# Summit Watch Presentation



## Steve A (Jul 22, 2019)

1. Very gentle. All agreed that given our usage points was not
 best for us.

2. Would sell us 1000 points at 14.95 and double it with another 1000 for use within two years.

3. Vistana owners are going to have to buy DC points to access MVC.

4. Points are going to be established for each Vistana location similarly to MVC.

5. Received 35,000 MR points. Building up for our next trip to London.

6. New to me was that DC points can be used to book hotels.

7. Did purchase for 995.00 the five nights plus 90 minute package. Price can go up depending on the season.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 22, 2019)

Your point #3 is consistent with what I and others MVC owners have been told in recent owner updates/sales presentations. Was any additional detail given on this point or your point #4?


----------



## Steve A (Jul 22, 2019)

Just that they’ll evaluate each Vistana location and decide how many points it’s worth.


----------



## StevenTing (Jul 23, 2019)

$14.95?  Is that a typo?  Last I heard we were at $14.26 or there abouts.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 23, 2019)

StevenTing said:


> $14.95?  Is that a typo?  Last I heard we were at $14.26 or there abouts.



14.26 was last price we were quoted earlier this month, but were told another price increase was coming soon.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Jul 24, 2019)

I have a presentation there Monday, will see if any different


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 25, 2019)

Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another?  What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points?  The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another?  What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points?  The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.



Let’s start with we have no idea what MVC is really planning. Sales schmucks will tell you what they think you want to hear and trust the vast majority won’t think twice about it. At least not until after the recension period has long past. Then take into consideration how we over dissect  things on TUG. TUG members are still rare at sales presentations.

One way MVC can gain access is thru unsold inventory. It doesn’t have to be high season inventory. It doesn’t have to be all inventory. It just has to be some inventory to claim DC members have access.

Also keep in mind that timeshare sales presentations are often to the uninformed mass population. They will snare their fair amount of Vistana owners with the promise of all those new MVC locations and get some amount of buy in. TUG members might be unimpressed but, we are the minority.

I think it’s going to take a few years before MVC owners see much in the way of Vistana inventory and it’s likely to be the most frequent complaint of MVC owners for the first few years. Give 5 to 10 years and cross company reservations should begin to losses up.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another?  What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points?  The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.


Not necessarily, remember it's a 2 way street.  Assuming any resort or system is linked in some way to the Destination Program, they will have to have a points schedule for those who go to access the Vistana resorts from the DP.  But as Doug pointed out, we don't know what they are gong to do and they have many options they could chose from.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another?  What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points?  The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.



I don't see this as any different than how MVCI rolled out their DC program to Marriott owners. All weeks in the company portfolio were assigned Destination Points (DPs) values in advance by size, season, and view. Unsold (developer owned) weeks were then placed into a trust pool of x number of points, based on the total number and DP values of unsold weeks the developer (Marriott) still owned. Marriott has been (and continues) selling points out of this pool to new purchasers. On the other side are those Marriott weeks that were previously sold to individuals (by developer or resale). Every one of those weeks has an assigned Destination Point value as well, but the only way to access that points value is for the owner to choose to enroll that week (subject to developer's criteria) and then convert that week to DPs each use year (or for developer to regain ownership of that week through ROFR whereby they then convert that week to its point value permanently and deposit those points into their trust to be resold).

For Vistana, this is no different. The controlling developer (Marriott) is now assigning a DP value to every week in the Vistana company portfolio. Subject to any legal restrictions, the DP value of the unsold Vistana inventory can be added to the controlling developer's point trust for subsequent sale to existing owners of Marriott, Vistana, or the general public. Subject to any legal restrictions, they may also begin 'recovering' weeks inventory for addition to the Marriott trust through ROFR (if such a thing exists in the Vistana world). The real question is what will be the developer (Marriott) criteria for Vistana owners who want to access the assigned DP value of their owned weeks to "exchange" into non-Vistana properties. Will it be the same as it was for Marriott owners (a small fee for developer purchased, a higher fee for resale before a certain date, or the highest fee for resales after a certain date with a required 'new' developer points purchase as well).

If enough Vistana owners do not choose to 'buy-in' to MVCI's point program (and ROFR is an available tool), Marriott could exercise ROFR options more aggressively to add Vistana inventory to the trust. The upside for Vistana owners (wanting to exit timesharing), could be a higher resale value if prices are driven higher to get a resale/purchase through. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Steve A (Jul 25, 2019)

I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.

Does that sound right?


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

Steve A said:


> I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.
> 
> Does that sound right?



That sounds like something a sales person would say - "They won't be able to do X unless they buy what I'm selling."

The reality is I see no way for MVC owners to have access meaningful Vistana inventory unless they offer the option, and can get Vistana owners to choose, to elect to not use their home resort or their existing VSN exchange options in favor of exchanging their ownership into MVC (just like MVC owners must do today). Unless Vistana owners opt to exchange into MVC, their weeks can't be available to MVC owners (they will remain in the VSN system) - it's just like your MVC week can't be made available to II owners unless you elect to exchange it in II, and your week isn't available to other DC Points owners unless you convert your week to Points yourself. So, if the only way Vistana owners have to access MVC inventory is to buy into the DC Trust, the only Vistana inventory MVC owners would be able to access would be the unsold inventory that the developer controls. That doesn't sound like something that will make anyone very happy. MVC will have to find a way to allow Vistana owners to use their existing ownership to access MVC. That seems the only way to get meaningful Vistana inventory, in turn, made available for MVC owners. What you were told strikes me as typical sales spin.

As was discussed ad nauseam in the almost 900 posts in the below-linked thread, 1) something is coming, 2) we have no idea what is coming, 3) sales probably only knows a little more than we do at this point, 4) sales will spin the confusion so as to try to make the sale, and 5) we'll eventually find out, but maybe not until 2020:
https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...t-vistana-hyatt-in-the-dc-speculation.292460/


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

Steve A said:


> I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.
> 
> Does that sound right?



That is how it was presented to us (not at Summit Watch) earlier this month.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

kds4 said:


> That is how it was presented to us (not at Summit Watch) earlier this month.



*IF* that's what they do, MVC owners shouldn't be making any plans to sample the VSE locations. There will be little or no availability for desirable places and times as the only inventory MVC will be able to possibly make available to us will be the unsold -- unless "buy into the DC" is semantics and would also include the option to pay a fee and enroll a previously-acquired VSE week. Requiring a DC Point buy from VSE folks would likely be a kiss of death for any cross-brand exchange offering. At minimum it would seem it would take years/decades to build attractive inventory through buybacks and ROFR. Thankfully, VSE doesn't add all that many new areas for MVC owners, so it's not a huge issue if there isn't much availability.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> *IF* that's what they do, MVC owners shouldn't be making any plans to sample the VSE locations. There will be little or no availability for desirable places and times as the only inventory MVC will be able to possibly make available to us will be the unsold -- unless "buy into the DC" is semantics and would also include the option to pay a fee and enroll a previously-acquired VSE week. Requiring a DC Point buy from VSE folks would likely be a kiss of death for any cross-brand exchange offering. At minimum it would seem it would take years/decades to build attractive inventory through buybacks and ROFR. Thankfully, VSE doesn't add all that many new areas for MVC owners, so it's not a huge issue if there isn't much availability.



Agreed. The 'value' may turn out to be MVCI's ability to tout the Vistana portfolio in attempts to further expand their sales of DC points. The actual redemption 'value' will likely take a while to emerge.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 25, 2019)

Steve A said:


> I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.
> 
> Does that sound right?



MVC owners where originally told there would be two pools. We were told we could access our resorts like we usually do, but we’d have to buy trust points to access trust inventory. Needles to say, that wasn’t exactly true.

Sound familiar?


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 25, 2019)

Agreed with much of the above, absent some way for existing Vistana owners to access the DC, I don't see where Marriott could get any valuable inventory to make available to the DC.  Keep in mind, unlike when DC was launched, Vistana doesn't hold a stash of unsold weeks that they could easily make available to the DC.  The vast majority of weeks owned by Vistana are placed in one of the Vistana Flex Program Trusts.  Vistana as a developer controls that trust but then no longer owns the "weeks", but rather "points" in the trust.  I don't see how they could legitimately allow access to Flex program trust inventory without allowing reciprocal access to (at the very least) existing Vistana Flex point owners.

As others have pointed out, this is likely a salesperson spinning the reality to benefit their pitch.  I am sure we could find a salesperson on the Vistana side saying the same thing "Don't worry, you'll get access to the MVC DC but all those members will have to buy Vistana Flex points to access Vistana resorts."

At worst they limit interchange access to each of the respective trust programs (DC, Sheraton Flex, Westin Flex and Adventura); at best they also allow Vista weeks owners an option to "buy into" the DC program via the same method MVC weeks owners were allowed to enroll their weeks at launch (I have no doubt a salesperson could twist a week enrollment fee into a requirement to "buy in").

I know this has all been hashed out in the long thread....but we keep getting new iterations of the "truth" from each "XXXX Presentation" post.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

dougp26364 said:


> MVC owners where originally told there would be two pools. We were told we could access our resorts like we usually do, but we’d have to buy trust points to access trust inventory. Needles to say, that wasn’t exactly true.
> 
> Sound familiar?


I think some were.  Technically there are 2 pools with a large overlap.  Personally I was never told we'd have to have trust points to reserve but given we were heavy in the weeks side they were likely using the enrollment angle for us.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Agreed with much of the above, absent some way for existing Vistana owners to access the DC, I don't see where Marriott could get any valuable inventory to make available to the DC.  Keep in mind, unlike when DC was launched, Vistana doesn't hold a stash of unsold weeks that they could easily make available to the DC.  The vast majority of weeks owned by Vistana are placed in one of the Vistana Flex Program Trusts.  Vistana as a developer controls that trust but then no longer owns the "weeks", but rather "points" in the trust.  *I don't see how they could legitimately allow access to Flex program trust inventory without allowing reciprocal access to (at the very least) existing Vistana Flex point owners.*
> 
> As others have pointed out, this is likely a salesperson spinning the reality to benefit their pitch.  I am sure we could find a salesperson on the Vistana side saying the same thing "Don't worry, you'll get access to the MVC DC but all those members will have to buy Vistana Flex points to access Vistana resorts."
> 
> ...



If both trusts were equal (as they were before the acquisition of Vistana by Marriott), I would agree that Marriott and Vistana would have to negotiate out any form of exchange between the trusts. However, Marriott is now the overall owner of both trusts. I believe that may give them additional flexibilities in what/how they choose to manage those trusts inventories since the Flex Trust owner of record, Vistana, is now really MVCI. I am only interpreting 'legitimately' as being what is legal for MVCI to do and not whether it would be perceived as fair or not to one group of owners or another.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 25, 2019)

kds4 said:


> If both trusts were equal (as they were before the acquisition of Vistana by Marriott), I would agree that Marriott and Vistana would have to negotiate out any form of exchange between the trusts. However, Marriott is now the overall owner of both trusts. I believe that may give them additional flexibilities in what/how they choose to manage those trusts inventories since the Flex Trust owner of record, Vistana, is now really MVCI. I am only interpreting 'legitimately' as being what is legal for MVCI to do and not whether it would be perceived as fair or not to one group of owners or another.



Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts).  However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold.  The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them.  While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

Steve A said:


> 3. Vistana owners are going to have to buy DC points to access MVC.
> 
> 4. Points are going to be established for each Vistana location similarly to MVC.



I know it sounds good at an MVC meeting. DC owners are getting something FOR FREE, the other side gets nothing in exchange. Fantastic, but I want to see they implement it. Seriously.
What actually happens with the developer inventory? Vistana takes (allegedly) the best weeks of the year and rents them for $$$. This would be a major blow to the MVW balance sheet so I give it a next to nothing chance for it to happen. But if it does happen, given than the availability at the Vistana resorts will go down significantly, it will be great for the Vistana owners that rent out.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts).  However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold.  The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them.  While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.



Fair enough, Marriott and Vistana established legal trusts based on unsold inventory they respectively owned and established their right to manage what they placed in those trusts in perpetuity (or whatever other legalese accomplishes the same purpose). However they did it was for their respective ultimate benefit. No one (intentionally) creates a trust that is adverse to their own interests, and with the acquisition of Vistana it is now Marriott that effectively sits in the place of Vistana regarding what can and cannot be done under both sets of trust documents is all I was getting at. If there were trust restrictions that may have prevented Vistana from entering into a relationship with Marriott and the DC trust (prior to the acquisition), they may be moot since the same owning/managing party is really sitting on both sides of the trust negotiating table now - Marriott.

Do I know that to be fact, Nope. I'm only raising the possibility (but I fully expect MVCI's legal beagles to be digging their paws into both sets of trust documents for just that purpose). We'll have to wait and see what they sniff out.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts).  However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold.  The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them.  While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.


I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components.  Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over.  The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

Dean said:


> I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components.  Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over.  The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.



Agreed. MVCI didn't make this acquisition to maintain the Vistana status-quo. I think any belief that there won't be visible changes in the operation of the Vistana program (other than maintaining any existing usage rights) is unrealistic. Even the MVCI program has evolved drastically for MVCI owners just in the 10 years I have been a part of it. While no developer should be able to directly diminish anyone existing ownerships, they can definitely control criteria/access to any future evolution/enhancements and some of those 'enhancements' could appear to indirectly diminish ownerships (such as when weeks owners balked at having to compete with points owners when trying to make floating week reservations within their owned season).


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

Dean said:


> I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components.  Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over.  The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.


A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.

But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.
> 
> But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?



No question that Vistana owns/manages inventory of its owners. However, if MVCI now owns Vistana (which it does), why would you not think MVC now owns/manages (by extension) all that Vistana owned/managed pre-acquisition? The unanswered question is how MVCI plans to leverage both inventories/trusts to enhance their profitability.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

kds4 said:


> Agreed. MVCI didn't make this acquisition to maintain the Vistana status-quo. I think any belief that there won't be visible changes in the operation of the Vistana program (other than maintaining any existing usage rights) is unrealistic. Even the MVCI program has evolved drastically for MVCI owners just in the 10 years I have been a part of it. While no developer should be able to directly diminish anyone existing ownerships, they can definitely control criteria/access to any future evolution/enhancements and some of those 'enhancements' could appear to indirectly diminish ownerships (such as when weeks owners balked at having to compete with points owners when trying to make floating week reservations within their owned season).


More accurately the management company has to provide the contractual obligations which are often far less than the options currently or potentially available.  To truly understand the options one would have to poor through the legal paperwork of each resort and system.  And even then contractual options in a POS can almost alway be changed and are almost always dramatically slanted to the MC/developer's favor.



DannyTS said:


> A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.


See above.  They would have significant flexibility to access inventory they own or control and to disband any non contractual arrangements currently in place even if paid for by the member.  I doubt they will completely and immediately but the focus will almost certainly be to entice those system to pay some type of $$$ amount to participate which almost certainly means reducing their current options to some degree at least over time.  



> But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?


