission to sell your timeshare for you (It’s 40% now)

2)	Marriott will rent your holiday week for a 60% commission (MountainSide) (Bye bye 40% rental income)

3)	Marriott has never touched the MRP in 10 years – he showed me the tables from 10 years before (200,000 MRP got you a Category 6 certificate and 2 round trip tickets to Maui) – I think it’s now 250,000 points

4)	Marriott will never drop the MRP even though I must inform you that they can if they wish

Points 1, 2, and 3 have been changed in those 6 years.  I agree #4 might be tough on existing owners but new owners?

P.S.
6 months after buying MountainSide, Marriott billed us $2,500 to change from 200,000 MRP’s every other year to every year capability.  The disclaimer that the MRP could be withdrawn at any time was in bold letters on the invoice.


----------



## Isles7400 (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: Renting II banked weeks*

WOW..  Am I glad I asked!!!  thanks for the info Dave..   Paul





			
				Dave M said:
			
		

> II's rules prohibit renting out a banked week, a week obtained through exchange, a Getaway week or any other week obtained through II. Thus, you risk all sorts of trouble if you do rent, including suspension of your II account, loss of deposited weeks and cancellation of the week you rent (with the resulting anger of the renter who spends big bucks on airfare only to show up and find that the week you promised has been canceled!).
> 
> From the II Membership Terms and Conditions:"Host Accommodations" include all of the weeks I indicated above.
> 
> ...


----------



## KathyPet (Jun 20, 2006)

Let's make this clear.  The change in Marriott's rental program will not mean lower rental rates.  They will dontinue to charge what they always have.  The difference is that they are now going to keep all the extra money and basically pay the owners what Marriott has decided to give us and that's that.  They probably saw the money that was going out to owners who were smart enough to reserve a good week well in advance and put their rental in early and said "Hmm, how can we get a bigger piece of that pie?"  "Well we'll just tell the owners that they will take what we give them and be damn glad they got it".
For all those who think that this will somehow cause more owners to use their weeks that is wishful thinking.  I own three weeks.  Very seldom due to work and family responsibilities can I take three weeks off a week at a time throughout the year.  I rent my weeks because I can't use them and it is a year that I cannot trade for MRP's.  Banking them does not help because that just adds more weeks that I need to use in the future.  In addition sometimes I just want to do something different or go somewhere different for vacation and not feel that I have to return to my resort year after year.  For those people who go back year after year after year well good for you but that is not the way everyone likes to use their time off.


----------



## daventrina (Jun 20, 2006)

We'd bet that Marriott not renting prime weeks had more to do with other owners complaining that they can't get a reservation to stay in their resort while others are making a killing on rentals.
For example, last year at Timber Lodge for Thanksgiving, 2/3 of the people that we talked to had either rented or exchanged into the resort. Mean while, our parents for that year and the previous 2 were unable to get a reservation to stay in their resort.
Wasn't it someone here that said that Marriott can do what ever it wants and it's just fine with them?


----------



## KathyPet (Jun 20, 2006)

I disagree.  I rent my unit out because I have to.  Can't use it myself and can't take MRP's.  So what does my choosing to rent my week rather than occupy it myself have to do with owners not being able to get a reservation.?   A week is a week is a week. I was smart enought to plan ahead to get a good week.  I am in line wikth all the other owners that call the same day I do to reserve a specific week.  What I then do with that week does not affect other owner's ability to reserve at that resort.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 20, 2006)

minoter said:
			
		

> Most condo association bylaws actually limit the number of units that can be occupied by renters. The more upscale the property, the less rental percentage allowed.



People get around that quite easily--everyone is either "friends" or "family".


----------



## KenK (Jun 20, 2006)

I also agree with  Mr Minoter.  I agree a lot, from reading tug for so long.   I have seen deliberate attempts at both the MAR Seaview and MAR Beach Place to distroy property (and steal antiques)....it was reported often on the old resort reviews.

I don't think that, however, relates to current Marriott changes.  

We sat through at least 5 T/S presentations with tons of pix of the new {Marrriott} Ritz Carlton units staring prospective buyers in the face....the newest properties....saw it at Seaview two years before they were first open, and the year before then they were trying to sell Manor Club, as well as at Cypress Harbour sales, Sabel Palms sales.  What was Marriott trying to say?  Do I believe them now?  They can and will change what they want.  Even the points.  

As for the owners caring more for a propert than a renter or exchanger...I agree....but some HOAs refuse to face the facts that they have little or no controls over the RULES of the T/S docs..or if the rules are even in place.

I've seen (at MBP) the fire alarms pulled by teenybooper spring breakers twice in a two week stay.  They enjoyed watching the elderly try to negotiate the stairwells with their walkers and canes....gee does anyone know how high that building is?  Can anyone tell me the age allowed at check in?  ( I was ready to sign a complaint )

Best I've read so far is the family that was warned their noise had to stop....it didn't....guess who was sitting in the street with their luggage that AM?  At a Marriott?  Nope, at the  VRI Palm Beach Shores.


----------



## taffy19 (Jun 20, 2006)

I called Corporate Sales today and they didn't know what I was talking about.  I told her to come over here.

They started selling St. Kitts today and were very busy.  A lot of people are interested in this timeshare project.  Amazing how sales are doing so well with such high gasoline prices and airfares too.


----------



## KauaiMark (Jun 20, 2006)

I know it's probably buried somewhere in this thread, but does anyone have a link to the Marriott site describing this new rental plan. 

I've wandered throught the MVCI website and see only references to the previous plan.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 20, 2006)

As an owner, when you log into the MVCI site, go through the motions of making a reservation until you get to the page that is titled "Select Your Usage Option for 200X". Select "Marriott Rental Program" and the next page explains the new program.

Also note that old commission-based rental agreements, which were on the site until a few days ago, are now gone.


----------



## camachinist (Jun 20, 2006)

> Best I've read so far is the family that was warned their noise had to stop....it didn't....guess who was sitting in the street with their luggage that AM? At a Marriott? Nope, at the VRI Palm Beach Shores.



They must've been renters 

From our past experience with similar neighbors at NCV, if they're owners, the only recourse is the police. Management won't even get involved. I posted a nice review about that stay on the old TUG board.

On-topic, all I'll say is that I think this is a sign of things to come, one people should pay attention to.

Pat


----------



## KauaiMark (Jun 21, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> As an owner, when you log into the MVCI site, go through the motions of making a reservation until you get to the page that is titled "Select Your Usage Option for 200X". Select "Marriott Rental Program" and the next page explains the new program.
> 
> Also note that old commission-based rental agreements, which were on the site until a few days ago, are now gone.



Thanks, Dave

  I found the info and called MVCI requesting what the rental payment would be for our Kauai Marriott week in July/2007 would be. 

  At $755 for the week, it's pretty pathetic. I'm pretty sure I can rent it for more than $110/night on my own if I decided not to use it myself.

  At least they're pretty up front about how unattractive this deal is. 

