# DC/Abound Inventory "Hidden" Restrictions?



## DanCali (Oct 8, 2022)

As far as I know the only official restriction on booking is minimum 3-nights at Ritz St. Thomas. 

In another thread which is now closed to further replies I raised the possibility of there being (possibly abound) unofficial artificial restrictions on booking in Abound (pun intended). The example I gave is that a 7-night stay is available, but an overlapping 5-night stay is not available. Another tugger suggested this may be a weeks/trust thing, but I've seen it in cases where 4-nights are available, but 2-nights are not available, and it seems to have to do more with preventing owners from booking just "cheap" nights (Sun-Thu). I've seen this primarily at NCV, which is where I look the most, but am curious if others have seen other examples of this. 

This, it seems to me, goes against the spirit of the "book 1+ nights at 13 months out" because it's more like "book 1+ nights at 13 months out, but only if we let you, and we won't tell you the complete set of restrictions". There may be some convoluted ways to get around this like booking the longer stay (if you have the points) and then shortening it but:

(i) to many, it's very unintuitive to look for 7 nights when they tell you that you can't even book the 5 nights you want
(ii) you may not have the points to book the longer stay, which would typically involve expensive weekend nights
(iii) it still goes against what they represent in the Elite brochures with "book 1+ nights" (although one can make a "greater good" argument, and this helping prevent broken weeks)

I'm curious how prevalent this is... so here is an example to get started.* Feel free to include your own sightings of similar restricted bookings at other resorts.* Perhaps it's limited to NVC only?

In the example below, a 4-night stay is available on July 5 and on July 12, but 2-nights stays are not available on those dates. As suggested above, this prevents booking without a Friday or Saturday during peak times. It's definitely not an "official" restriction, but it seems to apply to many weeks with higher demand at NCV.


----------



## Wanderlustgrl (Oct 8, 2022)

DanCali said:


> As far as I know the only official restriction on booking is minimum 3-nights at Ritz St. Thomas.
> 
> In another thread which is now closed to further replies I raised the possibility of there being (possibly abound) unofficial artificial restrictions on booking in Abound (pun intended). The example I gave is that a 7-night stay is available, but an overlapping 5-night stay is not available. Another tugger suggested this may be a weeks/trust thing, but I've seen it in cases where 4-nights are available, but 2-nights are not available, and it seems to have to do more with preventing owners from booking just "cheap" nights (Sun-Thu). I've seen this primarily at NCV, which is where I look the most, but am curious if others have seen other examples of this.
> 
> ...


What happens when you call? Have you tried to book the 4 nights and call and modify it down to 2? Just out of curiosity. I would think that there is a chance they are using week inventory that perhaps someone split to do 5 days 4 nights and they are making it available for pts booking but don’t want to break it up like you mentioned. There are a lot of weeks owners there so from what I’ve understood and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong there isn’t a lot of trust inventory and we wait for owners who have weeks to elect for pts


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 8, 2022)

Stumbled across an oddball one last night.  Was looking at Ocean Pointe for mid December this year.  But the week starting on Dec 25, 2022 jumped out at me.  That week is only available if you book 8 or more nights with a check in any date between Dec 25 and Dec 31, 2022.  If you select any #nights below 8, that weeks shows no availability on any check in date.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 8, 2022)

Wanderlustgrl said:


> What happens when you call? Have you tried to book the 4 nights and call and modify it down to 2? Just out of curiosity.



If you did that then you will likely get what you wanted but, as noted in the original post, there are several issues with that solution, most notably:

(i) If an owner wants 2 nights starting July 12 and sees no availability, it's not really logical to even check for 4 nights starting July 12 because why would that be available? It doesn't even make sense to look...

(ii) You need to have the points to book the 4 nights to begin with. At NCV for (non 4th of) July weeks , two midweek nights Wed-Fri would cost you 950 points, but Wed-Sun would cost you 3300 points. So you need an extra 2350 points on top of the 950 you presumably have to even have the option to go that route. That's an extra 250% in points to be able to book the long stay...


----------



## DanCali (Oct 8, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> Stumbled across an oddball one last night.  Was looking at Ocean Pointe for mid December this year.  But the week starting on Dec 25, 2022 jumped out at me.  That week is only available if you book 8 or more nights with a check in any date between Dec 25 and Dec 31, 2022.  If you select any #nights below 8, that weeks shows no availability on any check in date.