There are lots of options but I can think of several easy ones.    First, they could get owners to sign up for the DC for a fee and it'd work just like the current DC system where if you elected DC points, an equivalent amount of inventory would be available to the DC and not to the rest of the former system.  You could have a crossover system that would work similarly but it would not have the same access at the same time to the other DC system, much like the Explorer collection is now or more like Disney's Buena Vista Trading Company has worked historically.  And of course any inventory they control they could throw to the DC and again, that would not be available to the other system.  And of course they could disband any current system that is not contractually guaranteed and locked in and push them to the DC which I could see them doing over time but likely not right away.  But since reservation systems are normally not protect, this gives lot's of latitude.  And for any system where access to non home resorts is subject to availability, one could end up with limited options.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

Dean said:


> More accurately the management company has to provide the contractual obligations which are often far less than the options currently or potentially available.  To truly understand the options one would have to poor through the legal paperwork of each resort and system.  And even then contractual options in a POS can almost alway be changed and are almost always dramatically slanted to the MC/developer's favor.
> 
> See above.  They would have significant flexibility to access inventory they own or control and to disband any non contractual arrangements currently in place even if paid for by the member.  I doubt they will completely and immediately but the focus will almost certainly be to entice those system to pay some type of $$$ amount to participate which almost certainly means reducing their current options to some degree at least over time.
> 
> There are lots of options but I can think of several easy ones.    First, they could get owners to sign up for the DC for a fee and it'd work just like the current DC system where if you elected DC points, an equivalent amount of inventory would be available to the DC and not to the rest of the former system.  You could have a crossover system that would work similarly but it would not have the same access at the same time to the other DC system, much like the Explorer collection is now or more like Disney's Buena Vista Trading Company has worked historically.  And of course any inventory they control they could throw to the DC and again, that would not be available to the other system.  And of course they could disband any current system that is not contractually guaranteed and locked in and push them to the DC which I could see them doing over time but likely not right away.  But since reservation systems are normally not protect, this gives lot's of latitude.  And for any system where access to non home resorts is subject to availability, one could end up with limited options.


But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?


They could charge them a fee to enroll.  They could sell them inventory to enroll (Vistana, MVC Trust, etc).  It could work just like it does now within the MVC where they sell weeks for areas that aren't in the trust, resale weeks and trust points.  So basically put yourself in the seat of one who owns weeks at a MVC resort that they acquired after the applicable cutoff date.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

Dean said:


> They could charge them a fee to enroll.  They could sell them inventory to enroll (Vistana, MVC Trust, etc).  It could work just like it does now within the MVC where they sell weeks for areas that aren't in the trust, resale weeks and trust points.  So basically put yourself in the seat of one who owns weeks at a MVC resort that they acquired after the applicable cutoff date.


I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free? 

Let's be clear, I do not care if MVC owners access the inventory that Vistana owns. I do not have access to it anyways, they rent it, they sell it, in theory it does not change a thing for me.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?



For MVC, the only true unsold weeks are probably those in Aruba, St Kitts, Europe, and maybe an oddball or two that were either never sold or have since been reacquired through ROFR, buyback, foreclosure. In the US, all unsold/reacquired inventory supposedly goes into the Trust since weeks aren't sold any more. Once that inventory goes into the Trust, MVC as manager does have some latitude to project usage and rent, deposit to II, and possibly other uses for inventory not booked by Trust owners. The CCRs give them considerable latitude in this I believe.

I guess Vistana still sells weeks in some resorts? Or do they? If they do, they would have true weeks inventory that the developer (now MVW) controls. The developer/manager would probably also have the same latitude with the VSN Flex trusts as they do with the DC Trust.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free?
> 
> Let's be clear, I do not care if MVC owners access the inventory that Vistana owns. I do not have access to it anyways, they rent it, they sell it, in theory it does not change a thing for me.


They may not but I think the most likely scenario is not for free but that they've already paid for it in one way or another by becoming a member of the DC by giving $$$ to Marriott previously.  They'd likely get access to the Vistana inventory that goes into the DC/Trust points system included with what they already have.  Of course Marriott continues to try to sell to those and unenrolled members and they'd likely use this as a hook to get additional participation.  It sounds like  your position is they should have to pay again to get access to the system they already belong to.  In this scenario it's really no different than if they add MVC resorts like Pulse.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free?



It depends on how they set it up. If they set up another layer on top of the existing DC and VSN networks for exchanges, then I think both sides would have to pay for access in some fashion to that "New Exchange Company."

But if, as some people have been told in sales presentations, they decide to just use the existing DC Exchange as the vehicle for those cross-brand exchanges, then current MVC DC Trust and enrolled owners have *already paid* to be a part of that exchange system. VSN owners have not, so they would have to pay to join.

Think of it like this...you can pay a one time fee to join II. Once you pay that fee, you get access to any timeshare company's inventory that gets deposited into II. Then, lets say two years from now, HGVC or DVC decides to leave RCI and move their inventory to II. Current II owners probably wouldn't have to pay a second fee to join II again to access that HGVC or DVC inventory. Think of the DC as an exchange company sort of like II, but only for brands owned by Marriott Vacations Worldwide (currently only Marriott Vacation Club and Ritz Carlton participate). Once you pay to join that exchange company, you get access to any and all inventory that gets deposited to that exchange company. If Westin and Sheraton would be added to the DC, then those owners would have to pay to join the exchange company that MVC and Ritz owners are already members of.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> urrent MVC DC Trust and enrolled owners have *already paid* to be a part of that exchange system. VSN owners have not, so they would have to pay to join.



MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.


----------



## Dean (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.


 The reality is the various systems are not on equal footing. The other systems are joining with the Marriott system. As I noted previous it was an acquisition not a merger.  I think it’s dramatically likely they will base this on the destination club system and therefore members of the destination club will have access to any applicable inventory And I think it’s equally likely members of the other systems will have to pony up to participate.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

Dean said:


> The reality is the various systems are not on equal footing. The other systems are joining with the Marriott system. As I noted previous it was an acquisition not a merger.


I think that if they will chose to treat condescendingly 1/3 of the owners they are deemed to fail as a program and as a company. I have no indication though that it will happen and I have reasons to believe that they will make sure to nurture a big happy family.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.



No question they will, and should, do what is best for stockholders. But since 60% of all new MVW sales come from existing owners, they still need happy owners to keep the sales coming in. They want us to buy DC Trust Points and Flex Points so they will want to make the program as attractive as possible so we will buy more.

I have no idea how they will set up any kind of integrated system, but if it is just allowing VSE owners to join the DC, I can't see how they can charge DC owners to join the same exchange system again, any more than II could charge an existing II member again if DVC moved to II. If Marriott develops a whole new program, we'll all have to pay.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> No question they will, and should, do what is best for stockholders. But since 60% of all new MVW sales come from existing owners, they still need happy owners to keep the sales coming in.


This is precisely why they will not alienate 1/3 of the ownership base (Vistana plus Hyatt). 250,000 is a large enough number  and it has a significant impact to their balance sheet.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> This is precisely why they will not alienate 1/3 of the ownership base (Vistana plus Hyatt). 250,000 is a large enough number  and it has a significant impact to their balance sheet.



No question. That is why I think:

1) VSN/Hyatt will stay in place, more-or-less as-is, for internal booking within those programs -- at least for the immediate foreseeable future. 
2) Whatever "integrated product" is introduced will be an *option*
3) The structure of the integrated program will determine what buy-in might be required and from whom. They have multiple paths they could take.
4) We will all have to wait to find out.
5) Number 4 above will not stop TUGgers from speculating.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 25, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> 3) The structure of the integrated program will determine what buy-in might be required and from whom. They have multiple paths they could take.


do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 25, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)



As I said in one of the other threads, I think it depends on whether they prioritize participation rates in any new program (presumably to foster the improved long-term benefits an integrated product would have on sales) or they prioritize short term sales numbers.

When they set up the DC, they made enrollment of existing weeks reasonable/easy, which generated a lot of participation and fairly rapid acceptance of the program. It didn't take that long until people could actually use the program to go places they wanted to because owners elected to participate. If they want to get a lot of inventory availability into any new or overlay system, I think they will take the same approach. I also think that will yield the best long term results for the company and shareholders.

If instead they say that they want to sell as much as they can in the very short run, and use smoke and mirrors, they'll require expensive points buys to participate, and use the limited inventory they control to allow the sales reps to accurately claim "you can book Westin/Sheraton/Marriott" if you buy this. But when people actually try to book, they will be disappointed. I hope they are smart enough to see that would not be the way to build a healthy long-term program.


----------



## Dean (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I think that if they will chose to treat condescendingly 1/3 of the owners they are deemed to fail as a program and as a company. I have no indication though that it will happen and I have reasons to believe that they will make sure to nurture a big happy family.


The next year should be fun.  First we get to speculate over and over then we get to get everyone's reaction over and over.  I agree with Jim, it's likely the systems will stay someone intact at least early on with some type of crossover.  I think that crossover is almost certainly going to be tied to the DC system and that at the higher levels will have access without any action.  I think that some type of fee on the other side is a guarantee, see below. If you see that approach as condescending, so be it.  for the current DC owners they could just integrate those resorts or they could do it like the Luxury Collection where you have to be a higher level owner.  The former is easier to manage, the latter more costly but gives the opportunity for sales to get to a higher level.  IF they take that route I'd expect it to be at executive or above.  



DannyTS said:


> do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)


My personal guess is they will do a lot of both but tied to sales presentations mostly.  To me the real questions are how much it will cost, who will be eligible without an actual purchase and what type of access each group will have to the other inventory.  But I do not think the fee will be minimal, likely no lower than the current cash fee for qualifying members to enroll on the MVC side and I do not think they will offer free enrollment to do a tour but they might offer a reduced cost to do so.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 26, 2019)

Dean said:


> ...I think that crossover is almost certainly going to be tied to the DC system and that at the higher levels will have access without any action.  I think that some type of fee on the other side is a guarantee, see below. If you see that approach as condescending, so be it...



I don't find this approach condescending at all.  What I do find condescending are the posts that:

a) assume MVC has the ability to just open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without some sort of reciprocity (whether that be via an enrollment fee or free); other than developer owned inventory, MVC has no right to give DC members access to SVN resorts.  Other than in Mexico, where a couple of new resorts are in development, developer owned inventory is very low. Even where it exists it is often held in one of the trusts which also restricts what they can do with it.  While a agree as the manager of the trust they likely have some flexibility, it's not a simple as just opening any developer owned inventory to DC owners; and

b) the repeated posts with the underlying tone of "MVC bought SVN, get over it and accept it....they will do what they want and you will accept it." Reality or not, this undertone is condescending and does nothing to advance any discussion.  It completely ignores the value SVN owners bring to the table.  MVC didn't buy SVN/ILG to get access to some leftover developer inventory scraps...they bought it to EXPAND their customer base.  They sure as hell aren't going to do that with the sort of attitude some have advocated in these threads.



Dean said:


> To me the real questions are how much it will cost, who will be eligible without an actual purchase and what type of access each group will have to the other inventory.  But I do not think the fee will be minimal, likely no lower than the current cash fee for qualifying members to enroll on the MVC side and I do not think they will offer free enrollment to do a tour but they might offer a reduced cost to do so.



I think this all depends on what tact MVC decides to take. Any system they create requires uptake to be successful; low participation by either side will severely limit matched exchanges.  I suspect (and hope) just like when the DC launched, they will offer fairly competitive "enrollment" rates to existing members in an effort to quickly build a big user base.  This allows the system to succeed and creates longer term value through the (certain) ongoing fees relating to using the system and the ability to increase margins on it later down the line (just as they did with the DC).  If the system is indeed DC centric (which I agree could be the case), I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little to no fee for existing DC owners to participate (and this wouldn't offend me either)...but in this case I would expect them to be REALLY incentivizing SVN owners to participate.


----------



## Dean (Jul 26, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> I don't find this approach condescending at all.  What I do find condescending are the posts that:
> 
> a) assume MVC has the ability to just open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without some sort of reciprocity (whether that be via an enrollment fee or free); other than developer owned inventory, MVC has no right to give DC members access to SVN resorts.  Other than in Mexico, where a couple of new resorts are in development, developer owned inventory is very low. Even where it exists it is often held in one of the trusts which also restricts what they can do with it.  While a agree as the manager of the trust they likely have some flexibility, it's not a simple as just opening any developer owned inventory to DC owners; and
> 
> b) the repeated posts with the underlying tone of "MVC bought SVN, get over it and accept it....they will do what they want and you will accept it." Reality or not, this undertone is condescending and does nothing to advance any discussion.  It completely ignores the value SVN owners bring to the table.  MVC didn't buy SVN/ILG to get access to some leftover developer inventory scraps...they bought it to EXPAND their customer base.  They sure as hell aren't going to do that with the sort of attitude some have advocated in these threads.


If you're referring to my posts I think you've misread my intent, I apologize if it came across that way.  OTOH there is a reality check that it is not simply a merger and it's likely that those in the DC (at least higher levels) will have options without additional costs, if that opinion comes across as such, so be it.  They can't take the contractual inventory but they can change the non contractual options, one would have to pour through the POS of each resort & system to even start to understand that information.  I don't think for a second that everyone is going to have all they had before plus additional but I could be wrong.  As a minimum there is the risk of reduced inventory to both sides.  I think they'll be worrying about getting others to pay in one way or another, not what % do so other than as it relates to profit.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> I don't find this approach condescending at all.  What I do find condescending are the posts that:
> 
> a) assume MVC has the ability to just open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without some sort of reciprocity (whether that be via an enrollment fee or free); other than developer owned inventory, MVC has no right to give DC members access to SVN resorts.  Other than in Mexico, where a couple of new resorts are in development, developer owned inventory is very low. Even where it exists it is often held in one of the trusts which also restricts what they can do with it.  While a agree as the manager of the trust they likely have some flexibility, it's not a simple as just opening any developer owned inventory to DC owners; and



Here may be where the disconnect is...I don't recall anyone suggesting that MVC will open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without reciprocity. You are of course correct that they can't do that, except for the limited inventory they control. What I have read are suggestions that they might require SVN owners to pay to join the DC, whereas MVC owners won't be asked to pay to join again to access the SVN inventory that makes its way into the DC. I have no idea if that will happen, but there is a plausible, logical reason that they *could* take that approach:

1) MVC owners are already members of the DC
2) On day 1 of such a notional arrangement, when the first SVN owner joins the DC and elects their week for DC points, that first owner would have access to *every* MVC week/night available in the DC Exchange, and that's a lot of weeks/nights. They would get real value.
3) The situation is reversed for current MVC DC owners, as in the example noted in #2 above, on that theoretical day 1, while the SVN owner would have access to tens/hundreds of thousands of MVC intervals, the 400,000 or so MVC owners would have access to exactly one Vistana week. On day 1, they would get little to no value, until more SVN owners decide to participate. It would be really hard for MVC to charge for that. If they wanted to be able to charge MVC owners, they would need to set up a way for MVC owners to join SVN, so they also would get immediate access to all available SVN inventory. That would be something that I'm sure MVC owners would be asked to pay for if they wanted it - and we should.

So, think of it this way - if what MVC sales offices are telling MVC owners is the true direction, SVN owners would be getting immediate access to *all* MVC inventory as soon as they elect to play in the DC, whereas MVC owners would only get access to the SVN inventory that those owners decide to commit to the DC. Looked at that way, the MVC sales offices are promoting a solution that, in the short run, has far more to benefit SVN owners than it does for MVC owners. SVN gets access to everything on Day 1. MVC owners have to wait to see benefits until participation by SVN owners increases to a more significant level.