...Mark


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jun 21, 2006)

*. . . They probably saw the money that was going out to owners who were smart enough to reserve a good week well in advance and put their rental in early and said "Hmm, how can we get a bigger piece of that pie?" "Well we'll just tell the owners that they will take what we give them and be damn glad they got it". . . *

I don't entirely concur with this analysis, though I do think that the driving factor behind the change is money. The rental program was at the very least an administrative headache to Marriott. And there never exists a guarantee to any owner that all 7 days would be rented out. The only thing for sure is that Marriott took a 50% cut of the income.  Now, Marriott appears to be walking away from this program. Why is the real question.

This thread raises a lot of great points and intriguing questions. But one can't truly evaluate what Marriott is doing until we get resort by resort feedback from renting owners stating precisely what Marriott is offering for specific weeks under this "new and exciting" program to quote their e-mail. Hopefully folks will weigh in with the numbers. Only then can one really determine what Marriott is really doing here.

Given the level of experience and expertise by so many Marriott owners ( and TUGgers ), if Marriott is in effect offering a pittance to owners who rent their weeks, then we all know that this idea will not fly. Owners will simply rent their weeks on their own. This whole thing could be a calculated move by Marriott to induce owners to do just that so that Marriott might eventually drop the entire rental program. That said, if Marriott isn't happy with 50% then what does it take?

I know that some folks disdain owners who rent their weeks. As others point out, many multiple week owners are folks who currently do not have the ability to utilize all of their weeks. They purchase now so that they can build a TS portfolio for the future. I don't believe that any of these sorts of owners have anything to apologize for. Marriott pitches the weeks offering several usage strategies ranging from occupancy, trades, lockoffs, split weeks, Florida Club, MR points, to renting. They are all legitimate uses.

However, there are some resorts, where folks purchase batches of weeks solely for income purposes ( there's an investor who owns in excess of 20 platinum weeks at Ocean Pointe who rents them all out ).  Perhaps this trend has grown and Marriott feels compelled to shake up the game -- but in the process is whacking "ordinary" owners. I myself don't like to draw distinctions between categories of owners or usage choices. But one could argue that there is indeed a difference between individual owners who own multiple weeks for self-use and those who purchase large blocks of weeks which turns them into tenants who lease from beneath the landlord.

Perhaps this is what is behind this very puzzling and abrupt change by Marriott.

Barry


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 21, 2006)

All this makes me glad that I sold my Marriotts.  I bought early in the game (Sabal Palms, Monarch, Harbour Club, and Heritage Club).  I used Marriott to rent the Weeks when I didn't use them and even had Marriott sell two of them for me (Sabal and Monarch).   I received substantially more than my MFwhen renting and more than my cost of buying even after paying Marriott's commission (old schedules).  I don't think I could do it as effectively with all the changes that have been made in Marriott's rental and selling programs.

GEORGE


----------



## schmuel3 (Jun 21, 2006)

I called to find out what Marriott would pay me for the two Summit Watch weeks I have reserved in 2007.  For 1/19-1/26/07, the Sundance Film Festival, they offered me about $1950, less than half of what I received renting through Marriott this year.  For 3/10-3/17/07, Spring Break, they weren't interested.  I was planning to use both weeks but I don't understand how they expect to have any units to rent.  As others have implied,they may want to get out of the rental business unless they can make much more from each rental.  I guess I will learn to rent out my own units.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 21, 2006)

schmuel3 said:
			
		

> For 3/10-3/17/07, Spring Break, they weren't interested.


That could be because only a very few states have school spring vacation during that week. Even though one of those states is Utah, that week might not be on Marriott's "heavy demand" list.


----------



## Michelja (Jun 21, 2006)

I too responded to Marriott's "exciting news" by calling and getting a quote for renting a week now at Desert Springs Villas II. They offered me $415 for the week. The lowest I've ever received is about a $1050 for renting the unit during Thanksgiving week. I rented it the 3rd week of June 2 years ago and received $1150.00.

Jack


----------



## KathyPet (Jun 21, 2006)

The only thing you can do iks vent to Peter Watzka.  Log onto MVCI as a owner.  There is a link there for you to E Mail him.  I have already done it but of course not received a response.


----------



## nakyak (Jun 21, 2006)

I am not shocked that Marriott would do this.
This is coming from the company that claim they still lose money on re-sales even though they take a 40% commision.

Any sales person who pitched that you could rent your week out and receive cash in return could be in jeopardy of losing their real estate license.  It is illegal to pitch any aspect of timeshare ownership as a financial investment.

In regards to Perry's post about the Marriott Reward Points going away it could happen.  The points are becoming more and more restrictive and just plain harder to use.  In fact Marriott has also changed the "Stay Anytime" program.  The brochure reads "if there is a room available it may be claimed for 1.5 times the amount of standard rewards even if it is the last room in the house".  That is an incorrect statement. A pefect example is the New York Financial Center hotel on December 31.  There are rooms available to rent but not use any type of points.  So much for Stay Anytime.

The Financial Center is just one example.  The Marriott Parc in San Francisco has blackout dates for Stay Anytime points along with many other Marriott's.

Do not think for a minute they won't do it.


----------



## taffy19 (Jun 21, 2006)

I believe that Marriott is evening out the good rental weeks with the not so good rental weeks as everyone is guaranteed that their maintenance fees are covered and nothing more. If you get a little more than this would be gravy. This is a sales tool when they are selling to the public but the sales staff isn't even aware of this change yet, I found out yesterday.

Before, if you put your week in the rental pool, you were not guaranteed any income but your week was gone for your own use unless you took it back before it was rented. If it was rented for one single day, you could no longer take it back and the other days were wasted for you and the Marriott too as the condo would sit empty. We saw many units empty when we were at the MDSV-I in March as they may not have rented the weeks either that were deposited in the MRP's plan. We couldn't understand why as it was the prime season and the hotel was completely full.

They may not end up with more money in the Corporate coffers but the savvy owners here are hurt by this new rental policy the most unless they rent it out themselves. What surprises me is that the Marriott still gives the owner a choice of reserving the best possible week as Starwood doesn't offer this feature so I wouldn't count on this much longer either as they will keep tweaking this rental plan to make it more fair to everyone. JMHO.

The Marriott is still a week-based system and how they are going to solve this problem in the future is a complete puzzle to me as most other hotel resorts have gone over to a point-based system. I would expect a lot more changes coming when they will have their own internal reservation system in place. It's going to be very difficult to make everyone happy. I wonder if they will start a complete new system which is based on points rather than weeks but have a way of mixing them together with the old system but then you would end up with the same problems we have today with RCI.

St Kitts is being sold the way they have done it always so no changes yet in the week-based system.


----------



## floyddl (Jun 21, 2006)

schmuel3 said:
			
		

> I called to find out what Marriott would pay me for the two Summit Watch weeks I have reserved in 2007.  For 1/19-1/26/07, the Sundance Film Festival, they offered me about $1950, less than half of what I received renting through Marriott this year.  For 3/10-3/17/07, Spring Break, they weren't interested.  I was planning to use both weeks but I don't understand how they expect to have any units to rent.  As others have implied,they may want to get out of the rental business unless they can make much more from each rental.  I guess I will learn to rent out my own units.