Yep, I see what you mean. This is exactly the type of thing I am referring to. Not sure in this case if it has to do with the turn of the year, week 53 inventory etc, but it illustrates the point well. Surely, if you can book 8 nights in a 1BR starting December 25, then 5 nights should also technically be available, no?

It's consistent with what I've seen where this is done for high-demand and/or holiday weeks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 8, 2022)

While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;

_6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. _*In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.*


----------



## DanCali (Oct 8, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;
> 
> _6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. _*In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.*



So you are saying that they basically gave themselves permission to do anything they want, whenever they want, at their own discretion, without any additional disclosures to owners?  

I'll rename the thread to better reflect what might be going on.


----------



## timsi (Oct 8, 2022)

DanCali said:


> So you are saying that they basically gave themselves permission to do anything they want, whenever they want, at their own discretion, without any additional disclosures to owners?


The Abound Exchange Procedures is a 33-page document, and it mentions "sole discretion" 64 times!


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 8, 2022)

It seems to me the significant skim that Marriott takes from weeks owners electing points should be enough to cover breakage on weeks inventory without adding hidden rules.

If they're going to add restrictions they should be transparent. They don't mention them because they are charging plenty for 1 night access, so admitting they aren't actually offering that would hurt sales.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 8, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;
> 
> _6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. _*In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.*


And that additional wording you bolded was not on the prior version of the Exchange Procedures…. which tells me they plan on doing more of it, not less.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 8, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> And that additional wording you bolded was not on the prior version of the Exchange Procedures…. which tells me they plan on doing more of it, not less.


Prior versions had this, just in a different section. It looks like it still exists in the same section in the most recent version;

_Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length- of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period._


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 8, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Prior versions had this, just in a different section. It looks like it still exists in the same section in the most recent version;
> 
> _Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length- of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period._


But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("_as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule")_ , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them.  So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere.  In essence, they have covered their A$$es.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 8, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("_as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule")_ , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them.  So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere.  In essence, they have covered their A$$es.




I got the same impression.

The points charts for Ritz St. Thomas do mention a minimum stay in a footnote. I haven't seen anything else.





And I don't see any asterisk next to this much touted benefit:


----------



## timsi (Oct 8, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> It seems to me the significant skim that Marriott takes from weeks owners electing points should be enough to cover breakage on weeks inventory without adding hidden rules.
> 
> If they're going to add restrictions they should be transparent. They don't mention them because they are charging plenty for 1 night access, so admitting they aren't actually offering that would hurt sales.


Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 8, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("_as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule")_ , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them.  So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere.  In essence, they have covered their A$$es.


They are covering themselves better with the new language, but I still see it covered in the previous language "_and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets *or at* certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule."_

I think the *"or at"* means applicable to both.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 8, 2022)

timsi said:


> Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.


Skim is just a hidden fee. HGVC has booking fees to mitigate breakage and Vistana has (soon to be had) housekeeping fees to possibly limit too many short stays.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 8, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> They are covering themselves better with the new language, but I still see it covered in the previous language "_and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets *or at* certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule."_
> 
> I think the *"or at"* means applicable to both.


In reality, regardless of how we may interpret that specific language.... in section VII. C. Amendments....they specifically reserve their right to amend the Exchange Procedures for the following situations specific to what we are discussing in this thread.

6.  restricting the number of weeks or days that may be reserved for holiday, weekend, event, or other high demand Use Periods;

9.  restricting the number of Program Members that are permitted to check-in on certain days at a given Component;

22.  establishing a reservation priority system based on, among other things, length of stay;

23.  establishing requirements to reserve certain days in combination with one another (e.g., requiring Program Members to reserve Friday in order to reserve the following Saturday);

29.  creating restrictions or limitations on the reservation of weekend days on a Component-by-Component basis;

31.  altering the minimum length of stay required for reservations of certain Use Periods and requiring minimum length of stay for certain Accommodations;

34.  taking any other action or implementing any such change as Exchange Company deems, in its reasonable discretion, to be beneficial to the Program as a whole or to more equitably allocate the benefits and privileges of the Program among the categories of Program Members.


----------



## timsi (Oct 8, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Skim is just a hidden fee. HGVC has booking fees to mitigate breakage and Vistana has (soon to be had) housekeeping fees to possibly limit too many short stays.


Except the Hk fee is paid to the resort currently, not to Marriott if I am not mistaken


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 8, 2022)

timsi said:


> Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.



I asked a salesperson and they said the skim was to cover breakage. Obviously not a great source but they are using that as an excuse for the skim.