> b) the repeated posts with the underlying tone of "MVC bought SVN, get over it and accept it....they will do what they want and you will accept it." Reality or not, this undertone is condescending and does nothing to advance any discussion.  It completely ignores the value SVN owners bring to the table.  MVC didn't buy SVN/ILG to get access to some leftover developer inventory scraps...they bought it to EXPAND their customer base.  They sure as hell aren't going to do that with the sort of attitude some have advocated in these threads.



I agree 100%. I don't like the "we bought you" tone either, but as I noted in a thread on the Vistana forum, it is a fact that 10 of the top 11 executives of Marriott Vacations Worldwide are from the MVC side. They absolutely won't do anything that they think will alienate the SVN base, it brings too much value, but I do think the management structure could lead to the solutions they choose having a greater likelihood of looking more like legacy MVC than ILG.



> I think this all depends on what tact MVC decides to take. Any system they create requires uptake to be successful; low participation by either side will severely limit matched exchanges.  I suspect (and hope) just like when the DC launched, they will offer fairly competitive "enrollment" rates to existing members in an effort to quickly build a big user base.  This allows the system to succeed and creates longer term value through the (certain) ongoing fees relating to using the system and the ability to increase margins on it later down the line (just as they did with the DC).  If the system is indeed DC centric (which I agree could be the case), I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little to no fee for existing DC owners to participate (and this wouldn't offend me either)...but in this case I would expect them to be REALLY incentivizing SVN owners to participate.



I agree. Because of what I noted above, if they use the DC and allow SVN owners full access to all DC inventory, then they need rapid uptake by SVN owners, or MVC owners get the short end of the stick with little VSN availability.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 26, 2019)

Dean said:


> If you're referring to my posts I think you've misread my intent, I apologize if it came across that way.



Nope not at all.  Wasn't referring to your posts and I think they've been very balanced.  In general, this specific thread has been fairly balanced, but here, like the other larger thread, there are undertones of "MVC bought you and they'll do as they please with the programs - why would anyone be so stupid to think differently".



JIMinNC said:


> Here may be where the disconnect is...I don't recall anyone suggesting that MVC will open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without reciprocity.



That was one of the predicates in this thread (see #3 in the original post, and Steve A's follow up of his understanding) - and the only reason I actually posted here vs the other thread.  The implication was clear that SVN owners would not be able to access anything in the DC without purchasing DC points (but that DC owners would be given access to SVN resorts).  I have no doubt this is what the Salesperson said, so in no way trying to impute Steve A's statement...but then others piled on to say this is what they had heard and that it sounded reasonable (and this had also been stated in other threads previously).  As always, the typical caveats when listening to a salesperson apply and I have no doubt that if pushed a salesperson could twist this statement to have meant "they will have to buy DC points or otherwise enroll in the system".


----------



## Dean (Jul 26, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> Nope not at all.  Wasn't referring to your posts and I think they've been very balanced.  In general, this specific thread has been fairly balanced, but here, like the other larger thread, there are undertones of "MVC bought you and they'll do as they please with the programs - why would anyone be so stupid to think differently".


Thanks you made me nervous because the written word can be so unforgiving esp when there isn't total agreement.  I do think Marriott is going to want people to be a little nervous (real or imagined) that they'll need to pony up to have good options whether it be non DC Marriott owners to buy points or DC Marriott members to add on to get to a certain level or for the other systems to get access to the DC or even to keep all of their same options (even if it's not true they'll lose them).


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

ocdb8r said:


> That was one of the predicates in this thread (see #3 in the original post, and Steve A's follow up of his understanding) - and the only reason I actually posted here vs the other thread.  The implication was clear that SVN owners would not be able to access anything in the DC without purchasing DC points (but that DC owners would be given access to SVN resorts).  I have no doubt this is what the Salesperson said, so in no way trying to impute Steve A's statement...but then others piled on to say this is what they had heard and that it sounded reasonable (and this had also been stated in other threads previously).  As always, the typical caveats when listening to a salesperson apply and I have no doubt that if pushed a salesperson could twist this statement to have meant "they will have to buy DC points or otherwise enroll in the system".



I see you logic now, but I didn't read that as Steve A asserting that he thought MVC would have unfettered access to all SVN inventory. In sales-speak, access to SVN could mean access to one week at one resort. I tried to read between the lines and concluded that what the sales person was trying to say, or what the OP was trying to describe, was basically the same thing as what others have reported being told at MVC presentations - rightly or wrongly - that SVN owners would have to pay to access the DC but MVC owners were already members, so they would have automatic access to whatever inventory finds its way into the DC from SVN. That might only be a few weeks initially, but it technically *is* access to weeks from Vistana - just not very many. In all of these threads, the reports are second-hand, and the sales rep may not of explained it well or the listener may have interpreted the statement incorrect. That's always a risk unless you hear the words yourself.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jul 26, 2019)

Dean said:


> Thanks you made me nervous because the written word can be so unforgiving esp when there isn't total agreement.  I do think Marriott is going to want people to be a little nervous (real or imagined) that they'll need to pony up to have good options whether it be non DC Marriott owners to buy points or DC Marriott members to add on to get to a certain level or for the other systems to get access to the DC or even to keep all of their same options (even if it's not true they'll lose them).



It will be very interesting to see.  While I think MVC _Salespeople _will certainly want to capitalize on people being nervous about protecting their existing investment, I think MVC overall is likely more concerned with creating a product that they can sell as having true value.  One of the things that comforts me in all of this discussion is that I was around and a Marriott weeks owner when the DC rolled out.  There was a similar level of concern throughout the whole process (both in the speculation before and in the analysis after rollout) and at the end of the day I think the DC program has satisfied the majority of the MVC population (even in the sense that those that didn't/don't participate are still happy).  Very few of the biggest concerns haven't really materialized (inventory wasn't hoarded only for DC points owners, exchanges for trust points owners and "enrolled week" owners seem to work fairly seamlessly and many still pick up decent trades in II as an alternative to the DC program). I ended up leaving MVC not because of the program but because I fell in love with the dual 1 bedroom lock-off option that was standard at almost all SVN resorts (sadly, newer resorts have moved away from this).  I welcome an opportunity to gain back access to MVC via my SVN weeks, even if I have to pay a (reasonable) enrollment fee.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> 1) MVC owners are already members of the DC
> 2) On day 1 of such a notional arrangement, when the first SVN owner joins the DC and elects their week for DC points, that first owner would have access to *every* MVC week/night available in the DC Exchange, and that's a lot of weeks/nights. They would get real value.
> 3) The situation is reversed for current MVC DC owners, as in the example noted in #2 above, on that theoretical day 1, while the SVN owner would have access to tens/hundreds of thousands of MVC intervals, the 400,000 or so MVC owners would have access to exactly one Vistana week. On day 1, they would get little to no value, until more SVN owners decide to participate. It would be really hard for MVC to charge for that. If they wanted to be able to charge MVC owners, they would need to set up a way for MVC owners to join SVN, so they also would get immediate access to all available SVN inventory. That would be something that I'm sure MVC owners would be asked to pay for if they wanted it - and we should.



I will respectfully disagree with this point. While I agree that, depending how they structure it, the access to Vistana can be limited in the first year or the second but if successful, it should no longer be a factor after that.   Now how much is that going to be worth for just a year or 2? If the Vistana owners are asked to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for access to MVC and MVC owners nothing for access to Vistana, that is a clear unbalance even if you were right about the very beginning of this program. 
IMO the cheaper for both sides to have access, the more successful the program will be. If MVC owners get if for free and the Vistana owners have to pay a steep price, the gift to the MVC owners will be worth next to nothing because they will not have access to anything. Of course it will be beneficial to the sales people, but we are talking about owners here. 

Additionally, we are a bit stuck with the name of the program. Maybe it is going to be DC. But what if they decide to name  something else!(Beyond DC ? lol .How about Beyond VSN?).  How can then the MVC owners claim they were already in?

I understand that people compare this to previous MVW acquisitions. But lets be clear here, they bought ILG for 4.6 billion dollars. This has nothing to do with previous takeovers and will not be treated the same way because of the relative size of the 2 entities. As I said before, the 250,000 Vistana and Hyatt owners have to perceive this as fair.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I will respectfully disagree with this point. While I agree that, depending how they structure it, the access to Vistana can be limited in the first year or the second but if successful, it should no longer be a factor after that.   Now how much is that going to be worth for just a year or 2? If the Vistana owners are asked to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for access to MVC and MVC owners nothing for access to Vistana, that is a clear unbalance even if you were right about the very beginning of this program.
> IMO the cheaper for both sides to have access, the more successful the program will be. If MVC owners get if for free and the Vistana owners have to pay a steep price, the gift to the MVC owners will be worth next to nothing because they will not have access to anything. Of course it will be beneficial to the sales people, but we are talking about owners here.
> 
> Additionally, we are a bit stuck with the name of the program. Maybe it is going to be DC. But what if they decide to name  something else!(Beyond DC ? lol .How about Beyond VSN?).  How can then the MVC owners claim they were already in?
> ...



I generally agree in principle. However, I'm not convinced that last sentence has/will necessarily be spoken in any MVC meetings (at least not in the way I think you mean). IMHO, I believe MVC will do what THEY think is fair for all owners (after first considering the company and shareholder's interests), but that doesn't mean owners will necessarily agree with what they roll out as being 'fair'.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

kds4 said:


> I generally agree in principle. However, I'm not convinced that last sentence has/will necessarily be spoken in any MVC meetings (at least not in the way I think you mean). IMHO, I believe MVC will do what THEY think is fair for all owners (after first considering the company and shareholder's interests), but that doesn't mean owners will necessarily agree with what they roll out as being 'fair'.


Ideally,  the Vistana owners should only have to see the proposal as beneficial to them. People however perceive value relative to other known factors. When somebody else gets something for free, that becomes the anchor, the reference point that will be used to determine the value  of that service or product and any dollar amount above zero may seem too much.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I will respectfully disagree with this point. While I agree that, depending how they structure it, the access to Vistana can be limited in the first year or the second but if successful, it should no longer be a factor after that.   Now how much is that going to be worth for just a year or 2? If the Vistana owners are asked to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for access to MVC and MVC owners nothing for access to Vistana, that is a clear unbalance even if you were right about the very beginning of this program.
> IMO the cheaper for both sides to have access, the more successful the program will be. If MVC owners get if for free and the Vistana owners have to pay a steep price, the gift to the MVC owners will be worth next to nothing because they will not have access to anything. Of course it will be beneficial to the sales people, but we are talking about owners here.
> 
> Additionally, we are a bit stuck with the name of the program. Maybe it is going to be DC. But what if they decide to name  something else!(Beyond DC ? lol .How about Beyond VSN?).  How can then the MVC owners claim they were already in?
> ...



There are valid arguments on both sides of this. I can see compelling reasons why they would choose to do it either way. Only time will tell what they will decide. The only thing I hope they DON'T do is try to build some sort of new exchange program ON TOP of both the DC and VSN. Given the complexity of the DC already, plus all of the permutations and complexity that exist in the VSN program (mandatory, voluntary, multiple Flex programs, etc.), adding another layer would just be too much, IMHO. I would rather them just leave them all separate (which they appear not to be planning to do) or blow it all up and design a brand new program from scratch. But as an MVC owner who likes the MVC system and doesn't really think VSN adds all that much to what we already have, the "blowing it all up and starting over" option isn't all that appealing either. I like what we have now; I may not like what they create.

As these discussions have gone on and on, and as I've been able to consider all the pros and cons of all the things that have been thrown out, I've found myself almost evolving to the opinion that I wish they would just keep the programs separate. MVC owners don't gain all that much from the VSN locations, so what's in it for us? Now Hyatt offers some new options that neither MVC nor VSN have, but who knows how they will deal with that conundrum.

And just one clarification, I don't think MVW has had any previous acquisitions - unless you consider merging the Ritz program and the MVC Asia/Pacific program into the DC. But those were just other internal Marriott programs already. The ILG acquisition was the first external acquisition for MVW, I think.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 26, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> There are valid arguments on both sides of this. I can see compelling reasons why they would choose to do it either way. Only time will tell what they will decide. The only thing I hope they DON'T do is try to build some sort of new exchange program ON TOP of both the DC and VSN. Given the complexity of the DC already, plus all of the permutations and complexity that exist in the VSN program (mandatory, voluntary, multiple Flex programs, etc.), adding another layer would just be too much, IMHO. I would rather them just leave them all separate (which they appear not to be planning to do) or blow it all up and design a brand new program from scratch. But as an MVC owner who likes the MVC system and doesn't really think VSN adds all that much too what we already have, the "blowing it all up and starting over" option isn't all that appealing either. I like what we have now; I may not like what they create.
> 
> As these discussions have gone on and on, and as I've been able to consider all the pros and cons of all the things that have been thrown out, I've found myself almost evolving to the opinion that I wish they would just keep the programs separate. MVC owners don't gain all that much from the VSN locations, so what's in it for us? Now Hyatt offers some new options that neither MVC nor VSN have, but who knows how they will deal with that conundrum.
> 
> And just one clarification, I don't think MVW has had any previous acquisitions - unless you consider merging the Ritz program and the MVC Asia/Pacific program into the DC. But those were just other internal Marriott programs already. The ILG acquisition was the first external acquisition for MVW, I think.



Now Jim, if they blow it all up and start over how bad could it be? Look how well the Marriott/SPG acquisition's love child (aka Bonvoy program) is going, right?

"Paging Dr. Strangelove ... or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Timesharing".






Kidding aside, I think I am with you on just let sleeping dogs lie. I personally don't have any ambitions to go to any of the VSN properties I know of, except probably Harborside. I would like to try that one - once. Otherwise, like you (and many VSN posters it seems), I'm good with what I've got.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

you know that many Vistana owners are rooting for the same thing, keeping everything separate. From the prospective of somebody who lives on the East coast, Aruba (2 Marriotts plus Renaissance), St Kitts and St Thomas interest me. However, I see them in Interval a lot. I could have gotten 20 of each in the last year if I wanted to. On the Vistana side once you have Westin Lagunamar, Harbourside Bahamas and Westin St John's you will not really miss MVC especially if you can exchange occasionally to other resorts in the region.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

By the way, I am surprised that at the earnings calls nobody asks  the MVW CEO  questions about a possible combined program. Hello analysts, no TUGgers among you?! How is that possible! The next one is in a few days!

Now that we have the graphic representation of what the new program may look like (thanks to @kds4 ) they have to demand to know more about it.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> you know that many Vistana owners are rooting for the same thing, keeping everything separate. From the prospective of somebody who lives on the East coast, Aruba (2 Marriotts plus Renaissance), St Kitts and St Thomas interest me. However, I see them in Interval a lot. I could have gotten 20 of each in the last year if I wanted to. On the Vistana side once you have Westin Lagunamar, Harbourside Bahamas and Westin St John's you will not really miss MVC especially if you can exchange occasionally to other resorts in the region.