Am I reading this correctly?  They offered $1950 for Sundance week 2007 but you got twice that for Sundance week 2006.  At 50% commission that means they rented the week out this year for approximately $8000.  That is about $1150 per night.  They rented New Years week for $650 per night.  I must be missing something.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 21, 2006)

KathyPet said:
			
		

> The only thing you can do is vent to Peter Watzka.  Log onto MVCI as a owner.  There is a link there for you to E Mail him.


Ditto. 

Talk to your salesperson before doing it. I think you'll find out that he/she is as astounded at this policy change as we are!


----------



## floyddl (Jun 21, 2006)

I already did yesterday and have not received an acknowledgement yet.  I am finding that Mr. Watzka does not read the emails himself any longer and that his staff take 3-4 days to open them.  I sent one back in early april and it took quite a while to get a response.


----------



## SKH (Jun 22, 2006)

I must say after finding out more about how the new rental program works, I am very disappointed in Marriott and thinks Marriott is a greedy company that is only looking out for the interest of their stock holders.

Marriott states that the rental procedure was changed for the benefits of the owners.  Marriott is a liar!!

We all bought Marriott timeshares and helped Marriott financed and build 52 timeshares around the world.  We pay our maintenance fee which pays for the associates and also pays Marriott for managing the timeshares.  This is all fine, because Marriott created value in vacationing.

BUT, To change the rental policy and not grandfather the previous rental policy for previous owners is wrong and inconsiderate of Marriott.  When we were sitting in the sales presentation, Marriott Salesman advertises that when we are unable to use our week, Marriott will help us rent it out and WE CAN EVEN MAKE A PROFIT.  
Marriott is now advertising this change is for the benefits of the owners.  Before the owners that were able to reserve the higher demand weeks were able to make 1k to 2k dollars, but now under the new “Better Rental Policy” Marriott is offering owners 500-800 dollars.  Who is keeping the difference?  MARRIOTT of course. 
Marriott says this change is for the owners.  I did not get any survey asking what I think?
Marriott can not tell people one thing to make all of us buy the timeshare and then change the policy later on.  

I think we should all be able to vote and see if we want this rental policy changed.  We are all owners and all face the same problems.  We need to have our voices heard or else who knows the Marriott Rewards points may also go away or be a lot harder to use.


----------



## schmuel3 (Jun 22, 2006)

You are reading it correctly.  Marriott takes 35% at Summit Watch.  Several days were rented as separate 1br and studio units which together cost more than a 2br unit.  There is minimal rental availability for Sundance week.  Several days were late rentals.


----------



## floyddl (Jun 22, 2006)

So they take 35% at Summit Watch and 50% at Mountainside.  I am sure they had good reason for that.  I rented a March Mountainside week this year thru Marriott and netted just over $2000.


----------



## turkel (Jun 22, 2006)

I am sure there are plenty of owners who will be happy with the change.  Those that don't rent out their units.  I am assuming that many owners who don't get the prime weeks get a little upset when they see Marriott has rental availability, and Marriott takes the heat.  You can still rent your unit just do it on your own.  They probably are changing the policy in fact for increased owner satisfaction I am sure those who stay or exchange greatly out number those that put their units up for rent. Marriott is not saying you can't rent your unit out their just discouraging it with this new policy.Pam


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 22, 2006)

KathyPet said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I rent my unit out because I have to.  Can't use it myself and can't take MRP's.  So what does my choosing to rent my week rather than occupy it myself have to do with owners not being able to get a reservation.?   A week is a week is a week. I was smart enought to plan ahead to get a good week.  I am in line wikth all the other owners that call the same day I do to reserve a specific week.  What I then do with that week does not affect other owner's ability to reserve at that resort.



What it often does affect is the particular unit one gets on check-in (view, no view, close to pool, etc.).  If people who are renting on their own are doing the AC thing (and I've seen this on Ebay, people will say, "this is reserved in my name and therefore I will reserve an ocean view, but I will get you an AC at the last minute and you will still get that good room), this can be a problem. 

This is what Marriott needs to crack down on if they really want to make the owners who actually use happy. If an actual owner (that is, in the paperwork, or at most, extend courtesy to same last name) is NOT going to physically check in, then that party should be lower priority in room preference assignments than owners/family who are actually staying in the unit, although I don't know where you'd put them in the order as opposed to exchangers. And then where does everyone fall in regards to Marriott rentals--is a full-freight paying renter going to always get the best unit available, even over owners?


----------



## seatrout (Jun 22, 2006)

I am one that is happy with the new change.  I couldn't reserve for Mountainside in march even with computer and 3 phone line trying to call right when the gate open.  The owner meeting when I went, many owner were quite mad and frustrated that they couldn't reserve their week and yet there were so many renter roaming around the place.



			
				turkel said:
			
		

> I am sure there are plenty of owners who will be happy with the change.  Those that don't rent out their units.  I am assuming that many owners who don't get the prime weeks get a little upset when they see Marriott has rental availability, and Marriott takes the heat.  You can still rent your unit just do it on your own.  They probably are changing the policy in fact for increased owner satisfaction I am sure those who stay or exchange greatly out number those that put their units up for rent. Marriott is not saying you can't rent your unit out their just discouraging it with this new policy.Pam


----------



## floyddl (Jun 22, 2006)

seatrout said:
			
		

> I am one that is happy with the new change.  I couldn't reserve for Mountainside in march even with computer and 3 phone line trying to call right when the gate open.  The owner meeting when I went, many owner were quite mad and frustrated that they couldn't reserve their week and yet there were so many renter roaming around the place.




The people who want to rent will still rent.  It will just mean more hassle for them to do it.  This change will not have any impact on how difficult it is to get a good week.  If you don't use the rental program then you shouldn't care.  For people like myself, who try to learn the system and work it to maximize my enjoyment and return it is troubling.  I have 4 weeks so that I can take advantage of the 13 month rule.  I purchased extra weeks that I did not plan to use every year on the premise that I would be able to rent out a premium week for good value thru the Marriott rental program.  Now they changed the rules and who knows they may change the 13 month rule too.  I feel it is unfair to promote a program to increase sales and then take it away.  Yes, I can rent the weeks myself but I really don't want the hassles that go with it and I don't have the exposure that Marriott has to generate rentals.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 22, 2006)

*I disagree*



			
				Gadabout said:
			
		

> What it often does affect is the particular unit one gets on check-in (view, no view, close to pool, etc.).  If people who are renting on their own are doing the AC thing (and I've seen this on Ebay, people will say, "this is reserved in my name and therefore I will reserve an ocean view, but I will get you an AC at the last minute and you will still get that good room), this can be a problem.
> 
> This is what Marriott needs to crack down on if they really want to make the owners who actually use happy. If an actual owner (that is, in the paperwork, or at most, extend courtesy to same last name) is NOT going to physically check in, then that party should be lower priority in room preference assignments than owners/family who are actually staying in the unit, although I don't know where you'd put them in the order as opposed to exchangers. And then where does everyone fall in regards to Marriott rentals--is a full-freight paying renter going to always get the best unit available, even over owners?