Either way they should publish what the rules actually are - it is very dishonest to say "book 1 night" and then have undisclosed restrictions


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 8, 2022)

I think the problem isn’t the “hidden” rules which I reality are written and in plain site. The issue is the sales team not disclosing the truth, or glazing over the negatives while emphasizing the positives. 
experienced tugger’s spot the sales teams misrepresentations while the general public just feels cheated and lied too


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 8, 2022)

dougp26364 said:


> I think the problem isn’t the “hidden” rules which I reality are written and in plain site. The issue is the sales team not disclosing the truth, or glazing over the negatives while emphasizing the positives.
> experienced tugger’s spot the sales teams misrepresentations while the general public just feels cheated and lied too



I don't believe there is any place to see the minimum stays for different resorts/times other than trial and error?

And if you hit one it doesn't say "5 night minimum stay" it just says no availability.

I can't think of any way those rules could be more hidden while still enforcing them.


----------



## timsi (Oct 8, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> In reality, regardless of how we may interpret that specific language.... in section VII. C. Amendments....they specifically reserve their right to amend the Exchange Procedures for the following situations specific to what we are discussing in this thread.
> 
> 6.  restricting the number of weeks or days that may be reserved for holiday, weekend, event, or other high demand Use Periods;
> 
> ...


The issue is that the details of those procedures are not in writing, and not that they cannot be changed. Of course, it is part of how they operate, how can owners challenge them when it is almost impossible to demonstrate what is going on?

As I said before, Marriott loves to gather the broadest powers possible.
Instead of saying that the deposits will be used only for exchanges, the Abound Procedures state:

"Exchange Company (or its designees) shall have the exclusive right to utilize *Exchange Points assigned to Exchange Company’s Interests* or any other Exchange Points that Exchange Company is entitled to use for any purpose in its sole discretion, including, but not limited to, *(i)* the purposes of customer relations, public relations and employee relations; *(ii)* marketing, promoting, and selling of the Program, Interests, vacation ownership interests, programs, or vacation products at other  resort condominiums or club resorts, or such other vacation ownership, multisite vacation ownership and membership or exchange plans developed, managed or marketed by Exchange Company or its affiliates from time to time; *(iii)* utilizing Use Periods or Exchange Points in manners which will enhance or expand the Program or any Affiliate Program; or *(iv)* the purpose of renting unreserved Use Periods to third parties, the revenue for which shall benefit the Exchange Company or its affiliates. Exchange Company (or its designees) is specifically entitled to charge Program Members for the use of any Exchange Points that are owned by, allocated to or controlled by Exchange Company for the use of the Accommodations or other benefits offered or made available through the Affiliate Program Reservation System."


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 8, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> I don't believe there is any place to see the minimum stays for different resorts/times other than trial and error?
> 
> And if you hit one it doesn't say "5 night minimum stay" it just says no availability.
> 
> I can't think of any way those rules could be more hidden while still enforcing them.



I don’t disagree with you. In my opinion it’s a bunch of BS, especially when the sales team pushes the ability to book single nights. If they made it known on their website there would be a lot of owners complaining. As it is the average owner just assumes there’s nothing available and looks for something else to book


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Oct 8, 2022)

It's all about "profits to the bottom line".

Always has been, always will be.



.


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 8, 2022)

dougp26364 said:


> If they made it known on their website there would be a lot of owners complaining. As it is the average owner just assumes there’s nothing available and looks for something else to book



Exactly. It isn't that minimum stay restrictions are unreasonable. Except they've charged tens of thousands of to people for the right to make 1 night reservations, so if they were transparent about those restrictions those people would be naturally upset.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 9, 2022)

I agree the website should say “minimum stay required for these dates” instead of just passing the normal no availability messaging.

But aren’t these kinds of minimum stay restrictions generally used just for select dates that have very high demand? I assume on the issue of the skim having already compensated them for the breakage, so why put limits, MVC might say the skim balances the system for normal breakage 365 days a year, while the minimum stay rules prevent the highest demand periods from being broken to maximize 100% use for those special periods. Just pointing out that the two issues may not actually be duplicative or redundant.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 9, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> I agree the website should say “minimum stay required for these dates” instead of just passing the normal no availability messaging.
> 
> But aren’t these kinds of minimum stay restrictions generally used just for select dates that have very high demand? I assume on the issue of the skim having already compensated them for the breakage, so why put limits, MVC might say the skim balances the system for normal breakage 365 days a year, while the minimum stay rules prevent the highest demand periods from being broken to maximize 100% use for those special periods. Just pointing out that the two issues may not actually be duplicative or redundant.