I think we all have been naturally drawn to the programs that appeal to us the most, so the other programs naturally don't have as much appeal (or we would have bought there). We were drawn to Marriott initially mainly because of Hilton Head and Hawaii. We were drawn to HGVC primarily due to their Big Island locations. We later looked at VSN also, but decided they didn't offer enough additional value over and above the other two. There are certainly other places in Marriott and HGVC that are appealing for occasional visits, but they are secondary to those first priorities. Even Hilton Head is probably going to become a less important factor for us since odds are good we're going to buy a full condo there by next spring. We live in the eastern zone also, but given the choice of a four-hour nonstop flight from CLT to Aruba, St. Kitts, St. John, or St. Thomas, or a ten-hour or so one-stop flight to Maui, Kauai, or The Big Island - we'll choose Hawaii. It's our favorite and the only place we've ever found that we like as much (or more) is French Polynesia (and we just discovered that last month).

So we all probably gravitate to the programs that fit us the best. There's no question, all things being equal, being able to visit some of the VSN locations would be a great option to have; but given all the issues that could be created in trying to come up with a way to make that happen, I've begun to question what the value really is for us...




DannyTS said:


> By the way, I am surprised that at the earnings calls nobody asks  the MVW CEO  questions about a possible combined program. Hello analysts, no TUGgers among you?! How is that possible! The next one is in a few days!
> 
> Now that we have the graphic representation of what the new program may look like (thanks to @kds4 ) they have to demand to know more about it.



During the last earnings call they didn't have to ask - he volunteered the information that they were working on something prior to the Q&A. We'll see if anything else is said next week.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> I think we all have been naturally drawn to the programs that appeal to us the most, so the other programs naturally don't have as much appeal (or we would have bought there). We were drawn to Marriott initially mainly because of Hilton Head and Hawaii. We were drawn to HGVC primarily due to their Big Island locations. We later looked at VSN also, but decided they didn't offer enough additional value over and above the other two. There are certainly other places in Marriott and HGVC that are appealing for occasional visits, but they are secondary to those first priorities. Even Hilton Head is probably going to become a less important factor for us since odds are good we're going to buy a full condo there by next spring. We live in the eastern zone also, but given the choice of a four-hour nonstop flight from CLT to Aruba, St. Kitts, St. John, or St. Thomas, or a ten-hour or so one-stop flight to Maui, Kauai, or The Big Island - we'll choose Hawaii. It's our favorite and the only place we've ever found that we like as much (or more) is French Polynesia (and we just discovered that last month).
> 
> So we all probably gravitate to the programs that fit us the best. There's no question, all things being equal, being able to visit some of the VSN locations would be a great option to have; but given all the issues that could be created in trying to come up with a way to make that happen, I've begun to question what the value really is for us...
> 
> ...


I am still surprised that nobody asked for more than what he said during the last earnings call.

Where we live, we have no direct flights to Hawaii so for us it is 4 h vs 12 -16 h, with 2 pre-teen kids it is a big effort. Especially since most return flights are overnight. We booked Westin Nanea though for 2020 we will see how that goes. We will just not go there every year, it is very clear to us. We were at Lagunamar in the spring, we met several Vistana Hawaii owners who live on the east coast that go to Lagunamar way more often than they go to Hawaii.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I think that if they will chose to treat condescendingly 1/3 of the owners they are deemed to fail as a program and as a company. I have no indication though that it will happen and I have reasons to believe that they will make sure to nurture a big happy family.


Many feel that the only people who matter are those who own in the DC program so yes, many truly feel that they will and should treat 1/3 of the owners negatively. I’d like to see how this all works out. My question is how mandatory resorts work out in all of this. We are mandated to be enrolled in the management company’s program. I wonder if that would now include any combined program. Everyone speaks of Vistana deeds as “weeks”. But our weeks were always set up like enrolled DC point ownerships. We had the benefit of a deeded week but could always use staroptions to book in network, not requiring an interval exchange. I think they could make a 3rd program where resorts are given an assigned value in both star options and DC points, depending on what you own is how you book. Interval could be the vehicle in which things are booked. That would be fun. Just pay an exchange fee plus membership. Yay money!


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I am still surprised that nobody asked for more than what he said during the last earnings call.
> 
> Where we live, we have no direct flights to Hawaii so for us it is 4 h vs 12 -16 h, with 2 pre-teen kids it is a big effort. Especially since most return flights are overnight. We booked Westin Nanea though for 2020 we will see how that goes. We will just not go there every year, it is very clear to us. We were at Lagunamar in the spring, we met several Vistana Hawaii owners who live on the east coast that go to Lagunamar way more often than they go to Hawaii.



I probably underestimated our total flight time to Hawaii - it's ten flight hours, but with a one-stop layover, probably 11-12 hours total travel. Caribbean is right at four hours to most places since we can go nonstop from CLT on American.

I guess the whole Hawaii with kids travel thing may be somewhat about what you've become accustomed to. We didn't go every year, but we went to Hawaii about every other year with our two kids from the time our youngest was 3 and our oldest was 6, until they were in high school. We had to stop going then for a few years once they got to the ages when they didn't want to go on family vacations without their friends. But now that our oldest is on his own in a software engineering job in New York and our youngest is a rising junior in college, they met us in Maui in March and we all had a great time.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 26, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> I probably underestimated our total flight time to Hawaii - it's ten flight hours, but with a one-stop layover, probably 11-12 hours total travel. Caribbean is right at four hours to most places since we can go nonstop from CLT on American.
> 
> I guess the whole Hawaii with kids travel thing may be somewhat about what you've become accustomed to. We didn't go every year, but we went to Hawaii about every other year with our two kids from the time our youngest was 3 and our oldest was 6, until they were in high school, and we had to stop going for a few years once they got to the ages when they didn't want to go on family vacations without their friends. But now that our oldest is on his own in a software engineering job in New York and our youngest is a rising junior in college, they met us in Maui in March and we all had a great time.


I forgot to mention, we go to Europe every year. A second long trip is just not feasible for us.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 26, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Given the complexity of the DC already, plus all of the permutations and complexity that exist in the VSN program (mandatory, voluntary, multiple Flex programs, etc.), adding another layer would just be too much, IMHO. I would rather them just leave them all separate (which they appear not to be planning to do) or blow it all up and design a brand new program from scratch.



The new flex programs aren’t all that complex and the mandatory and voluntary is pretty simple. Mandatory means we have to be in the management company’s network, and that goes with the deed. So the benefit goes Along with a resale. Voluntary means only developer is enrolled, benefit lost on resale but can re-enroll with an additional developer purchase. Much like MVC resales that are eligible to be re enrolled or enrolled into the DC program. I’m sure you know all of this already. But you do bring up a good point. Say they blow it all up. It seems that mandatory owners and those enrolled on both sides would be automatically enrolled into the new program, thus not making anyone “buy in”. They could make more, making a 3rd program where you buy in with a membership fee, an enrollment fee, or an exchange/conversion fee to book. The goal here is to offer owners more options and flexibility while maximizing profits. As someone said earlier this was an acquisition not a merger which we all understand by now. But that doesn’t mean they want to alienate the owners they just bought. I guess you can see why some are facetiously calling it an invasion lol. 

When going back to the OP post, it seems point 3 and 4 points are being “sold” hard at these sales presentations. On the Vistana side people are hearing the same thing, free access to MVC soon. It seems that this is all just hard core sales tactics. I was told a year ago we would be able to cross book any resort beginning “in a month or so”. I’m Still waiting 11 months later haha.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 26, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> I forgot to mention, we go to Europe every year. A second long trip is just not feasible for us.



That's the great thing about basically being empty nesters, we can now do Hawaii and Europe (or another long trip) in the same year. Gives you something to look forward to...


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> The new flex programs aren’t all that complex and the mandatory and voluntary is pretty simple. Mandatory means we have to be in the management company’s network, and that goes with the deed. So the benefit goes Along with a resale. Voluntary means only developer is enrolled, benefit lost on resale but can re-enroll with an additional developer purchase. Much like MVC resales that are eligible to be re enrolled or enrolled into the DC program. I’m sure you know all of this already. But you do bring up a good point. Say they blow it all up. It seems that mandatory owners and those enrolled on both sides would be automatically enrolled into the new program, thus not making anyone “buy in”. They could make more, making a 3rd program where you buy in with a membership fee, an enrollment fee, or an exchange/conversion fee to book.



The complexity of VSN I was referencing is all the different versions of their product they have sold over the years - mandatory, voluntary, multiple-flex programs, etc. For any given owner, I guess it is probably not that hard to understand, but I would hate to be the MVW program managers trying to come up with a way to integrate all of those permutations, differing CCRs, etc. with MVC and/or Hyatt. By contrast, for the folks at MVC, their current structure is just two tiers - a points system overlaid over a legacy weeks system - but they way those two systems integrate with each other can get down-right confusing, even for the folks on this board that get their jollies from digging into stuff like that.



> The goal here is to offer owners more options and flexibility while maximizing profits. As someone said earlier this was an acquisition not a merger which we all understand by now. But that doesn’t mean they want to alienate the owners they just bought. I guess you can see why some are facetiously calling it an invasion lol.



They absolutely don't want to alienate the owners they just bought, and I don't think they will do things that they think might do that. They also don't want to alienate their existing MVC base by selling us on the ability to access to Vistana resorts, but then not being able to deliver if VSN weeks owners don't elect to play in the MVC program. As we've discussed this more and more, I'm having a harder and harder time seeing how they can ever come up with an overlay/integrated product that doesn't either add additional complexity or risk disenfranchising certain segments of their customer base. I haven't read anyone in these threads propose a solution that doesn't have significant "gotchas". Also, the more tiers and overlays they have, the harder it will be to manage all of the inventory buckets that result from that. At some point you have to question if the benefits are really worth it. That's why I think some of us MVC owners have tended to think they might try to use the DC as a solution to that problem - it is already configured and structured in a way that it could be used as that vehicle, and would not require reinventing the wheel. But as some VSN owners have pointed out, there are still issues with that approach as well - the need for VSN owners to buy-in and the inequity of offering any VSN owner who opts to participate access to all MVC inventory on day 1 while MVC owners have to wait for months/years for a critical mass of VSN owners to join. So, that's not an ideal solution either.



> going back to the OP post, it seems point 3 and 4 points are being “sold” hard at these sales presentations. On the Vistana side people are hearing the same thing, free access to MVC soon. It seems that this is all just hard core sales tactics. I was told a year ago we would be able to cross book any resort beginning “in a month or so”. I’m Still waiting 11 months later haha.



Yeah, I do think we've let sales spin get us all spun up here on TUG, maybe for no reason. The question really boils down to, have these sales reps been given any real insight into what may be coming or are they just winging it? I'm fairly sure at this stage they haven't received a lot of details of what may come, but it is entirely possible that they have been told some general parameters about how the program might be set up. What we don't know is if the things they've been telling folks are based on any real facts, or if they're just spinning BS to make the sale. Our next opportunity to do a sales presentation will be in October in Palm Desert. I've tended to avoid them unless we had a specific purpose in mind, so not sure if I'll be inclined to give them our 90 minutes this time or not.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> The complexity of VSN I was referencing is all the different versions of their product they have sold over the years - mandatory, voluntary, multiple-flex programs, etc. For any given owner, I guess it is probably not that hard to understand, but I would hate to be the MVW program managers trying to come up with a way to integrate all of those permutations, differing CCRs, etc. with MVC and/or Hyatt. By contrast, for the folks at MVC, their current structure is just two tiers - a points system overlaid over a legacy weeks system - but they way those two systems integrate with each other can get down-right confusing, even for the folks on this board that get their jollies from digging into stuff like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think their sales teams are on here scouting for ideas to pitch to potential buyers Ha.

True There are many complexities in the VSN network as you mentioned in regards to different ownerships and CCR’s, etc.

Here is a question and maybe it’s been answered so many times.  Can DC points be deposited into Interval for an exchange to an external resort? If so how does that work? Could DC points be deposited to book VSE resorts dumped in by MVC and Vice Versa for star options, if they decided an overlay program act as an exchange separate from the DC program exchange?


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> Here is a question and maybe it’s been answered so many times.  Can DC points be deposited into Interval for an exchange to an external resort? If so how does that work? Could DC points be deposited to book VSE resorts dumped in by MVC and Vice Versa for star options, if they decided an overlay program act as an exchange separate from the DC program exchange?



Yes. But today for non-Marriott resorts only. Other Marriott resorts have to be reserved through the DC. This schedule is how we would use points to try to exchange to a VSE resort today. This is copied from the stickies at the top of this forum.

TDI 50-85
1,000 Points - Studio
1,500 Points - 1BR
2,250 Points - 2BR
3,000 Points - 3BR
4,000 Points - 4BR

TDI 90-110
1,500 Points - Studio
2,250 Points - 1BR
3,000 Points - 2BR
4,000 Points - 3BR
5,000 Points - 4BR

TDI 115-135
1,750 Points - Studio
2,750 Points - 1BR
4,000 Points - 2BR
5,000 Points - 3BR
6,000 Points - 4BR

TDI 140-150
2,250 Points - Studio
3,000 Points - 1BR
4,500 Points - 2BR
6,000 Points - 3BR
7,000 Points - 4BR


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Yes. But today for non-Marriott resorts only. Other Marriott resorts have to be reserved through the DC. This schedule is how we would use points to try to exchange to a VSE resort today. This is copied from the stickies at the top of this forum.
> 
> TDI 50-85
> 1,000 Points - Studio
> ...


That could very well be a way to book Vistana inventory dedicated to those booking with DC points. Inventory that they put in. it could be DC owners only see Vistana availability and Vistana owners booking the same way using star options only see MVC availability that MVC has deposited with the inventory they control in both trusts. It’s an easy short term solution that could be pretty easy to build out within the interval system. There is the “3rd program” or affiliate program. Could be easy to throw HYATT into the mix at some point as well, or first. I eluded to this before but not sure if that can even be done.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> That could very well be a way to book Vistana inventory dedicated to those booking with DC points. Inventory that they put in. it could be DC owners only see Vistana availability and Vistana owners booking the same way using star options only see MVC availability that MVC has deposited with the inventory they control in both trusts. It’s an easy short term solution that could be pretty easy to build out within the interval system. There is the “3rd program” or affiliate program. Could be easy to throw HYATT into the mix at some point as well, or first. I eluded to this before but not sure if that can even be done.



That might work if they could structure it with reservation windows and inventory release dates like they have with DC Points and StarOptions so you could see and have real-time booking access to something other than leftover inventory. If it's based around the deposit, search, wait Interval model - no thanks.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

By the way, I continue to believe that an important source of revenue for MVC is renting the "skimmed" points. From that prospective and because the bigger the program the


JIMinNC said:


> the need for VSN owners to buy-in and the inequity of offering any VSN owner who opts to participate access to all MVC inventory on day 1 while MVC owners have to wait for months/years for a critical mass of VSN owners to join


Again, to me this is not an important factor in the grand scheme. The initial pace of enrollment into DC or the overlay system is solely at the discretion of MVC, you cannot blame the VSN owners if it is slow at the gate. But more importantly like in any exchange, the reality is that the trade is one for one. So both sides get an equal (presumably) value once they exchange. In any case, your example with one person is extreme . At the minimum you will have hundreds of VSN owners enrolled soon. In a floating system, this probably means access to almost all resorts and seasons etc. Now of course not more than hundreds of MVC owners will be able to book VSN but that number is equal to the number of VSN owners that  can book MVC so I do not see what the problem is. We forget one very important thing here. Depending how they set up the system, MVC owners may be able to see ALL the VSN inventory that we see at 8 months with StarOptions.