Gadabout,

I must respectively disagree with your position on renters/exchangers.  (The following is not addressed to you but to all timeshare owners)

When a person buys a timeshare unit from Marriott there are no qualifying questions like “Are you going to use your unit for your own personal use?”.  By not asking this question Marriott and the HOA have given up all rights to interfere with the usage of the unit by the owner, their children (assuming 18 years old or more), relatives, friends, co-workers, neighbors, someone who paid them to use the owners unit, or even the person who exchanged into the unit via an exchange company.

To discriminate against a person who is using the owner’s unit is exactly that – discrimination.  Imagine using the same logic with the new Maui Ocean Club towers – where you can buy a fixed week in a fixed condo – renters/exchangers would be relegated to the dumpster view?

Discrimination is not what we signed up for when we buy a timeshare.  Currently some HOA’s seem to take pleasure in treating exchangers as second-class citizens – this to me is repulsive.  The exchanger is taking the place of the owner and deserves all the rights and privileges the owner enjoyed.  This action invites retaliation by other resorts.

Part of the problem with timeshare ownership is the floating week and floating condo.  If you substitute fixed week and fixed condo it’s impossible to allow discrimination into this case – the person taking the place of the owner has all the rights and privileges of that owner.

P.S.
Many if not all personal residence clubs do not allow anyone but the owner's family to occupy their units.  Even children can’t (18 years old) and must buy a special membership.  Renting is not allowed and no exchange privileges exist.


----------



## ondeadlin (Jun 22, 2006)

floyddl said:
			
		

> The people who want to rent will still rent ... This change will not have any impact on how difficult it is to get a good week.



I have to disagree on both counts.

It takes one phone call to have Marriott rent for you. You do nothing after that except cash your check. Renting yourself? You advertise. You screen applicants. You set up and sign a rental agreement. You worry that your renters will trash the place and you'll be left with either a bill or hard feelings. Etc. Yes, you get more money, but some people just don't like the hassel.

Given the differences in those two experiences, I think a high percentage of those who let Marriott rent for them won't be comfortable doing it themselves.

I think that reduces the demand for prime weeks. Reduces it greatly? Time will tell.

Let me give you an example: I know someone who owns a Summit Watch ski week who always tries to reserve Sundance. When he's successful, he rents through Marriott. When he's not, he uses the week for his kids' early April spring break. I don't think he'd rent on his own, instead he'll just use the week. Hence, there's one more Sundance week for the other owners.


----------



## floyddl (Jun 22, 2006)

If I have a week that I cannot use I will either rent it myself or reserve the best possible week and trade it.  There may be some who would take points but I really do not see any drop off in the demand for the premium weeks.  I will reserve one so that I have the best possible chance get value for it.  I don't think a lot of people fit in the category of using the week if they can't get the high demand week to rent.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: I disagree*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> When a person buys a timeshare unit from Marriott there are no qualifying questions like “Are you going to use your unit for your own personal use?”.  By not asking this question Marriott and the HOA have given up all rights to interfere with the usage of the unit by the owner, their children (assuming 18 years old or more), relatives, friends, co-workers, neighbors, someone who paid them to use the owners unit, or even the person who exchanged into the unit via an exchange company.
> 
> To discriminate against a person who is using the owner’s unit is exactly that – discrimination.  Imagine using the same logic with the new Maui Ocean Club towers – where you can buy a fixed week in a fixed condo – renters/exchangers would be relegated to the dumpster view?
> 
> ...



Yes I was speaking specifically about floating unit/floating week here as far as room assignment preferences only. I don't agree with charging extra fees or anything like that to exchangers, and what I am talking about of course would not apply to fixed week/fixed unit. 

HOAs have an obligation to their owners, first and foremost. If a majority of those owners use (the "this is my second home" people), and they are the ones who go to meetings and take the time to vote, then the HOAs should be doing as they're told. If a place is really "all that", it makes sense that most people would be buying to use, rather than rent or exchange out of it anyway.


----------



## daventrina (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: I disagree*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> ...Currently some HOA’s seem to take pleasure in treating exchangers as second-class citizens – this to me is repulsive.  ....


Some would be nearly every resort and program in the entire timeshare business (including Hyatt, Starwood, Grand Pacific Resort, Consolidated, Hilton, Farifield. Marriott is virtually the only exception if you consider giving view preferences to those owners staying in their resort in which they pay all of the fees and taxes, etc. The HOA's primary mission is to ensure the happiness for their owners. In part this is by making guests in the resorts experience enjoyable. However, Marriott appears to be about the only ones in the business that seem to make assigning prime rooms to exchangers a part of their mission. Just look and see how many other resorts as a general rule will place exchangers in a OF unit. No one else in California or Hawaii.

If you want to talk about an incentive to not buy Marriott in Hawaii. Why pay the big $$$ for an ocean view Villa in Hawaii and pay the expensive maint. fees when you can pick up a DS resale for a bargan with its lower fees and have a good shot and an OV or OF in Maui?


----------



## PerryM (Jun 22, 2006)

*Treating others*

The ONLY reason to treat a guest differently than the owner is to exploit that guest for various reasons.  Give him a view of the dumpster; how about next to the elevator and ice machine!  How about charging him $12, or whatever, to park in the parking lot.

We always call in 2 weeks before departing for any timeshare or resort and ask for special privileges – better views, less noisy locations, better ventilation, closer to the pool, etc.  I expect to get them or someone needs to explain why I can’t.

Only 25% of timeshare owners do this (my empirical statistic).  If 75% don’t care what view, location, etc. why should not an exchanger or renter who calls in not be granted their requests?

I know of a dozen famlies who are my students who participate in student exchange programs.  They welcome someone from half way around the globe and treat them exactly the same way as they want their child treated by the other family.

Whether I or my neighbor checks in to my unit there must be NO difference to preferences or treatment if this is a "just" system.  If this is a corrupt system then all kinds of antics are allowed – stick it to the outsider is the hallmark of that resort.

Is this how we really want to be viewed – treat others as you do not want them to treat you?


----------



## daventrina (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: Treating others*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> The ONLY reason to treat a guest differently than the owner is to exploit that guest for various reasons.


Except that you have to remember who pays the bills at the resort . Most resorts (Stardust, Americana, The Ridge, Red Wolf, Coranado Beach, Kona Cost, Carlsbad Inn to mention a few) do a good job of filling the needs of all guests in the resort. 


			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> Only 25% of timeshare owners do this (my empirical statistic).  If 75% don’t care what view, location, etc. why should not an exchanger or renter who calls in not be granted their requests??