But we are in October.  If the week between Christmas and New Years (2 months away), is in such high demand at Ocean Pointe, why is it still available this late in the year?  Seems at the very least, at some point, those restrictions need to be revisited and lifted as it gets nearer to check in.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 9, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> But we are in October.  If the week between Christmas and New Years (2 months away), is in such high demand at Ocean Pointe, why is it still available this late in the year?  Seems at the very least, at some point, those restrictions need to be revisited and lifted as it gets nearer to check in.


Yes, for sure. At some point limiting length of stay could become counter productive.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 9, 2022)

Perhaps they reintroduce these minimum stays when checkin dates get inside the discount window for higher level owners then relax it again as time passes?


----------



## winger (Oct 10, 2022)

I just (two weeks ago) made a two night stay for this upcoming weekend at Pulse SD by booking three nights and removing one (because two nights were not available). The first phone rep did not realize this was an option and had to get support to help with this. Support said (communicated to me through phone rep) that they normally do not do this, that they were only doing this as a one-time courtesy. 

I feel like this is getting out of hand


----------



## Pamplemousse (Oct 10, 2022)

I’ve always thought DC points were victims of their own design.
The beauty is you can book any number of days in any view you want.
But then that leads to orphan days that don’t line up with others in their view.
Makes it hard to book a week or longer string of days and MVC ends up with unbooked days.
So looks like they then make minimum stays to lessen the empty days.
Which is what worked well with booking full weeks to begin with.
Sounded good on paper, but does it really work?


----------



## DRH90277 (Oct 10, 2022)

Pamplemousse said:


> I’ve always thought DC points were victims of their own design.
> The beauty is you can book any number of days in any view you want.
> But then that leads to orphan days that don’t line up with others in their view.
> Makes it hard to book a week or longer string of days and MVC ends up with unbooked days.
> ...



I suspect this is one of the reasons I deposit a mid-July Newport platinum week for 3,475 points and would need 4,725 points to acquire that reservation - that's a 1,250 point difference.  I also pay $0.62 per point in maintenance fees on points versus $0.43 per point for my equivalent owned week.  The points system is less efficient and much more expensive to owners than the old system for weeks. This, coupled with a scarcity of reservations, might be why so many of us are buying resale weeks.  The VAC shareholders also need to profit.

I think in the absence of competition, the law might be there is an incremental cost/profit demanded for any change, breakage, etc.


----------



## Pamplemousse (Oct 10, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> I suspect this is one of the reasons I deposit a mid-July Newport platinum week for 3,475 points and would need 4,725 points to acquire that reservation - that's a 1,250 point difference.  I also pay $0.62 per point in maintenance fees on points versus $0.43 per point for my equivalent owned week.  The points system is less efficient and much more expensive to owners than the old system for weeks. This, coupled with a scarcity of reservations, might be why so many of us are buying resale weeks.  The VAC shareholders also need to profit.
> 
> I think in the absence of competition, the law might be there is an incremental cost/profit demanded for any change, breakage, etc.


Yes, the skim.
i don‘t know what MVC’s rational is for that- other than that they can do what they want.
I do know if you mention it to the sales staff they will tell you you aren’t going to book your owned week/season with points anyway.
If if the skim compensates MVC for the unbooked days it doesn’t help the users who want to book a stay of several days in the same unit.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

Pamplemousse said:


> Yes, the skim.
> i don‘t know what MVC’s rational is for that- other than that they can do what they want.
> *I do know if you mention it to the sales staff they will tell you you aren’t going to book your owned week/season with points anyway.*
> If if the skim compensates MVC for the unbooked days it doesn’t help the users who want to book a stay of several days in the same unit.


I am not sure how the sales staff came with this talking point. The skim applies to every deposit and makes both sides lose 6% (if that's the average)

Say I own resort A and I want to exchange into resort B and that the two resorts are equivalent in terms of value, and an owner needs an average of 10,000 points to book either. 
If I am only getting 9400 points from A I will not be able to book a week at B and will have to add 600 points from another source. Similarly, the owner of B will need an additional 600 points to book A. This exchange would cost us 1200 points even if the two weeks are supposed to be equal.