I think the industry has had this approach with new acquired resorts or new
affiliates (HGVC, Vistana etc). They offered free enrollment (or close to free to cover the administrative costs)  to the existing affiliate owners  recognizing the exchange would be 1/1 even if the access to their resort would be perceived as being lower at the very beginning. Isn't that the case with many HGVC affiliates? Many SF owners do not even deposit in the system, this is how much they care about access. But once they do, both sides benefit.
You were making a very important point before, the MVC and VSN  bought into a certain network because they preferred it over the competition. The access from day one you mention  is probably only marginally useful for a majority of owners on both sides.

I agree with you that an overlay sounds complicated but it is more important how  owners experience it rather than how it is set up. If you can see the whole inventory (MVC and VSN) with ONE online search it is not important how the inventory got there. I could log in Vistana and see both Vistana and MVC, you could log in MVC and see both. It may be complicated under the hood but it does not matter to you


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Ideally,  the Vistana owners should only have to see the proposal as beneficial to them. People however perceive value relative to other known factors. When somebody else gets something for free, that becomes the anchor, the reference point that will be used to determine the value  of that service or product and any dollar amount above zero may seem too much.


One of my life principles is someone else's gain is not necessarily my loss.  If you're referring to DC membership they've previously paid a fee in one way or another to participate.  So if all of the new systems get access for free to the DC, I don't care as long as it isn't a large impact on my personal usage.  Realistically that's not going to happen and realistically I don't see them creating a large super system above everything else.  Their goals are going to be to sell/upgrade as much as possible to everyone and to integrate the new portions into the MVC as much as possible.  



DannyTS said:


> you know that many Vistana owners are rooting for the same thing, keeping everything separate. From the prospective of somebody who lives on the East coast, Aruba (2 Marriotts plus Renaissance), St Kitts and St Thomas interest me. However, I see them in Interval a lot. I could have gotten 20 of each in the last year if I wanted to. On the Vistana side once you have Westin Lagunamar, Harbourside Bahamas and Westin St John's you will not really miss MVC especially if you can exchange occasionally to other resorts in the region.


To me it's the reverse.  I bought Marriott because of the locations of the resorts at the time, esp HHI & HI.  And a portion of the additions in HI, the Caribbean & the US mainland have fit in well for us also.  I just looked over the resorts listed for Vistana/Westin and I honestly didn't see a single resort where I said "I want to go or stay there". I don't care for the Bahama's or Atlantis, we don't do ocean ferry's so SJ isn't desirable, we don't go to MX any more and for the US, only HI would even be a consideration though Marriott has resorts I prefer on Kauai and Maui.  I cannot say the same for Hyatt, there are options there that interest me.  And while I feel that the VRI resorts generally don't measure up, they do have some locations that add to my options, esp Canada.  



CPNY said:


> Many feel that the only people who matter are those who own in the DC program so yes, many truly feel that they will and should treat 1/3 of the owners negatively. I’d like to see how this all works out. My question is how mandatory resorts work out in all of this. We are mandated to be enrolled in the management company’s program. I wonder if that would now include any combined program. Everyone speaks of Vistana deeds as “weeks”. But our weeks were always set up like enrolled DC point ownerships. We had the benefit of a deeded week but could always use staroptions to book in network, not requiring an interval exchange. I think they could make a 3rd program where resorts are given an assigned value in both star options and DC points, depending on what you own is how you book. Interval could be the vehicle in which things are booked. That would be fun. Just pay an exchange fee plus membership. Yay money!


My suspicion is that any program they roll out that has a cost component to participate is going to be seen by some as negative, there's just no way around it as you can't please everyone and they know that so they won't worry if some are happy and vocal.  There are lots of ways they could approach it but from a mandatory standpoint, they could run it as it's been done and add an additional option of the DC that has a cost to join or they could add it to the DC and require participation depending on the specifics of the POS, which I haven't seen with lots of variations on those themes.  The issue is to go back and look at the POS to see what their options are in terms of eliminating the current points system there, how much control they have to add or delete resorts, how much they can alter the reservation system and what are the criteria for a given resort to exit the system.  I doubt they'll make dramatic changes at one time but I do think the pot/frog analogy is applicable here.  In many ways this is the same as 2010 and the weeks, DC, Trust scenario which continues to be an issue today in some ways.  Some are still upset 9 years later, I have no doubt there will be those who have the same hard feelings during this round possible from both sides.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> One of my life principles is someone else's gain is not necessarily my loss.  If you're referring to DC membership they've previously paid a fee in one way or another to participate.


The Vistana owners have bought into a system that has internal trading, we have paid annual maintenance and other fees, no different than what you have. If one is getting access to a network for free, it makes sense for the other side to gain access for free.



Dean said:


> To me it's the reverse.  I bought Marriott because of the locations of the resorts at the time, esp HHI & HI.  And a portion of the additions in HI, the Caribbean & the US mainland have fit in well for us also.  I just looked over the resorts listed for Vistana/Westin and I honestly didn't see a single resort where I said "I want to go or stay there". I don't care for the Bahama's or Atlantis, we don't do ocean ferry's so SJ isn't desirable, we don't go to MX any more and for the US, only HI would even be a consideration though Marriott has resorts I prefer on Kauai and Maui.  I cannot say the same for Hyatt, there are options there that interest me.  And while I feel that the VRI resorts generally don't measure up, they do have some locations that add to my options, esp Canada.



The resorts you and I want to go to are irrelevant to MVW. They paid 4.6 billions for ILG thinking that they will benefit from these new resorts, I will have to believe they have done their homework before the acquisition. Let me be clear about this. So far MVW only mentioned 100 million dollars in annual savings because they combined the 2 companies. You do not pay 4.6 billion dollars for that, there must be a vision  beyond what meets the eye so they must think there is value in the Vistana resorts.


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> The Vistana owners have bought into a system that has internal trading, we have paid annual maintenance and other fees, no different than what you have. If one is getting access to a network for free, it makes sense for the other side to gain access for free.


But they paid the fee to a different system and will likely continue to have those options, to a degree, at least for a while.  But for participating with the DC, which I think is the likely vehicle going forward, see my previous post.  Maybe they'll have them pay the $1495/$1995 fee to enroll or buy points ? 1000 or more.





> The resorts you and I want to go to are irrelevant to MVW. They paid 4.6 billions for ILG thinking that they will benefit from these new resorts, I will have to believe they have done their homework before the acquisition. Let me be clear about this. So far MVW only mentioned 100 million dollars in annual savings because they combined the 2 companies. You do not pay 4.6 billion dollars for that, there must be a vision  beyond what meets the eye so they must think there is value in the Vistana resorts.


It's important to me and a consideration if there are other commitments I have to make just like it is to you.  I was responding to your post about locations and giving an honest appraisal of my interest.  Obviously they thought there was money to be made/saved on the whole but we don't know how they plan to do that.  They could dismantle the program and sell off portions, there are millions of overall scenarios we could discuss.  It's not just about profit but also about debt management.  Remember they owned a portion of Interval years ago and if they dive deep into the interaction options between the various systems, II becomes somewhat redundant for the DC/Trsut members and others that can participate.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> But they paid the fee to a different system and will likely continue to have those options, to a degree, at least for a while.



You see, you believe that VSN will be greatly reduced or even dismantled eventually. If DC is replacing it de facto, even in time, why would a VSN owner pay again to be part of a new network while losing benefits of his own at the same time when the MVC owner does not pay anything for that additional option while enjoying a minimum disruption compared to a VSN owner?


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> You see, you believe that VSN will be greatly reduced or even dismantled eventually. If DC is replacing it de facto, even in time, why would a VSN owner pay again to be part of a new network while losing benefits of his own at the same time when the MVC owner does not pay anything for that additional option while enjoying a minimum disruption compared to a VSN owner?


I know I wouldn’t. Why would I give a company any money that can and will dismantle something I bought into. That’s a company I wouldn’t trust.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> By the way, I continue to believe that an important source of revenue for MVC is renting the "skimmed" points. From that prospective and because the bigger the program the



As I said in another discussion on this, I think the skim seems to be around 5% and much of that can be accounted for by orphaned nights that are peppered around the system. I just don't see how that could be a major rental revenue driver in the scheme of things.



> Again, to me this is not an important factor in the grand scheme. The initial pace of enrollment into DC or the overlay system is solely at the discretion of MVC, you cannot blame the VSN owners if it is slow at the gate. But more importantly like in any exchange, the reality is that the trade is one for one. So both sides get an equal (presumably) value once they exchange. In any case, your example with one person is extreme . At the minimum you will have hundreds of VSN owners enrolled soon. In a floating system, this probably means access to almost all resorts and seasons etc. Now of course not more than hundreds of MVC owners will be able to book VSN but that number is equal to the number of VSN owners that  can book MVC so I do not see what the problem is. We forget one very important thing here. Depending how they set up the system, MVC owners may be able to see ALL the VSN inventory that we see at 8 months with StarOptions.



Your example is correct as far as actual bookings go - if 100 VSN owners elect to book in the MVC system, then they would hypothetically take up 100 intervals of MVC inventory, but would in turn make 100 VSN intervals available to MVC owners. The balance remains in The Force. Where the potential inequity seems to be to me is before the actual booking - the inventory each owner has to pick from. If, as some have suggested, they just use the existing DC as the exchange vehicle, that's the scenario that creates this issue. To illustrate this in another hypothetical, lets say the total DC was 100,000 available legacy MVC intervals at any given time. Lets further say 100 VSN intervals are elected/deposited into the DC because their owners want to visit an MVC location. The owners of those 100 intervals can then have their choice of any of the 100,000 MVC intervals in the DC. They only actually book 100, and that's perfectly offset by the 100 VSN intervals they bring to the party, so the actual inventory is still balanced. But the problem is, while those 100 VSN interval owners have their choice of any of the 100,000 available DC MVC intervals, any of the owners of the 100,000 MVC intervals in the DC who want to book a VSN unit only have access to the 100 VSN intervals the VSN owners brought to the DC.

It would seem to me that for MVC owners to be able to see ALL of the VSN inventory that VSN owners see at 8 months with StarOptions, they would have to allow MVC owners to join VSN in the same way they could allow VSN owners to join the DC. Then, when a VSN owner wants to book a DC interval, they can see it all, and then when they actually book, their VSN week has to go into the DC to keep the DC in balance. Similarly, when a DC owner would want to book a VSN interval, they could see it all as well, and then when they actually booked, their DC week has to go into VSN to keep that system in balance. The issue there becomes you wind up with inventory from both pools scattered all over the place in both systems. Just seems so messy. Another exchange system on top of the DC and VSN might solve this problem, but adds another layer of complexity as well.



> I think the industry has had this approach with new acquired resorts or new affiliates (HGVC, Vistana etc). They offered free enrollment (or close to free to cover the administrative costs)  to the existing affiliate owners  recognizing the exchange would be 1/1 even if the access to their resort would be perceived as being lower at the very beginning. Isn't that the case with many HGVC affiliates? Many SF owners do not even deposit in the system, this is how much they care about access. But once they do, both sides benefit.
> You were making a very important point before, the MVC and VSN  bought into a certain network because they preferred it over the competition. The access from day one you mention  is probably only marginally useful for a majority of owners on both sides.



Very good points. I think the HGVC SW Florida affiliates may be the closest example to what we are talking about. In that system, a SW Florida affiliate is not available to other HGVC owners unless the affiliate owner chooses to use their week in the HGVC system, at which time it becomes available for HGVC owners. The affiliate owners have their pickings of HGVC inventory when they do, but so few SW Florida owners choose to play in HGVC, it's almost impossible for HGVC owners to book SW Florida. Now that you can book the affiliates online, I go online and look and nothing is ever available except a few scattered weeks at a few places in hurricane season. It makes the SW FL affiliates almost useless to HGVC owners.



> I agree with you that an overlay sounds complicated but it is more important how owners experience it rather than how it is set up. If you can see the whole inventory (MVC and VSN) with ONE online search it is not important how the inventory got there. I could log in Vistana and see both Vistana and MVC, you could log in MVC and see both. It may be complicated under the hood but it does not matter to you



I agree with all of this. If the MVW IT guys can get their act together and make it seamless, it might work, but then they still have to align the booking windows. VSN books at 8 months; MVC DC can book as early as 13 months. If VSN has to wait until 8 months to book DC, you're not going to be happy with availability. If DC owners have to wait until 8 months to book VSN, what happens then? Thinking about it just makes my head hurt. Then I think about what both Dean and I have come to observe that VSN doesn't add that much new geography for MVC owners, so I begin to wonder if many MVC owners would have any incentive to pay to play in an overlay.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> That might work if they could structure it with reservation windows and inventory release dates like they have with DC Points and StarOptions so you could see and have real-time booking access to something other than leftover inventory. If it's based around the deposit, search, wait Interval model - no thanks.


Well Vistana has real time inventory in their booking system. The CEO even said he liked the digital applications on the VSE side. They can absolutely have real time, if they take Vistana technology. We on the Vistana side have had it for a while. Although the availability calendar takes a while to match up it seems. But I don’t think it would be a deposit and wait scenario.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> Well Vistana has real time inventory in their booking system. The CEO even said he liked the digital applications on the VSE side. They can absolutely have real time, if they take Vistana technology. We on the Vistana side have had it for a while. Although the availability calendar takes a while to match up it seems. But I don’t think it would be a deposit and wait scenario.



DC is real time inventory as well. Not deposit and wait like II. DC booking is just like a hotel booking system. They show a calendar with available days. See below. You click on a check-in day to see what is available. I've been online with a CSR to cancel a booking (you can't cancel online; have to call), and seen it reappear in availability almost instantly.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> My suspicion is that any program they roll out that has a cost component to participate is going to be seen by some as negative, there's just no way around it as you can't please everyone and they know that so they won't worry if some are happy and vocal.  There are lots of ways they could approach it but from a mandatory standpoint, they could run it as it's been done and add an additional option of the DC that has a cost to join or they could add it to the DC and require participation depending on the specifics of the POS, which I haven't seen with lots of variations on those themes.  The issue is to go back and look at the POS to see what their options are in terms of eliminating the current points system there, how much control they have to add or delete resorts, how much they can alter the reservation system and what are the criteria for a given resort to exit the system.  I doubt they'll make dramatic changes at one time but I do think the pot/frog analogy is applicable here.  In many ways this is the same as 2010 and the weeks, DC, Trust scenario which continues to be an issue today in some ways.  Some are still upset 9 years later, I have no doubt there will be those who have the same hard feelings during this round possible from both sides.



After skimming governing documents it seems there are very specific scenarios where they can terminate the agreement. It wouldn’t be as easy as. “Oh we can’t charge them so get rid of this phase within this resort” unless they sold off the whole resort which they could but I don’t see them doing that at this point in time. 

As familiar as I am with the DC program and how MVC used to operate before 2010 it seems you guys just had straight up weeks and interval exchange to rely on, where VSE owners had the benefit of home resort season priority for 4 months then a DC type program in the VSN. 