That is right, which is why people should be encouraged to call in special requests 
IF 75% don't care, we that do are better off


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 22, 2006)

floyddl said:
			
		

> I already did yesterday and have not received an acknowledgement yet.  I am finding that Mr. Watzka does not read the emails himself any longer and that his staff take 3-4 days to open them.  I sent one back in early april and it took quite a while to get a response.



I have sent 2 email messages over the last year and no reply at all.  So much for Mr. W.

Brian


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: Treating others*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> The ONLY reason to treat a guest differently than the owner is to exploit that guest for various reasons.  Give him a view of the dumpster; how about next to the elevator and ice machine!
> 
> We always call in 2 weeks before departing for any timeshare or resort and ask for special privileges – better views, less noisy locations, better ventilation, closer to the pool, etc.  I expect to get them or someone needs to explain why I can’t.
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with exchange students and host families, and isn't in the least comparable.  

This is all about trying to sell different benefits to different people, and the two "benefits" (owner privileges vs. renter/exchanger privileges) being diametrically opposed to each other. 

Some units are more desirable than others (due to view, noise, access, whatever). I would say that most people have some preference as to where they want to stay, *if* they know they have a choice in the matter (I think many people don't even know they have a choice, which is why they don't bother to ask, and goodness knows the TS doesn't go out of its way to ask). 

Some people really don't care, or they actually want the opposite of what is considered desirable by the majority (just like those who prefer to travel off-season). Their choice. My point is that the owners who are using their unit should be competing with other owners as to obtaining their preferred unit (whatever the preference is), which is already tough enough with the floating week/floating unit system. Not with renters (Marriott or private), not with exchangers. 

If you're exchanging/renting, being told "We'll do what we can, but owners who are using their own weeks have preference in room assignments" is a fair and honest answer that tells you if you really want a chance at the good units, buy into this resort and actually stay there. I'm not saying don't ask for something, just to not be quite so disappointed if you don't get it.

When you can get as good or better than owners by rental or exchange, then there really is no benefit to owning, and word gets around. JMHO.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: Treating others*

*. . . . My point is that the owners who are using their unit should be competing with other owners as to obtaining their preferred unit (whatever the preference is), which is already tough enough with the floating week/floating unit system. Not with renters (Marriott or private), not with exchangers . . . *

Actually this is a non-issue at Ocean Pointe and I suspect, at many of the other Marriott resorts. At Ocean Pointe, owner preference requests are always given *top priority *over all other guest requests. Next are other Marriott folks who trade into Ocean Pointe and other TS traders. The next tier are the Marriott.com folks and renters.

In practical use, this means that in the Platinum season, a renter will get a low floor no matter what since 90% of owners occupy their platinum weeks. It also means that lots of owners also get stuck with some less desirable views/floors. So unless the renting owner employs subtrefuge, renters do not trump owners, at least at OP where management looks very closely at this.

Barry


----------



## floyddl (Jun 22, 2006)

pwrshift said:
			
		

> I have sent 2 email messages over the last year and no reply at all.  So much for Mr. W.
> 
> Brian




Brian, It used to be that you got a response that thanked you for raising the issue and asking for 48 hours to investigate and respond. Now you don't get a response so I use request a return receipt on the email and I have noticed it take 3-4 days to be read.  I resend it if I do not hear anything in a couple of days.  

I have had an ongoing issue since early April that has still not been resolved and I have been given lot's of run around.  It seems the growth has outgrown the ability to service their owners.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 22, 2006)

*I = my proxy*

Gadabout,

I’m trying to show that there is NO difference between the owner’s usage and a proxy for the owner.  If that proxy is a family member, renter, or exchanger they are interchangeable to the owner.  I bought and paid for 1/50 of a condo and how I or my proxies use it is none of Marriott’s or other owners concern (well, as long as its not a violation of the law)  Link: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/proxy

The HOA/developer can certainly discriminate against proxies if they wish; Marriott has started down that path with parking fees and could easily pick other traits to discriminate against.

I personally think that it’s an insult to my proxy – I paid for the unit, paid the MFs, got on the phone and landed a reservation that my family would love to vacation.  What I do with that reservation is up to me and no one else.  Sure, the HOA can discriminate against my proxies and I don’t like it but there is nothing I can do.

This gets back to the 75% of the folks checking in not caring which unit they are assigned.  I just can’t come up with a single reason why my proxy can’t call up and ask for something besides the Dumpster view.

The parking fee that Marriott charges at some resorts to exchangers is outrageous.  The owner there paid for the parking fee once already – Marriott/the HOA wants to double dip?  This is fair?

So this has everything to do with who occupies the unit I paid for and paid MFs for – they represent me; they are my proxy.  I expect them to be treated exactly the same as if I were there.

If a lower class of ownership, one where renters and exchangers are treated like garbage, is sold at a cheaper rate then I can see this kind of discrimination.  Marriott doesn’t sell that to my knowledge.


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: I = my proxy*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> The parking fee that Marriott charges at some resorts to exchangers is outrageous.  The owner there paid for the parking fee once already – Marriott/the HOA wants to double dip?  This is fair?



"Marriott" and "fair" in the same sentence, WOW!!

GEORGE


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: I = my proxy*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> ...The parking fee that Marriott charges at some resorts to exchangers is outrageous.  The owner there paid for the parking fee once already – Marriott/the HOA wants to double dip?  This is fair?
> .



The fits the BeachPlace situation where the HOA discovered they could save owners something like $600,000 a year by charging $12 a day for parking - yet when all was in the annual maintenance still went up and is just a few dollars from $1000 a week now.  Where did the money go???   We just got notice that one of the HOA directors decided to not stand for election - does make you wonder why?

Brian


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 22, 2006)

I do not agree with extra fees. Not at all. I agree that they are double-dipping. But that is an issue that the exchange companies should be fighting in court. 

Unit assignment priorities, however, are somewhat different. Even the exchange companies will only agree that you are entitled to "a unit with x bedrooms, etc." Why should the HOAs be any nicer towards renters/exchangers? Would you be happy if when you requested something at your home resort you were told no, the better rooms all went to renters/exchangers?  I understand your point about proxies, PerryM, but there has to be some policy to determine who gets what unit.

It all goes back to what I was saying about selling benefits that are in direct conflict--and this is especially true of floating week/floating unit. You can't honestly tell buyers that it's great to be an owner because you get some benefit (say unit choice when you stay at your resort), and then have it turn out not to be true, and not have some complaints. 

What do the majority of owners at each individual resort want, maybe they want it to be more like a private residence club, who knows? Maybe they want to see the same people year after year. 

That's the good thing (or bad, depending on your point of view) about buying into anything with an HOA.


----------



## daventrina (Jun 23, 2006)

Gadabout said:
			
		

> Why should the HOAs be any nicer towards renters/exchangers? Would you be happy if when you requested something at your home resort you were told no, the better rooms all went to renters/exchangers?


Thankyou


----------



## PerryM (Jun 23, 2006)

*What comes around goes around*

I understand the temptation to discriminate against the exchanger and renter – however it can have grave consequences.