----------



## DRH90277 (Oct 16, 2022)

Pamplemousse said:


> Yes, the skim.
> i don‘t know what MVC’s rational is for that- other than that they can do what they want.
> I do know if you mention it to the sales staff they will tell you you aren’t going to book your owned week/season with points anyway.
> If if the skim compensates MVC for the unbooked days it doesn’t help the users who want to book a stay of several days in the same unit.



This drives me nuts!  The salespeople tout a program that does everything for everybody.  Of course, they have a list of pat answers to the known issues to be raised.  Of course, it's all about the sale.

I get really angry when I hear the stupid response to the inadequacy of the Trust inventory problem and the answer is about reliance on deposits of weeks from week owners.  I even see this excuse in this forum as if this is acceptable.  So, when we can't get our reservations what do we do?   Well, I buy resale weeks and avoid buying more points.  Wouldn't it be better if MVC bought a reasonable week position in high demand resorts rather than the cheap stuff?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I am not sure how the sales staff came with this talking point. The skim applies to every deposit and makes both sides lose 6% (if that's the average)
> 
> Say I own resort A and I want to exchange into resort B and that the two resorts are equivalent in terms of value, and an owner needs an average of 10,000 points to book either.
> If I am only getting 9400 points from A I will not be able to book a week at B and will have to add 600 points from another source. Similarly, the owner of B will need an additional 600 points to book A. This exchange would cost us 1200 points even if the two weeks are supposed to be equal.


When you're talking about the value of DC/Abound Points and exchanging (which exchanges are primarily the reason that a Weeks Owner would enroll in Abound,) another way to look at skim is in measuring the exchange value that you got out of Interval International with what you can get out of Abound. In my case, the skim that II took was far greater than what Abound takes.

I own 3BR Plat and Gold non-lock-offs at SurfWatch. The sales rep who sold them to me explained that they'd be very high-value deposits in II so we were pretty much guaranteed to get high-value exchanges out of them, especially if we deposited very early, but they'd most likely only pull 2BR deposits because there are very few 3BR non-lock-off units in the timeshare world and fewer still that get deposited. Plus, II never guarantees views so our oceanside and oceanvista ownerships meant nothing in II. And that's exactly how our historical exchanges had worked - we got what we asked for most times, but we didn't ask for equal value to our deposits because we knew we wouldn't get it. A couple examples, my Hilton Head summer season 3BR unit at a newer beachfront resort got me 2BR units at Waiohai on Kauai and Crystal Shores at Marco Island, but there's only one time I remember that we got anything more - and that was an II cert for lower-demand inventory that cost money. With every exchange I asked for those phantom XYZ Weeks that so many TUGgers talked about getting (which I think have since been discontinued?) but for whatever reason, they never were available when I asked.

When the DC/Abound came out I looked at the Points Charts and found that if I tried to copy my II exchange history with DC/Abound Points, every deposit I'd ever made would return the exact same II exchange I'd gotten PLUS leave me with a points surplus for additional stays - and that's with me choosing to book and guarantee unit views similar to my ownership. Also worth noting, the single annual DC/Abound Club Dues fee would be less than the per-transaction II fees I paid for those exchanges.

I don't disagree with you at all that skim is a factor when using the DC/Abound for exchanging to like-for-like inventory. But there are specific Weeks in which skim was ALWAYS a factor in II - we just didn't call it "skim" until the DC came out and everybody needed to find reasons to bash Marriott.  The fact is, for those specific ownerships the exchange value in Abound far exceeds II.

Repeating once more, there is no one single absolute that applies to every timeshare under the sun.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> This drives me nuts!  The salespeople tout a program that does everything for everybody.  Of course, they have a list of pat answers to the known issues to be raised.  Of course, it's all about the sale.
> 
> I get really angry when I hear the stupid response to the inadequacy of the Trust inventory problem and the answer is about reliance on deposits of weeks from week owners.  I even see this excuse in this forum as if this is acceptable.  So, when we can't get our reservations what do we do?   Well, I buy resale weeks and avoid buying more points. ...


I do not and never will understand the angst about the DC/Abound being reliant on the DC/Abound Exchange Company. For those of us who owned Weeks prior to its inception, the program is LITERALLY just another exchange option! It's even NAMED the "Exchange Company!" For those who purchase Trust Points, the Exchange Company is what allows Trust Members to directly book into inventory that has not been conveyed to the Trust! Without the Exchange Company the program wouldn't function as well as it does!