Everyone talks about the dc exchange as an entity owned by someone else? Do I have that correct? Or did MVC set it up separate from interval? I thought I read somewhere it was an external entity build and owned by a third party. Is that correct or did I misunderstand?


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> DC is real time inventory as well. Not deposit and wait like II. DC booking is just like a hotel booking system. They show a calendar with available days. See below. You click on a check-in day to see what is available. I've been online with a CSR to cancel a booking (you can't cancel online; have to call), and seen it reappear in availability almost instantly.
> 
> View attachment 13060


Oh ok, that’s a good thing. I do like VSN we can cancel online. As far as the availability being instant who knows where it ends up before being able to be booked online. They say it is but I don’t buy it lol. Is that owned and operated by Marriott? I thought I read it was separate entirety, owned by a third party.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> After skimming governing documents it seems there are very specific scenarios where they can terminate the agreement. It wouldn’t be as easy as. “Oh we can’t charge them so get rid of this phase within this resort” unless they sold off the whole resort which they could but I don’t see them doing that at this point in time.
> 
> As familiar as I am with the DC program and how MVC used to operate before 2010 it seems you guys just had straight up weeks and interval exchange to rely on, where VSE owners had the benefit of home resort season priority for 4 months then a DC type program in the VSN.



Correct. Simply a weeks system with internal trades through II. Then they added the DC as an overlay that weeks owners could join.



> Everyone talks about the dc exchange as an entity owned by someone else? Do I have that correct? Or did MVC set it up separate from interval? I thought I read somewhere it was an external entity build and owned by a third party. Is that correct or did I misunderstand?



No. The DC is an Exchange Entity owned within the Marriott Vacations Club umbrella specifically to facilitate points bookings between the Trust and enrolled weeks owners, but it is set up as a legally-separate entity from the DC Trust. The DC Exchange Company is essentially the overlay that MVC built on top of the weeks system. It's only been used for internal MVC/Ritz bookings, but has provisions in the CCRs that allow "affiliate" programs to join the DC.

I think I may have pointed out at some point that MVW may outsource some of their IT stuff to a third party tech company, but legally the DC Exchange is an internal part of MVC and up until this point has not been used for anything outside of the Marriott umbrella. But since VSN is now part of the Marriott umbrella, that's why some have speculated that VSN could just become another input into the DC Exchange, just like the MVC and Ritz brands. Those used to be run as separate programs as well, but are now combined into the DC Exchange.


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> You see, you believe that VSN will be greatly reduced or even dismantled eventually. If DC is replacing it de facto, even in time, why would a VSN owner pay again to be part of a new network while losing benefits of his own at the same time when the MVC owner does not pay anything for that additional option while enjoying a minimum disruption compared to a VSN owner?


To not lose options (real or perceived) and/or to gain additional options (again real or perceived).  The question is how much will be real and how much will come down to sales speak.



CPNY said:


> After skimming governing documents it seems there are very specific scenarios where they can terminate the agreement. It wouldn’t be as easy as. “Oh we can’t charge them so get rid of this phase within this resort” unless they sold off the whole resort which they could but I don’t see them doing that at this point in time.
> 
> As familiar as I am with the DC program and how MVC used to operate before 2010 it seems you guys just had straight up weeks and interval exchange to rely on, where VSE owners had the benefit of home resort season priority for 4 months then a DC type program in the VSN.
> 
> Everyone talks about the dc exchange as an entity owned by someone else? Do I have that correct? Or did MVC set it up separate from interval? I thought I read somewhere it was an external entity build and owned by a third party. Is that correct or did I misunderstand?


So they could transfer a given resort say directly to MVC and remove it from the current system?  But there are options to change and I suspect, ways to even change the POS fairly easily giving additional options.  The idea that the POS is rock solid protection is not accurate from any POS or system I've ever seen.  And all of the ones I've seen give 100% flexibility to the management company on the reservation system which would give them pretty much free rein.

I'm not 100% sure what your asking on the DC system so I'll address the system as I understand and look at it.  MVC has 2 timeshare systems, the Trust and the Weeks.  The DC is a crossover system much like Disney BVTC was for Club Intrawest, Club Cordial and years ago Shell & Hilton.  Each can only use the other to the degree of inventory that is used by the other.  With DVC's BVTC they anticipated inventory but if one side got too far ahead, they held it until the other caught up.  I am not aware that MVC does that so the only inventory on the weeks side or the trust side is the degree of participation with each it appears.


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> Oh ok, that’s a good thing. I do like VSN we can cancel online. As far as the availability being instant who knows where it ends up before being able to be booked online. They say it is but I don’t buy it lol. Is that owned and operated by Marriott? I thought I read it was separate entirety, owned by a third party.


Online change/cancelations would be a great addition, hopefully this will be forthcoming.  As noted not of us know how real time it is because of the wait lists and the fact that inventory is held at times because of the 12/13 month window, refurbishment plans or just because they can in some cases.  But it does appear to be close.  The disadvantage of an absolute realtime system is it can bypass pending wait lists which happens a lot with DVC.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> With DVC's BVTC they anticipated inventory but if one side got too far ahead, they held it until the other caught up.  I am not aware that MVC does that so the only inventory on the weeks side or the trust side is the degree of participation with each it appears.



The MVC Exchange Procedures do give MVC the right to anticipate inventory. Here is the wording from the DC Exchange Program, Exchange Procedures:

*Exchange Company shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservations and use of the Accommodations and is authorized to demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Members through the Program in its sole discretion.*


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> The MVC Exchange Procedures do give MVC the right to anticipate inventory. Here is the wording from the DC Exchange Program, Exchange Procedures:
> 
> *Exchange Company shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservations and use of the Accommodations and is authorized to demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Members through the Program in its sole discretion.*


Yes but do they is the question I had, I simply don't know and haven't had any indication that they do.  But if there is a separate crossover system you'd think they'd have to.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Correct. Simply a weeks system with internal trades through II. Then they added the DC as an overlay that weeks owners could join.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah ok. Now I understand. So the VSN could operate as it does now but within the dc exchange entity. It seems that there are so many moving parts on both sides that combining one into the other wouldn’t be so seamless. I’d look for a 3rd and simple approach to opening access. Especially if the tech side isn’t that savvy as it seems it isn’t based on everyone gripes with MVC IT capabilities thus far.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> Online change/cancelations would be a great addition, hopefully this will be forthcoming.  As noted not of us know how real time it is because of the wait lists and the fact that inventory is held at times because of the 12/13 month window, refurbishment plans or just because they can in some cases.  But it does appear to be close.  The disadvantage of an absolute realtime system is it can bypass pending wait lists which happens a lot with DVC.


Vistana cut out waitlists years ago! They brought them back but only for elite owners.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> To not lose options (real or perceived) and/or to gain additional options (again real or perceived).  The question is how much will be real and how much will come down to sales speak.
> 
> So they could transfer a given resort say directly to MVC and remove it from the current system?  But there are options to change and I suspect, ways to even change the POS fairly easily giving additional options.  The idea that the POS is rock solid protection is not accurate from any POS or system I've ever seen.  And all of the ones I've seen give 100% flexibility to the management company on the reservation system which would give them pretty much free rein.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure what your asking on the DC system so I'll address the system as I understand and look at it.  MVC has 2 timeshare systems, the Trust and the Weeks.  The DC is a crossover system much like Disney BVTC was for Club Intrawest, Club Cordial and years ago Shell & Hilton.  Each can only use the other to the degree of inventory that is used by the other.  With DVC's BVTC they anticipated inventory but if one side got too far ahead, they held it until the other caught up.  I am not aware that MVC does that so the only inventory on the weeks side or the trust side is the degree of participation with each it appears.


MVC owns and operates VSE now so no, to my knowledge they can’t just transfer this resort out of the VSN and into DC. If there was some way in which they can actually do that, then those who own mandatory deeds must be enrolled into the DC program and wouldn’t be forced to pay a buy in because it’s within contract that the deed MUST be enrolled in the management company’s program, whether that be renamed from VSN to DC or any other name. We would however be responsible for Whatver membership fees you pay each year. It’s why they will never set up a property as mandatory. It’s why they are the highest resale value and harder to come buy. They have actively offering buy backs to sell their flex program. We suspect many owners not savvy enough have been sold into giving their mandatory deeds back and buying into flex with the promises of having home resort priority in every flex resort not just the resort they bought 10+ years ago.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> DC is real time inventory as well. Not deposit and wait like II. DC booking is just like a hotel booking system. They show a calendar with available days. See below. You click on a check-in day to see what is available. I've been online with a CSR to cancel a booking (you can't cancel online; have to call), and seen it reappear in availability almost instantly.
> 
> View attachment 13060


The DC and the VSN are similar so this is exactly why we say that we already have an internal exchange that we paid to be part of


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> Yes but do they is the question I had, I simply don't know and haven't had any indication that they do.  But if there is a separate crossover system you'd think they'd have to.



I always assumed some of the bulk banks we see in II are the result of their demand forecasting. I've always assumed the availability on marriott.com may also be impacted by the same. No proof, just a suspicion that they would probably have enough history to be able to effectively do that.


----------



## Dean (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> I always assumed some of the bulk banks we see in II are the result of their demand forecasting. I've always assumed the availability on marriott.com may also be impacted by the same. No proof, just a suspicion that they would probably have enough history to be able to effectively do that.


I've always assumed it was internal inventory but who knows.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> Ah ok. Now I understand. So the VSN could operate as it does now but within the dc exchange entity. It seems that there are so many moving parts on both sides that combining one into the other wouldn’t be so seamless. I’d look for a 3rd and simple approach to opening access. Especially if the tech side isn’t that savvy as it seems it isn’t based on everyone gripes with MVC IT capabilities thus far.



Not really *within* the DC Exchange, but as an input to it. I modified my earlier diagram with a few blocks for VSN, showing graphically how that might be configured. Reality is probably more complex than this diagram, but it's complex enough as it is.



 

I've shown the VSN components in a line box to indicate they are already an internal exchange system of their own, whereas MVC did not have such an entity before the DC Exchange.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> I've always assumed it was internal inventory but who knows.


For Vistana owners, According to the VSN calendar it showed availability at 10 months out when I tried to book a reservation. Then it said I couldn’t book until 8 months, however I was trying to book my home resort phase 1 harborside. I called CS and asked why that was. I was told that just because the calendar is green with availability it was showing inventory for another phase. So yes there was inventory, but not for me to book. There was inventory for phase 2 to book. There was no availability for phase 1 owners at that time even though it was green across the board.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

Breaking news! Wyndham destinations is acquiring Marriott Vacations Worldwide. In this friendly takeover, parties agreed the 2 internal exchange platforms will merge in time into the more advanced Wyndham platform that also includes a larger number of resorts. The Marriott owners will have to pay  an enrollment fee to be part of the Wyndham system. They do not have to worry though, they can continue to use the DC platform the same way as before. For now. The Wyndham owners will not have to pay since they are already part of their internal exchange platform.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

Dean said:


> I've always assumed it was internal inventory but who knows.



My logic has been if they have given themselves that right and if utilizing that right allows them to more efficiently utilize their inventory and assure max occupancy they would be foolish not to do that.

Back in the day when we owned in the Diamond system, I know they projected utilization because they would bulk bank with RCI well before we could book our week. If we wanted to deposit to RCI, they would just assign us one of the weeks already bulk banked previously. We had no ability to book a week and deposit it ourselves. Similarly, HGVC inventory from their bulk banks often shows up in RCI even before home owners can book their home week, so they must project a certain amount of RCI inventory will happen and bank that in advance. If those organizations do it, I can't imagine that MVC doesn't. I know that MVC has always been different in that owners can pick their own weeks to deposit in II, but I would still be surprised if they don't do some forecasting and deposit/rent based on those forecasts.


----------



## pchung6 (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Breaking news! Wyndham destinations is acquiring Marriott Vacations Worldwide. In this friendly takeover, parties agreed the 2 internal exchange platforms will merge in time into the more advanced Wyndham platform that also includes a larger number of resorts. The Marriott owners will have to pay  an enrollment fee to be part of the Wyndham system. They do not have to worry though, they can continue to use the DC platform the same way as before. For now. The Wyndham owners will not have to pay since they are already part of their internal exchange platform.
> 
> 
> View attachment 13073



Lol. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell few still thinking they don't have to pay because they acquired VSE. Unfortunately you might get an official warning for fake speculation, because for somehow you are self inferior and play victimhood, which I still don't understand what's that mean....


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

pchung6 said:


> Lol. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell few still thinking they don't have to pay because they acquired VSE. Unfortunately you might get an official warning for fake speculation, because for somehow you are self inferior and play victimhood, which I still don't understand what's that mean....


We’re being INVADED!! Haha. Help help we are poor victims. We can’t go on vacation until we sign over our retirement accounts and pay thousands of dollars to MVC because we have never once cut a check to the master company. Any money paid to another company means nothing lol. Help help I’m drowning.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Breaking news! Wyndham destinations is acquiring Marriott Vacations Worldwide. In this friendly takeover, parties agreed the 2 internal exchange platforms will merge in time into the more advanced Wyndham platform that also includes a larger number of resorts. The Marriott owners will have to pay  an enrollment fee to be part of the Wyndham system. They do not have to worry though, they can continue to use the DC platform the same way as before. For now. The Wyndham owners will not have to pay since they are already part of their internal exchange platform.



As you note in your Fake News release, there is an implied inequity in that approach, but if Wyndham chose to charge MVC owners for access to the Wyndham system, they couldn't guarantee Wyndham owners how much MVC availability will find its way into the Wyndham system. I know I probably wouldn't join to access the Wyndham locations. So, in that scenario, I really couldn't see them having much latitude to charge Wyndham owners for access to what might be phantom MVC inventory. As a result, if the approach your Fake News suggests were to happen, it might work exactly that way. MVC pays to play but Wyndham doesn't. That's essentially how it works today if HGVC adds a new affiliate - the affiliate owners have to pay to join HGVC, but HGVC owners get automatic access to the affiliate inventory for "free."

But as we've chewed on this for the last two weeks or so, that implied inequity above - i.e. - if they use the DC as the Exchange mechanism (the solution implied by my diagram above in post #91), they could never guarantee how much VSN inventory would be made available to MVC owners - has caused me to see using the DC as the ultimate exchange mechanism as a somewhat less likely outcome. The other "gotcha" in that approach is VSN members would be obligated to pay their annual VSN membership fee *plus* the annual DC membership fee to play in both systems. I don't see that happening. They could maybe get away with it for a new small affiliate, but I think they need a more elegant/fair solution for a system the size of VSN. Also, a difference with the HGVC example is MVW now owns VSN whereas HGVC doesn't own their affiliates. I think that means we may actually see a more integrated approach between the MVC and VSN brands.