If it’s the policy of a resort to give the exchanger the Dumpster view, or pay for services that owners don't have to pay, I simply give the resort the lowest marks possible when I fill out the II survey.  I make it clear that I was very displeased with the resort.

If enough exchangers retaliate, like I do, the trading power of the resort could diminish.  My little payback for being treated as a second-class citizen.  This diminished trading power then hurts the owners of the resort and perhaps one less reservation will show up on a search and a less than desirable exchange takes place.

So who exactly winds up paying for this discrimination?  Like just about everything else in life it’s the owner who winds up holding the bag.

As an exchanger into Beach Place Towers, I’ve done my best to show how displeased I am with their parking fees.  I wonder if it’s going to get easier to exchange into BPT in the future?


----------



## daventrina (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: What comes around goes around*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> I understand the temptation to discriminate against the exchanger and renter – however it can have grave consequences.


You have 1 room that has a dumpster view and 1 room that doesn't at a resort. So why is it that the owners that comes to THEIR RESORT every year, that THEY BOUGHT and PAY TAXES on, and where they pay the staff, and direct the HOA should get the dumpster view?


			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> If enough exchangers retaliate, like I do, the trading power of the resort could diminish.


 That must be the reason the Marriotts have such good trading power....


----------



## buckeye1 (Jun 23, 2006)

I think it's about time Marriott did something to "fix" the rental program.  We listed a week for rent twice in the past.  The first time the renter canceled three days before the week and we received NOTHING.  It was too late to rent the week to someone else.  The second time we planned to go to Grand Ocean if the week did not rent.  The problem is that only two of the seven days rented and as a result, we could not stay at our resort.  

Our Marriott advisor told us that she wants us to go on vacation and not rent the week - this may be why Marriott is making the rental program easier for them and for owners.  With the Marriott commission being so high, I would think more people lose money vs. make money.


----------



## daventrina (Jun 23, 2006)

buckeye1 said:
			
		

> The first time the renter canceled three days before the week and we received NOTHING.  It was too late to rent the week to someone else.  The second time we planned to go to Grand Ocean if the week did not rent.  The problem is that only two of the seven days rented and as a result, we could not stay at our resort.


If nothing else with the new program, these things shouldn't happen


----------



## minoter (Jun 23, 2006)

*Reroxies as 2nd class citizens*

Unfortunately many "proxies" do not act like owners in that they don't respect the property and rights of the resorts they visit. If proxies don't want to be treated like 2nd class citizens, they should consider caring for the properties they visit.

There is no discrimination in an owner controlled HOA protecting the property of the owners they represent.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 23, 2006)

I also suspect that more people lose money vs make money on the current rental program.  At the same time, it appears Marriott is offering an unrealistic amount - to not cover the maintenance&taxes is wrong and defeats the value of timeshare ownership.

Brian



			
				buckeye1 said:
			
		

> I think it's about time Marriott did something to "fix" the rental program.  We listed a week for rent twice in the past.  The first time the renter canceled three days before the week and we received NOTHING.  It was too late to rent the week to someone else.  The second time we planned to go to Grand Ocean if the week did not rent.  The problem is that only two of the seven days rented and as a result, we could not stay at our resort.
> 
> Our Marriott advisor told us that she wants us to go on vacation and not rent the week - this may be why Marriott is making the rental program easier for them and for owners.  With the Marriott commission being so high, I would think more people lose money vs. make money.


----------



## floyddl (Jun 23, 2006)

People who know that they plan to rent and list their weeks early have done quite well with the rental program because it prioritizes the rental rates based on order that the weeks are listed. People who decide 3 - 4 months prior to the reservation date to list are the ones who get stuck.  The person who cancels 3 days before check-in bumps the last person on the list.  Under the new program Marriott would probably not even take a week at the 3 month window unless it was a very high demand week.  It seems to me that a hybrid would be the best approach but that would be too rational.  Why not keep the old program for people who list from 9 - 12 months prior to the reservation date and offer the new program to anyone who is willing to do it inside of 9 months.  The report that Marriott wasn't even interested in March ski weeks tells me they don't want to rent weeks any longer.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: What comes around goes around*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> If enough exchangers retaliate, like I do, the trading power of the resort could diminish.  My little payback for being treated as a second-class citizen.  This diminished trading power then hurts the owners of the resort and perhaps one less reservation will show up on a search and a less than desirable exchange takes place.



And this would matter to a predominantly owner-stay resort how?   

If you're buying to use, exchange value is a non-issue.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 23, 2006)

*Termites*

Gadabout,
If I exchanged into a resort that treats me as a second-class owner I have very little recourse but to 1) Ask for a view/location that an owner would get 2) Voice my displeasure with the II survey.

That’s about all I can do.  Think of me as a termite working away the best I can.

Minoter,
Timeshares are classified as transient real estate ownership by many cities – they get to slap on taxes that the owner/proxy pay to the local city.  Transients are transients in my mind.  I view the proxy as the owner, or friend, or renter, or exchanger – they are all transients in that villa.

I’m assuming that each transient’s credit card will be billed for abnormal abuse to the unit.  If no charge is made, the transient used the unit normally – normal wear and tear.  We pay high MFs to cover transient weekly usage; the MF is designed to keep the villa in the same condition as day one.

I’d bet that owners are just as guilty of abnormal abuse as any other proxy they might substitute.  If the HOA breaks down the definition of proxy into family and friends or exchangers this is discrimination – they are treated differently.

As soon as the HOA/developer practices discrimination, my ownership is devalued and I don’t get compensated for it in any way.  My ownership transfers to my proxy unless there are rules that I’ve agreed to and am aware of.  I just don’t remember the Marriott salesrep pointing this out to me, nor I don’t remember signing anything about losing my rights and privileges when certain folks take my place.

These ownership rights should be the foundation of timeshare usage.  Sadly, many resorts devalue their owner’s rights when a majority want something and the minority can’t object.

Daventrina,
I’d put Marriott II trading power on par with WM; I know since my WM credits get us into so many Marriotts that we used to own.  You do, however, have the 24 day Marriott window; that’s the only thing stopping WM owners from snatching just about every Marriott exchange out there.

Conclusion:
I don’t think I can convince everyone that it’s in their best interests to vigorously defend their owner’s rights – even to the point of defending the exchanger as an equal.  So I’ve presented my side and have little more to add.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: Termites*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> I don’t think I can convince everyone that it’s in their best interests to vigorously defend their owner’s rights – even to the point of defending the exchanger as an equal.



If someone is only interested in using, and not exchanging, they ARE defending their owner rights (the ones they are interested in, at any rate).  That particular HOAs have more people on one side or the other is a fact. If people are buying to use, then logically they *should* be more interested in on-site owner privileges than in what renters or exchangers get.  This is not to say that these "own-to-use" people don't stay in other TS at times--they do, but they know how it works, and if they really wanted to go to another place every year, they'd buy there. Why is the 1-in-4 rule  around? To encourage people to buy in places they want to go to often, whether one agrees with it or not.