The only similar situation since the origin of the DC in 2010 might be when Marriott added the Ritz Clubs and the MVC Asia/Pacific Resorts to the full DC. Both the Ritz and A/P programs had their own internal exchange programs prior to being merged into the DC. I don't know how that was handled, but I'm sure there are some TUGgers somewhere who can offer some insight into that process. That might be our only window into the thinking of MVC management, but since those were both much smaller programs, the solutions chosen there might not be applicable to the VSN scenario.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Breaking news! Wyndham destinations is acquiring Marriott Vacations Worldwide. In this friendly takeover, parties agreed the 2 internal exchange platforms will merge in time into the more advanced Wyndham platform that also includes a larger number of resorts. The Marriott owners will have to pay  an enrollment fee to be part of the Wyndham system. They do not have to worry though, they can continue to use the DC platform the same way as before. For now. The Wyndham owners will not have to pay since they are already part of their internal exchange platform.
> 
> View attachment 13073


This is great, and yes i know is satire. But on a serious note, Did MVC and VSE agree their programs would merge? I get the sense that MVC owners think that’s the case. As if the two programs will have to combine at a certain point and it’s a certainty. But is that really the case? Was it officially said that is the plan by MVC or is that speculation that has turned to actual belief In these threads? I am of the belief they will run separately along side each other with an overlay option. It’s easier and offers more options. 

It’s a good thing you put “fake” on there or you run the risk of being warned officially. JS


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> As you note in your Fake News release, there is an implied inequity in that approach, but if Wyndham chose to charge MVC owners for access to the Wyndham system, they couldn't guarantee Wyndham owners how much MVC availability will find its way into the Wyndham system. I know I probably wouldn't join to access the Wyndham locations. So, in that scenario, I really couldn't see them having much latitude to charge Wyndham owners for access to what might be phantom MVC inventory. As a result, if the approach your Fake News suggests were to happen, it might work exactly that way. MVC pays to play but Wyndham doesn't. That's essentially how it works today if HGVC adds a new affiliate - the affiliate owners have to pay to join HGVC, but HGVC owners get automatic access to the affiliate inventory for "free."
> 
> But as we've chewed on this for the last two weeks or so, that implied inequity above - i.e. - if they use the DC as the Exchange mechanism (the solution implied by my diagram above in post #91), they could never guarantee how much VSN inventory would be made available to MVC owners - has caused me to see using the DC as the ultimate exchange mechanism as a somewhat less likely outcome. The other "gotcha" in that approach is VSN members would be obligated to pay their annual VSN membership fee *plus* the annual DC membership fee to play in both systems. I don't see that happening. The VSN system is so large they can't treat it the same way. They could maybe get away with it for a new small affiliate, but I think they need a more elegant/fair solution for a system the size of VSN. Also, a difference with the HGVC example is MVW now owns VSN whereas HGVC doesn't own their affiliates. I think that means we may actually see a more integrated approach between the MVC and VSN brands.
> 
> The only similar situation since the origin of the DC in 2010 might be when Marriott added the Ritz Clubs and the MVC Asia/Pacific Resorts to the full DC. Both the Ritz and A/P programs had their own internal exchange programs prior to being merged into the DC. I don't know how that was handled, but I'm sure there are some TUGgers somewhere who can offer some insight into that process. That might be our only window into the thinking of MVC management, but since those were both much smaller programs, the solutions chosen there might not be applicable to the VSN scenario.



When HGVC acquires an affiliate do you mean a new resort or whole new system? Adding a single resort is a simpler process and making them pay up would make sense. If they are adding an affiliate they don’t own then it absolutely makes sense for them to pay to have access to other HGVC properties. By pay what do you mean? Buy in, as in purchase a new contract? Or pay a small fee or membership fee? The way VSN is set up it has nothing to do with exchanges but booking with points same as DC. So not sure how that affects adding them into the DC or a combined program would work out.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> TBut on a serious note, Did MVC and VSE agree their programs would merge? I get the sense that MVC owners think that’s the case. As if the two programs will have to combine at a certain point and it’s a certainty. But is that really the case? Was it officially said that is the plan by MVC or is that speculation that has turned to actual belief In these threads? I am of the belief they will run separately along side each other with an overlay option. It’s easier and offers more options.



We have no idea what Steve Weisz may have agreed to with Craig Nash about future direction, but that's irrelevant since Nash took his golden parachute and exited stage left. All we know is what Weisz told investors back in May: 

"Looking ahead to 2020, we have begun focusing on product enhancements for the various brands. Specifically, we are working hard to develop an integrated product form that can be leveraged across the Marriott, Westin, and Sheraton brands enhancing the overall value proposition for our owners and customers. It will take time to finalize and roll out this new product form. However, we are very excited about the potential it will provide and we look forward to updating you in the future as this work evolves.”

That's the only REAL official word. Everything else is speculation fueled by sales presentations.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Not really *within* the DC Exchange, but as an input to it. I modified my earlier diagram with a few blocks for VSN, showing graphically how that might be configured. Reality is probably more complex than this diagram, but it's complex enough as it is.
> 
> View attachment 13070
> 
> I've shown the VSN components in a line box to indicate they are already an internal exchange system of their own, whereas MVC did not have such an entity before the DC Exchange.


This is a great diagram and simplifies things to a degree but also adds a level of complexities. Personally I would add my options into a DC exchange if I couldn’t book what I wanted with MVC and only “convert” instantly if availability was there. I’d keep what I like which is Vistana and if I wanted to visit Aruba I’d wait to see what I got. Most likely I’d be able to get it with an II exchange and may be a better exchange. Same with MVC crossing over to book VSE resorts. The availability would be limited for MVC owners I would think. As you stated earlier, with VSE complex ownership types (man,vol,weeks,flex) how do you integrate all of the various inventory into a combined program? I think the solution is going to be simple and we won’t see a true combined one big program for many many years.

Point based ownership is the future, it’s beneficial to the developer not the owner. They can “adjust” point values although not common, it can happen. It’s more appealing to buyers and makes adding on easier. They can control costs across the board with valuations on a per point basis, and evenly disperse revenue across all resorts that are in need of upkeep. They could just make a master program with every resort loaded into it and make all of us buy in. They want to make money and Nothing is free.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> When HGVC acquires an affiliate do you mean a new resort or whole new system? Adding a single resort is a simpler process and making them pay up would make sense. If they are adding an affiliate they don’t own then it absolutely makes sense for them to pay to have access to other HGVC properties. By pay what do you mean? Buy in, as in purchase a new contract? Or pay a small fee or membership fee? The way VSN is set up it has nothing to do with exchanges but booking with points same as DC. So not sure how that affects adding them into the DC or a combined program would work out.



HGVC has an affiliation with Fiesta Americana which is a group of primarily Mexico resorts. The used to have an affiliation with Club Intrawest before it was bought by, I believe, Diamond and they eliminated the affiliation. They also have an affiliation with a couple of Grand Pacific Resorts (maybe not all?), but I don't think all GPP owners have to join HGVC. They also have affiliations with a whole slew of SW Florida resorts in Sanibel, Captiva, Marco Island, and Ft Myers, as well as a bunch of hotels in Japan. Not sure what those owners have to pay to access HGVC, but as HGVC owners, we don't pay more when new affiliate groups are added or less when they leave.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> We have no idea what Steve Weisz may have agreed to with Craig Nash about future direction, but that's irrelevant since Nash took his golden parachute and exited stage left. All we know is what Weisz told investors back in May:
> 
> "Looking ahead to 2020, we have begun focusing on product enhancements for the various brands. Specifically, we are working hard to develop an integrated product form that can be leveraged across the Marriott, Westin, and Sheraton brands enhancing the overall value proposition for our owners and customers. It will take time to finalize and roll out this new product form. However, we are very excited about the potential it will provide and we look forward to updating you in the future as this work evolves.”
> 
> That's the only REAL official word. Everything else is speculation fueled by sales presentations.


Yes, he def exited stage left lol. I read that as enhancements to current offerings and integrate them on a limited basis, but you can also deduce that it will combine them into a brand NEW product. We shall see I guess.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> HGVC has an affiliation with Fiesta Americana which is a group of primarily Mexico resorts. The used to have an affiliation with Club Intrawest before it was bought by, I believe, Diamond and they eliminate the affiliation. They also have an affiliation with a couple of Grand Pacific Resorts (maybe not all?), but I don't think all GPP owners have to join HGVC. They also have affiliations with a whole slew of SW Florida resorts in Sanibel, Captiva, Marco Island, and Ft Myers, as well as a bunch of hotels in Japan. Not sure what those owners have to pay to access HGVC, but as HGVC owners, we don't pay more when new affiliate groups are added or less when they leave.


I’d need to learn more about HGVC. I’m interested in Caribbean destination and it seems smaller resorts and lesser programs have a lot more footprint. Vistana has two, MVC has 2-3? besides PR does HGVC have anything decent? I need to get to Aruba Ocean Club. See how I like it.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> This is great, and yes i know is satire. But on a serious note, Did MVC and VSE agree their programs would merge? I get the sense that MVC owners think that’s the case. As if the two programs will have to combine at a certain point and it’s a certainty. But is that really the case? Was it officially said that is the plan by MVC or is that speculation that has turned to actual belief In these threads? I am of the belief they will run separately along side each other with an overlay option. It’s easier and offers more options.
> 
> It’s a good thing you put “fake” on there or you run the risk of being warned officially. JS



Unlike a merger (where an agreement would be required), this was an acquisition. Whatever happens won't require the agreement of VSE (although, hopefully MVC will consider input from VSE leadership as part of their decision making process). I think it would be a mistake to ignore VSE management input.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> I’d need to learn more about HGVC. I’m interested in Caribbean destination and it seems smaller resorts and lesser programs have a lot more footprint. Vistana has two, MVC has 2-3? besides PR does HGVC have anything decent? I need to get to Aruba Ocean Club. See how I like it.



HGVC only has a new affiliation with The Crane in Barbados and they are building some new units there. That is their only Caribbean presence.

Just to be clear, HGVC is Hilton Grand Vacation Club. You mentioned Puerto Rico, so I'm thinking you thought this was a reference to Hyatt - because of the "H"


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

kds4 said:


> Unlike a merger (where an agreement would be required), this was an acquisition. Whatever happens won't require the agreement of VSE (although, hopefully MVC will consider input from VSE leadership as part of their decision making process). I think it would be a mistake to ignore VSE management input.



The question is how much VSE leadership is really left? Out of the top 11 execs at MVW, 10 are from legacy MVW. The only ILG person left is the EVP over Exchange and Third Party Management. Undoubtedly there are managers below those top execs that remain from the ILG side, but how many left with the top execs? I have no idea how senior the most senior former VSE exec is.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

kds4 said:


> Unlike a merger (where an agreement would be required), this was an acquisition. Whatever happens won't require the agreement of VSE (although, hopefully MVC will consider input from VSE leadership as part of their decision making process). I think it would be a mistake to ignore VSE management input.


That has been repeated over again, we understand this was an acquisition. Regardless of VSE input, is it even in MVC management interest to combine VSN into the DC program? What advantages would it be to do that? If they did that they would be stripping away VSN ownership and forcing owners to buy into the DC program. I can assure you many would just walk away than spent thousands more. 

My original question to it all was if having one program whether it be DC or something else was the main goal of MVC or just own VSN for control the market with many offerings over its competitors.   I agree though, it would be a mistake to ignore VSE management input or make decisions that only benefit one set of owners. This is a generalization based off posts I’ve read here but It seems that MVC owners feel that MVC management feels that they have allegiance to only those owners. MVC now sees all owners as potential customers now and in the future. Customers they want to make Happy. Happy customers buy more, happy customers tell would be new customers how happy they are, making potential new buyers more likely to buy. Alienating customers because they didn’t buy DC ten years ago isn’t a wise business move. That’s just my opinion. I could be very wrong. Yes, when things change some will lose some benefits they were accustomed to and not everyone will be happy. But I don’t see ALL VSN customers getting the screw and being forced to buy more.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> HGVC only has a new affiliation with The Crane in Barbados and they are building some new units there. That is their only Caribbean presence.
> 
> Just be be clear, HGVC is Hilton Grand Vacation Club. You mentioned Puerto Rico, so I'm thinking you thought this was a reference to Hyatt - because of the "H"


Ahh Yes yes I know it’s hilton but completely mixed up the resort in PR. I thought it was a Hilton. Correct I was researching both club destinations around the same time and confused the resort in PR. I think that’s why Hilton didn’t appeal to me. I wanted more Caribbean options. Truthfully the only MVC I’ve ever had an interest in is Aruba and the Orlando properties.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> That has been repeated over again, we understand this was an acquisition. Regardless of VSE input, is it even in MVC management interest to combine VSN into the DC program? What advantages would it be to do that? If they did that they would be stripping away VSN ownership and forcing owners to buy into the DC program. I can assure you many would just walk away then spent thousands more. My original question to it all was if having one program whether it be DC or something else be the main goal of MVC or just own VSN for control the market with many offerings over its competitors.   I agree though, it would be a mistake to ignore VSE management input or make decisions that only benefit one set of owners. This is a generalization based off posts I’ve read here but It seems that MVC owners feel that MVC management feels that they have allegiance to only those owners. MVC now sees all owners as potential customers now and in the future. Customers they want to make Happy. Happy customers buy more, happy customers tell would be new customers how happy they are, making potential new buyers more likely to buy. Alienating customers because they didn’t buy DC ten years ago isn’t a wise business move. That’s just my opinion. I could be very wrong. Yes when things change some will lose some benefits they were accustomed to and not everyone will be happy. But I don’t see ALL VSN customers getting the screw and being forced to buy more.



Those are all good questions, I don't think anyone can do more than speculate on from the limited public statements that have been made. I would hope they take no action that diminishes anyone's ownership. Every VSN owner should keep all the usage options they currently have, and if there is a way to offer optional enhancements (with or without owner costs), MVC should be trying to bring it about the same as for the rest of the MVC ownership base. I'm opposed to anyone getting the screw.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

kds4 said:


> Those are all good questions, I don't think anyone can do more than speculate on from the limited public statements that have been made. I would hope they take no action that diminishes anyone's ownership. Every VSN owner should keep all the usage options they currently have, and if there is a way to offer optional enhancements (with or without owner costs), MVC should be trying to bring it about the same as for the rest of the MVC ownership base. I'm opposed to anyone getting the screw.



Agreed I also hope no action is taken that diminishes and I truthfully don’t think it would. I would think because of VSN complexities in a well established program it would be hard to just kill it. I think we will see enhancements where both sides can benefit access in some way to affiliate resorts. In the end buying more would make everyone happy. Of course this could only apply to those currently enrolled in the Vistana and DC networks. Voluntary deeds that do not have access to the VSN or legacy week owners not enrolled in DC would still have the issues and would have to buy more to re enroll


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> The question is how much VSE leadership is really left? Out of the top 11 execs at MVW, 10 are from legacy MVW. The only ILG person left is the EVP over Exchange and Third Party Management. Undoubtedly there are managers below those top execs that remain from the ILG side, but how many left with the top execs? I have no idea how senior the most senior former VSE exec is.


You would know, is Marriott Aruba ocean or surf club part of the DC program? Or are there specific resorts not included or is every MVC resort included to book at 13 months?


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> You would know, is Marriott Aruba ocean or surf club part of the DC program? Or are there specific resorts not included or is every MVC resort included to book at 13 months?



Yes. All MVC resorts - including the two in Aruba - participate through the DC Exchange. Since they are not in the U.S., the DC Trust cannot own Aruba inventory, but Aruba owners can enroll their weeks in the DC and elect for points. When they do so, their week becomes available to book through the Exchange. Select Owners and above can access inventory at 13 months (Standard owners can also access 13-month inventory, but they have to pay a 20% additional point premium). They key is MVC doesn't release 100% of the inventory at 13 months. They hold back some % (varies) to release at 12 months. Many have reported availability is not that good right at 13 months and the inventory trickles in over the next 30 days and then there is a big drop right at 12 months.

Since Aruba has no Trust inventory and is dependent on owner elections, it can be tougher to book Aruba through the DC than somewhere like Hawaii where there is a lot of Trust inventory.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Yes. All MVC resorts - including the two in Aruba - participate through the DC Exchange. Since they are not in the U.S., the DC Trust cannot own Aruba inventory, but Aruba owners can enroll their weeks in the DC and elect for points. When they do so, their week becomes available to book through the Exchange. Select Owners and above can access inventory at 13 months (Standard owners can also access 13-month inventory, but they have to pay a 20% additional point premium). They key is MVC doesn't release 100% of the inventory at 13 months. They hold back some % (varies) to release at 12 months. Many have reported availability is not that good right at 13 months and the inventory trickles in over the next 30 days and then there is a big drop right at 12 months.
> 
> Since Aruba has no Trust inventory and is dependent on owner elections, it can be tougher to book Aruba through the DC than somewhere like Hawaii where there is a lot of Trust inventory.


Hmm is that for all non US resorts? I wonder if this is a factor in how the Sheraton and Westin flex programs are set up. Harborside and the Mexico properties are not part of any flex programs. However they created a separate flex for Mexico properties. I wonder how harborside resort works out in all of this. That’s truly the only resort I care about. Once that leaves, I can give up my ownerships. So for Aruba there is probably a better chance to get it through II than DC?


----------



## bazzap (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> As you note in your Fake News release, there is an implied inequity in that approach, but if Wyndham chose to charge MVC owners for access to the Wyndham system, they couldn't guarantee Wyndham owners how much MVC availability will find its way into the Wyndham system. I know I probably wouldn't join to access the Wyndham locations. So, in that scenario, I really couldn't see them having much latitude to charge Wyndham owners for access to what might be phantom MVC inventory. As a result, if the approach your Fake News suggests were to happen, it might work exactly that way. MVC pays to play but Wyndham doesn't. That's essentially how it works today if HGVC adds a new affiliate - the affiliate owners have to pay to join HGVC, but HGVC owners get automatic access to the affiliate inventory for "free."
> 
> But as we've chewed on this for the last two weeks or so, that implied inequity above - i.e. - if they use the DC as the Exchange mechanism (the solution implied by my diagram above in post #91), they could never guarantee how much VSN inventory would be made available to MVC owners - has caused me to see using the DC as the ultimate exchange mechanism as a somewhat less likely outcome. The other "gotcha" in that approach is VSN members would be obligated to pay their annual VSN membership fee *plus* the annual DC membership fee to play in both systems. I don't see that happening. They could maybe get away with it for a new small affiliate, but I think they need a more elegant/fair solution for a system the size of VSN. Also, a difference with the HGVC example is MVW now owns VSN whereas HGVC doesn't own their affiliates. I think that means we may actually see a more integrated approach between the MVC and VSN brands.
> 
> The only similar situation since the origin of the DC in 2010 might be when Marriott added the Ritz Clubs and the MVC Asia/Pacific Resorts to the full DC. Both the Ritz and A/P programs had their own internal exchange programs prior to being merged into the DC. I don't know how that was handled, but I'm sure there are some TUGgers somewhere who can offer some insight into that process. That might be our only window into the thinking of MVC management, but since those were both much smaller programs, the solutions chosen there might not be applicable to the VSN scenario.


The MVC Asia Pacific (MVCIAP) programme has two main aspects
AP points owners
For them the programme continues separately from the MVC DC Points programme, but these have now been aligned and interwork giving access for owners in either Points programme access to all worldwide resorts...
Weeks owners in Asia Pacific region
For them, they previously had the option to pay to “overlay” their weeks into the AP Points programme.
Some did, some like us did not.
From August 2016, as I recall, both could enrol those weeks in the DC Points programme (for a fee, unless like us we had already paid a fee to enrol other non Asia Pacific weeks)
However, for those who had “overlayed” their week, they had to terminate that ”overlay” in AP before being able to enrol in DC.
Yes, complicated I know but it does sort of work OK.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

.


----------



## Fasttr (Jul 27, 2019)

bazzap said:


> The MVC Asia Pacific (MVCIAP) programme has two main aspects
> AP points owners
> For them the programme continues separately from the MVC DC Points programme, but these have now been aligned and interwork giving access for owners in either Points programme access to all worldwide resorts...
> Weeks owners in Asia Pacific region
> ...


Curious if the needed points if booking a DC ressie into an AP resort are the same, better, or worse that if you still had the ability to book that same resort solely in the AP system.  Did the DC skim more?


----------



## bazzap (Jul 27, 2019)

Fasttr said:


> Curious if the needed points if booking a DC ressie into an AP resort are the same, better, or worse that if you still had the ability to book that same resort solely in the AP system.  Did the DC skim more?


Perhaps rather surprisingly, with the exception of just Christmas / New Year / Chinese New Year weeks, there is no skim at all, so we can elect our Phuket weeks for DC points and book back into our home resort in every other week of our own Platinum season for exactly the same number of points.


----------



## DannyTS (Jul 27, 2019)

bazzap said:


> The MVC Asia Pacific (MVCIAP) programme has two main aspects
> AP points owners
> For them the programme continues separately from the MVC DC Points programme, but these have now been aligned and interwork giving access for owners in either Points programme access to all worldwide resorts...
> Weeks owners in Asia Pacific region
> ...


Interesting. Say for the sake of the argument they would give Vistana owners the same option, to enroll in DC and give up their affiliation with VSN. How would it work with the mandatory weeks? Even if the owner agreed to renounce VCS, would they be able to do that?


----------



## bazzap (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Interesting. Say for the sake of the argument they would give Vistana owners the same option, to enroll in DC and give up their affiliation with VSN. How would it work with the mandatory weeks? Even if the owner agreed to renounce VCS, would they be able to do that?


All I can say is that the MVC AP Points programme actually pre-dated the DC Points programme and they wrestled for many years with the issues of if/how they could “integrate” them before finding the reasonable middle ground option they eventually introduced.
I certainly wouldn’t underestimate the complexity and time it will take them to address the Vistana / VSN / VCS... challenge.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

DannyTS said:


> Interesting. Say for the sake of the argument they would give Vistana owners the same option, to enroll in DC and give up their affiliation with VSN. How would it work with the mandatory weeks? Even if the owner agreed to renounce VCS, would they be able to do that?


I don’t think anyone who has mandatory weeks would give that up to be in DC program. Especially when many of us are paying lower maint fees than we would in a DC program. If we have to pay to enroll, I can speak for certainty I wouldn’t. Maybe the flex owners who can be compared to the AP points owners may want to “overlay” their ownership to get the best of all resorts.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

CPNY said:


> I don’t think anyone who has mandatory weeks would give that up to be in DC program. Especially when many of us are paying lower maint fees than we would in a DC program. If we have to pay to enroll, I can speak for certainty I wouldn’t. Maybe the flex owners who can be compared to the AP points owners may want to “overlay” their ownership to get the best of all resorts.



When you enroll a week into DC your MF doesn't change. You don't give up your week. If your MF is $1300, it stays at $1300. You cost per point is then the MF divided by the point value of that week. It's only Trust points that have the blended MF of $0.58 per point. It's actually the same as is the case in the VSN Flex Trusts and your weeks with StarOptions. Those Trusts' MF are a blend of all the properties inside the Trust. Your week has its own MF. You can calculate a MF cost per StarOption for both, but the week cost per Option will be different than the MF cost per Option for the Flex Trust.

So IF you guys are given an enrollment or DC option, you wouldn't have to turn in or  "give up" your mandatory week to play in the DC. But if they required you to "renounce" VSN would the mandatory rights you have with that week (when you resell it) transfer to the DC? Who knows?


----------



## pchung6 (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> So IF you guys are given an enrollment or DC option, you wouldn't have to turn in or  "give up" your mandatory week to play in the DC. But if they required you to "renounce" VSN would the mandatory rights you have with that week (when you resell it) transfer to the DC? Who knows?



If that’s the case, DC won’t get much of good weeks from low MF resorts, like Cancun, WKV, Riverfront high season. The owners for these places will be better off just trade internally with star options. Perhaps Nanea or Princeville owners might trade DC because higher DC points can justify the trade in value. Both WKORN and St John won’t either if it means they will lose mandatory status.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 27, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> When you enroll a week into DC your MF doesn't change. You don't give up your week. If your MF is $1300, it stays at $1300. You cost per point is then the MF divided by the point value of that week. It's only Trust points that have the blended MF of $0.58 per point. It's actually the same as is the case in the VSN Flex Trusts and your weeks with StarOptions. Those Trusts' MF are a blend of all the properties inside the Trust. Your week has its own MF. You can calculate a MF cost per StarOption for both, but the week cost per Option will be different than the MF cost per Option for the Flex Trust.
> 
> So IF you guys are given an enrollment or DC option, you wouldn't have to turn in or  "give up" your mandatory week to play in the DC. But if they required you to "renounce" VSN would the mandatory rights you have with that week (when you resell it) transfer to the DC? Who knows?


I think I was speaking if they made us give back our deeded weeks like they are doing with flex. Well they aren’t making anyone give them back but if they offer a buy back which they have been aggressively doing.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 27, 2019)

pchung6 said:


> If that’s the case, DC won’t get much of good weeks from low MF resorts, like Cancun, WKV, Riverfront high season. The owners for these places will be better off just trade internally with star options. Perhaps Nanea or Princeville owners might trade DC because higher DC points can justify the trade in value. Both WKORN and St John won’t either if it means they will lose mandatory status.



No way to know how they will handle all that, but I would be shocked if they tried to get people to give up that mandatory status. They are smart enough to know they can't hack off big chunks of owners. If they take something like that away, they better give something huge in return. I think (hope) they know that. As I've said before, VSE has so many variations of their product it's going to be tough for MVW to sort it all out.

I came into all of these discussions thinking they would just use the DC, but as I've heard all of the arguments on each side, I now don't think it's that simple. My gut feel is their ultimate goal might be to create a true unified program since that is what the hotel company did with Bonvoy (implementation struggles notwithstanding), but to do that, they will need to build something really good that both the VSN and MVC side will see as a positive. That's what they did in 2010 with the intro of the DC, so I hope they take their time and do this right.

Maybe CPNY's original idea of some sort of interim exchange program using II infrastructure, but hopefully built more as a discrete internal Exchange program with some features regular II doesn't have (like real time deposits, reservation windows, and search) could serve as a temporary step to allow some exchanges between the programs until they can figure out how to preserve all the benefits both VSN and DC have in a truly combined system.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 28, 2019)

CPNY said:


> I think I was speaking if they made us give back our deeded weeks like they are doing with flex. Well they aren’t making anyone give them back but if they offer a buy back which they have been aggressively doing.



MVC hasn't had to do the aggressive buy back route to get weeks into the DC Trust or to get people to buy the Trust points. That may be because they didn't have a points system prior to the DC, so the appeal of a points system has been enough to get that product going and people willing to buy Trust points. With VSN, they already had a great points system, so I'm sure it's been harder to sell the Flex programs. I don't envy MVW having to sort all of this out.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 28, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> No way to know how they will handle all that, but I would be shocked if they tried to get people to give up that mandatory status. They are smart enough to know they can't hack off big chunks of owners. If they take something like that away, they better give something huge in return. I think (hope) they know that. As I've said before, VSE has so many variations of their product it's going to be tough for MVW to sort it all out.
> 
> I came into all of these discussions thinking they would just use the DC, but as I've heard all of the arguments on each side, I now don't think it's that simple. My gut feel is their ultimate goal might be to create a true unified program since that is what the hotel company did with Bonvoy (implementation struggles notwithstanding), but to do that, they will need to build something really good that both the VSN and MVC side will see as a positive. That's what they did in 2010 with the intro of the DC, so I hope they take their time and do this right.
> 
> Maybe CPNY's original idea of some sort of interim exchange program using II infrastructure, but hopefully built more as a discrete internal Exchange program with some features regular II doesn't have (like real time deposits, reservation windows, and search) could serve as a temporary step to allow some exchanges between the programs until they can figure out how to preserve all the benefits both VSN and DC have in a truly combined system.


My orig idea the one in which I was warned about putting out there threads ago was just that, real time, in II Interface, discrete only enrolled owners can see, assigned points based on conversion rate or DC points and SO etc. but I will say to your first point about being shocked if they tried to get ppl to give up mandatory status. They actively are. They were offering money for the deed. I was offered 25K (monopoly money) for my mandatory deed to go toward the purchase of a flex plan. I played along like I was so shocked and happy I was getting that much money for it (just to think they were getting a sale) lol.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 28, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> MVC hasn't had to do the aggressive buy back route to get weeks into the DC Trust or to get people to buy the Trust points. That may be because they didn't have a points system prior to the DC, so the appeal of a points system has been enough to get that product going and people willing to buy Trust points. With VSN, they already had a great points system, so I'm sure it's been harder to sell the Flex programs. I don't envy MVW having to sort all of this out.


Yeah, I do love the mandatory deeds lol. If the harborside maint fee wasn’t so high that’s all I’d own and I’d only go there. Once they restrict access to HRA by removing it from the program or removing the resorts i own from the network somehow, that’s the day I sell out. I bid on another mandatory deed today on eBay. Kind of glad I didn’t win it.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 28, 2019)

CPNY said:


> My orig idea the one in which I was warned about putting out there threads ago was just that, real time, in II Interface, discrete only enrolled owners can see, assigned points based on conversion rate or DC points and SO etc. but I will say to your first point about being shocked if they tried to get ppl to give up mandatory status. They actively are. They were offering money for the deed. I was offered 25K (monopoly money) for my mandatory deed to go toward the purchase of a flex plan. I played along like I was so shocked and happy I was getting that much money for it (just to think they were getting a sale) lol.



Yeah, but that's more them trying to sell/convince you to go that route. I interpreted some of the other comments about them trying to force people out of their mandatory deeds as more of a heavy-handed approach. I could see them trying to use the carrot approach you described, but don't see them using a more heavy-handed "stick" approach.


----------



## CPNY (Jul 28, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> Yeah, but that's more them trying to sell/convince you to go that route. I interpreted some of the other comments about them trying to force people out of their mandatory deeds as more of a heavy-handed approach. I could see them trying to use the carrot approach you described, but don't see them using a more heavy-handed "stick" approach.


Completely agree. As a matter of fact, the sales rep unprovoked, congratulated me on doing a good job picking up mandatory deeds. I tried selling him back my HRA but he said they weren’t touching those. Not sure if it’s because of the Bahamian lawyer fee being so high or the fact the maint is so high. But they were ready and willing to buy my Orlando deeds. HRA in his words was the “crown jewel” of the network. So i asked why they wouldn’t want to buy back the crown jewel!?


----------