What is the problem with this?  I would certainly expect my home resort to give me better units or some perk, or there is NO benefit to owning in a particular location (or even owning TS at all). Might as well just rent if I have an equal chance with anyone else to get a good unit....

As for charging the extra fees to exchangers/renters (which I do NOT agree with), the exchange companies should be telling the resorts to drop them, but unless the exchange companies are willing to drop the resorts from the exchange rosters, which I doubt, nothing will happen.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 23, 2006)

*Termites at work*

Gadabout,

Just called Maui Ocean Club on an exchange (be there 7/7/06) - asked for the room coordinator and was told that exchangers get the dumpster view - no exceptions.

Well, I tried and when I submit my II review on MOC, I will once again give MOC low marks.  I know it's just one termite against the house but I'm working as hard as I can.

I understand your position as a non exchanger and I can only say that rights can be taken away but seldom are returned.  When you sell your unit the new owner will already be at a disadvantage when exchanging (a small one) that may hurt him in a small way.  I just don't like giving up rights.

I do understand that this right is something you don't want as a person who uses the resort frequently.

P.S.
I even told them I was allergic to Dumpsters - no luck.


----------



## rwroth (Jun 23, 2006)

Back to the major topic of this thread -- the new Marriott Rental Program.

I have some sensitivity -- some, but not much -- for those people who tried to rent their unit but where left out in the cold because the unit didn't rent at all or only for a few days. Yes, the new rental program would help them. However, I feel that these people are in the minority. I believe that most rentors have some unexpected inventory and want/expect to cover their maintenance fees, taxes, etc AND look for a little profit to offset the interest they would have had if the purchase price had been in the bank. Yes, they will have to do a little planning to obtain & rent a good week and get to the front of the line.

I have rented my red Desert Springs unit several times (usually reserving Christmas week) for about $2,000 - after Marriott's commission, etc. under the old system. Now, under the new system, I'm offered $1150 -- barely enough to cover the annual $956 MF, reserve + taxes. For my white DS unit, I'm offered $475 -- definetly NOT enough to cover the $923 fees !! 

I say NO to the new system, and have written to our friend (?) Watzka with my opinions. (Emailed 22 June & I wonder if/when I'll get a reply.) I'd be happy to share my thoughts to him to start a "chain letter to Watzka".

Roy


----------



## nycjimster (Jun 23, 2006)

I am extremely disappointted with the new Rental Program.  I purchased three plantinum weeks in Aruba Surf to rent.  The sales person told me to buy to rent; I can make some good money.  I did extremely well.  Under the new program, Marriott is offering approximately 60% of what I was getting previously.  The people that benefits from the new program are late reservers who had listed for rent with Marriott at the last minute.  Those with bronze/silver weeks rarely rented the weeks (since there is no interest in renting poor weeks) and used it mostly to trade, so there is no impact to them.  The new strategy is to list on your own, but if you can't find a rental a month list with Marriott at the last minute (assuming they will take the week).  I think Marriott is upsetting a lot of multiple weeks owner like myself.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 23, 2006)

I wonder if it was changed to correct for some other perceived inequity.  One of my friends didn't like the old program because what you got depended on what was actually paid when all was said and done--if someone was able to get a deal, or used Marriott points for all of it, you definitely got less than if a renter paid full price.


----------



## mj2vacation (Jun 23, 2006)

I received an offer from Marriott for nearly $1800 for renting out a late Grande Chateau week.

Considering it, but probably won't rent it.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 24, 2006)

While every company makes dumb moves from time to time, from my vantage point Marriott makes few mistakes for their shareholders or owners.  Initially I thought it a dumb move to change the rental program, but after reading both sides of this thread I'm not so sure.  I've never used their rental program because they hold back 35% or so of the revenue from Canadian owners for USA taxes - but also because there is an element of risk that you could get nothing if they aren't able to rent if for you, especially for the lesser important weeks.   

I think Marriott has done a very poor PR job here and Mr. W's new attitude of 'non-response' is a good part of the problem (where is that guy - does he really exist?).  Part of that PR problem is that I still haven't received any info from Marriott on the change and find it strange that some owners got emails and others didn't.   

As a shareholder and owner with Marriott, I have a very positive overall attitude for the company.  My rose-coloured glasses tell me that Marriott had concerns for those owners who didn't get any rental income in the past, which I suspect was the majority.  

Rather than promoting it as a great new benefit, they would have been much better to have someone much more senior to Mr. W properly explain the reasons for the change in a straightforward manner.  

We're all guessing that everyone got money by renting through Marriott but what if it was only 20% in reality, with 80% of the owners renting this way NOT happy at all?   Only Marriott knows that for sure, and a simple explanation would have eased the pain for all of us.  Knowledge is power if used properly.  

Those who used to get $2000 for a good week from Marriott can still get that or more quite easily on Ebay ... if I can get $975 for a lockoff at BeachPlace or $850 for a lockoff at Canyon Villas, surely the whole suite would command double that.  The two parts of a lockoff suite should command more rental income in total IMO.

Just my 2 cents.  I'd like to hear something 'official' from Marriott based on fact than to judge what has happened on 'speculation'.  If we are true 'owners', surely Marriott owes us that.

Brian


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Jun 27, 2006)

Sorry to bring this topic back to the front page.  But I got a several e-mails from sales people today about St. Kitts'.  So I e-mailed back and said that I couldn't even think of buying another unit with the new rental program.  I told them unless I am retired it would be impossible for to use these units every year.  Well he sent me back this e-mail claiming that Marriott isn't charging enough to cover their expenses...  which he claims why Marriott is charging more to rent.  I'm not sure what to make of it.  He claimed it was SEC requirement which I laughed off.  But then I got to thinking maybe with this sue happy world we live in this is the result.

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2006_1st/Mar06_CondosButler.html


----------



## floyddl (Jun 27, 2006)

If they were losing money on the rental program then they need to evaluate the operational aspect of the program and if after that an increase in commissions is needed then take another 5 - 10 %.  There are lots of locations where they only charge 35% commission like at Hilton Head and Aruba.  Someone also mentioned Summit Watch.  While many would not like additional commisons on the rentals it would be palletable.  This new program borders on absurd.


----------



## Kazakie (Jun 27, 2006)

ciscogizmo1 said:
			
		

> Well he sent me back this e-mail claiming that Marriott isn't charging enough to cover their expenses...  which he claims why Marriott is charging more to rent. [/url]



I'm sorry, but isn't renting owners units mostly incremental revenue?  They already have the infrastructure to rent units, so there's little incremental cost (maybe a few extra phone reps, and bookkeeping - taxes, mailing out checks, etc), the owners are cover for the weekly cleaning, and Marriott has no risk, if the units don't rent then Marriott is out only their incremental cost. 

Unless i'm missing some big incremental expenses on the P&L I can't understand how they can't cover their bookkeeping (which is probably the largest incremental cost) and a couple phone reps with keeping 35 - 40% of the rental rate.


----------



## rwroth (Jun 27, 2006)

ciscogizmo1 said:
			
		

> Sorry to bring this topic back to the front page.  But I got a several e-mails from sales people today about St. Kitts'.  So I e-mailed back and said that I couldn't even think of buying another unit with the new rental program.  I told them unless I am retired it would be impossible for to use these units every year.  Well he sent me back this e-mail claiming that Marriott isn't charging enough to cover their expenses...  which he claims why Marriott is charging more to rent.  I'm not sure what to make of it.  He claimed it was SEC requirement which I laughed off.  But then I got to thinking maybe with this sue happy world we live in this is the result.
> 
> http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2006_1st/Mar06_CondosButler.html


 Good for you !! I did the same. I hope others will do likewise so we can give them a landslide of comments - and no further interest where it may hurt their pocketbook.
I had written to Watzka and 3 days later received a generic reply from Robert S., Correspondence Counselor, simply recognizing that "Oh, I didn't want to rent anymore". No other recognition of my dissatisfaction.

Roy


----------



## floyddl (Jun 27, 2006)

I had the opportunity to speak to an owner relations representative this morning on another topic and I inquired about the reason for the rental program change.  I was told it was strictly based upon owner feedback and concerns from people who had used the rental program and ended up getting nothing or next to nothing for their week.  When I stated that I thought it was a bad deal an would cause people to not add additional weeks and potentially sell weeks because they don't want to deal with the hassle of renting themselves I was told that only 4% of owners were using the program and that the change was not perceived as ruffling too many feathers.  I was told that they were monitoring TUG comments.  

I pointed out that as an owner we have had numerous owner program benefits changed such as the resale program and now the rental program that I have to question what is next and it has definitely impacted my interest in owning another Marriott week.  I was seriously considering St. Kitt prior to this.  But of course I am in the minority and owners with 4 weeks mean little to Marriott in its present growth cycle.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 27, 2006)

When you recieve payment from Marriott for a rental, is the IRS and your state government notified of the transaction (1099R)?


----------



## floyddl (Jun 27, 2006)

GaryDouglas said:
			
		

> When you recieve payment from Marriott for a rental, is the IRS and your state government notified of the transaction (1099R)?




Yes.........


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 27, 2006)

So if I run a rental through Marriott, I lose 34.3% of that amount to the government.

Sounds like I wouldn't want to run it through Marriott for that reason alone.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 27, 2006)

Gary -

First, you wouldn't pay 34.3% in taxes on the total rental because you would have an offset for any allowable expenses, including annual MFs, interest expense (if you financed the purchase) and depreciation. Only the net income would be taxable.

Second, unless you cheat on your taxes, the tax bite would be in the same proportions by renting it on your own versus through Marriott.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 27, 2006)

Earlier I thought you said that you couldn't offset expenses, such as MF, but that was probably related to a sale, not renting.

So, technically, if you rented out just the lock off of a 3br at MGC, you would have to prorate the MF against the SQ FT of the lock off, to offset the income from that rental.  I wonder if people go to that sort of extreme.

I haven't done any renting, but I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't declare the income if it's not reported to the government.  Kinda like not paying state sales tax on items purchased on the internet.


----------



## Gadabout (Jun 27, 2006)

GaryDouglas said:
			
		

> I haven't done any renting, but I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't declare the income if it's not reported to the government.  Kinda like not paying state sales tax on items purchased on the internet.



Internet sales for the most part are considered like any other mail order catalogue sale--if there is a physical presence in your state, you pay tax, if not, you don't. I never did understand the need to treat them any differently, because ordering online is not much different from picking up the phone and ordering.  If your state has "use taxes" it might be different.


----------



## camachinist (Jun 27, 2006)

Pretty sure you can file a waiver of backup withholding with Marriott like with most financial institutions. They'll send you a 1099 at the end of the year for the net income, against which you take expenses and depreciation and report on Schedule E.

http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq11-3.html

YMMV, but I've never come close to showing a taxable profit with any of our Marriott rentals, and that's without Marriott involved at all.

I'd have to pull up the current regs, but my understanding is that expenses in excess of income on such rentals (timeshare not meeting "home" requirements) cannot be used to offset income from other sources, nor can it be carried forward to offset future income from similar activities. Perhaps Dave can clarify that.

Pat


----------



## Dave M (Jun 27, 2006)

camachinist said:
			
		

> ...my understanding is that expenses in excess of income on such rentals (timeshare not meeting "home" requirements) cannot be used to offset income from other sources...


You are correct. Any loss is not currently deductible except against current profits from other similar income. 





> ...nor can it be carried forward to offset future income from similar activities.


Yes, it can be carried over as an offset against future rental income or against the profit, if any, on the sale of the timeshare.

Further, the rental income cannot be excluded from income under the vacation home less-than-14-days-of-rent rule.

For more detail (and some citations) on these rules, see the timesharing tax article in the TUG Advice section (link to Advice at the top of the page).


----------



## camachinist (Jun 27, 2006)

> Yes, it can be carried over as an offset against future rental income or against the profit, if any, on the sale of the timeshare.



Cool.... thanks Dave. Happy to be wrong about that part. Actually, this may be of use to us. I haven't been carrying forward the losses, which I see now was a mistake. 

Pat


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 27, 2006)

Not sure I'm following this...  are you saying that the cumulative MF thoughout the years can be used to offset any future gain from renting?  If so, does this have to be handled with each years tax returns, or can you do it when there is actual rental income?


----------



## Dave M (Jun 27, 2006)

No. If you rent in (for example) 2006 and the expenses (e.g., MFs and depreciation) exceed the income, the loss can be carried over to apply against future rental income. In years you use your week, let friends use it, exchange it or let it remain vacant, the expenses for those years are merely personal expenses that have no tax impact. 

The exceptions in those non-rental years are property taxes that are separately stated on your MF invoice or separately billed to you and interest expense on a timeshare mortgage (not on a timeshare unsecured consumer loan). Those expenses are _generally_ allowed as itemized deductions. 

Again, I would refer you to the linked tax article for more tax discussion.


----------



## camachinist (Jun 27, 2006)

GaryDouglas said:
			
		

> Not sure I'm following this...  are you saying that the cumulative MF thoughout the years can be used to offset any future gain from renting?  If so, does this have to be handled with each years tax returns, or can you do it when there is actual rental income?


Tax advisor or tax software would be best, Gary, but you need to look at total expenses of each years rental, of which MF's are just one part. I include interest, depreciation, advertising, real estate taxes, phone/fax costs, document costs, Paypal fees...you name it. You look only at what the expenses (real and paper) are for the rental year you are filing on. Expenses in years prior to that year are not applicable unless they have become part of a loss carried forward.

My mistake was that I was overriding my software and not carrying forward the losses. As we have rented out at least one interval each year, I should have carried forward to each year. In a year without such income, the prior losses would be carried forward to the next year with rental income, without entry in years with no income, unless the timeshare was sold in such a year.

I'm sure Dave can explain it much better than me <and it appears he did> 

Pat


----------