But I guess that makes us stupid marks who are too ignorant to recognize that Marriott is screwing us? By giving us exactly what they say they are giving us?!?! Yeah, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Granted, there are sales reps who traffic in misinformation that might lead a person to believe that the DC/Abound is a program "that does everything for everybody." But smart timeshare owners, and certainly timeshare owners who come to TUG for information, know that that's something that simply doesn't exist at all anywhere in the timeshare sphere. And I have to say, here on TUG the only people I see writing that there's an expectation that the DC/Abound will do "everything for everybody" are people like you and @timsi who claim without proof that it's what Marriott promises - seemingly only so that you'll have yet another reason to bash Marriott when Marriott doesn't deliver on a ridiculous claim.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

Gah, I am so aggravated at having to write "the DC/Abound" over and over and over and over again in this interim before Vistana is fully integrated! Fair Warning: as of this coming Thursday I'm leaving "DC" in the dust heap and using "Abound" for everything. Please please PLEASE don't make my head explode by asking for an explanation.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> ... Wouldn't it be better if MVC bought a reasonable week position in high demand resorts rather than the cheap stuff?



I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly but are you asking, wouldn't it be better if Marriott had access to and conveyed higher-demand intervals to the DC Trust?

If so, yes. Yes, of course! But if you know anything about the history of timeshare companies with Weeks-based programs getting in to Points-based programs, you'd know that the issue they all face is that high-demand intervals sell much easier than low-demand intervals. Marriott is not alone in overlaying a points program on top of a weeks program (although what they designed does have some innovative features that earlier points programs didn't have.)

So they all end up eventually with low-demand intervals that don't sell. Instead of simply discontinuing the Weeks program going forward and introducing Points programs for every new resort that came online, which would not solve the problem of unsold inventory languishing on the books, Marriott's solution was to design a combination program that would allow for all existing owners to play in the points playground while at the same time monetizing the inventory that was underperforming. And bonus, one component would function as a stand-alone exchange company to which any timeshare program could be invited to affiliate, allowing Marriott to reap the rewards of exchanges that had until then been happening externally.

And yes, if you look at the original seeding of the DC/Abound Trust, an overwhelming majority of the conveyed intervals were low-demand Weeks. But the Trust isn't a one-and-done deal, and conveyances are occurring on a routine basis. Anybody who wants to mine the Orange County FL public records can find proof of that. There are far more high-demand intervals in the Trust today than there were at its inception and we have no reason to think that Marriott won't continue to seed it through ROFR and other means of re-acquiring previously-sold inventory.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I do not and never will understand the angst about the DC/Abound being reliant on the DC/Abound Exchange Company. For those of us who owned Weeks prior to its inception, the program is LITERALLY just another exchange option! It's even NAMED the "Exchange Company!" For those who purchase Trust Points, the Exchange Company is what allows Trust Members to directly book into inventory that has not been conveyed to the Trust! Without the Exchange Company the program wouldn't function as well as it does!
> 
> But I guess that makes us stupid marks who are too ignorant to recognize that Marriott is screwing us? By giving us exactly what they say they are giving us?!?! Yeah, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Granted, there are sales reps who traffic in misinformation that might lead a person to believe that the DC/Abound is a program "that does everything for everybody." But smart timeshare owners, and certainly timeshare owners who come to TUG for information, know that that's something that simply doesn't exist at all anywhere in the timeshare sphere. And I have to say, *here on TUG the only people I see writing that there's an expectation that the DC/Abound will do "everything for everybody" are people like you and @timsi who claim without proof that it's what Marriott promises* *- seemingly only so that you'll have yet another reason to bash Marriott when Marriott doesn't deliver on a ridiculous claim.*


The way you got from the skim I wrote about to what you wrote is quite creative but probably more an indication to what you think.

Please next time do not put words in my mouth, I am not sure where you read that I said that  "DC/Abound will do "everything for everybody" and "claimed without proof that it's what Marriott promises"


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> The way you got from the skim I wrote about to what you wrote is quite creative but probably more an indication to what you think. ...



You wrote about "skim" being the difference between the value of what you deposit in the DC/Abound Exchange Company and what you get out of it, with Marriott reaping the rewards. I acknowledged and agreed with what you said about like-for-like exchanges resulting in a "skim" that benefits Marriott.

Are we in agreement there?

I then wrote that with certain ownerships there had always been a "skim" that benefits II, because for those ownerships like-for-like exchanges are practically non-existent. I believe I explained it quite clearly using my ownership as the example, but I'm happy to try to explain it better for anyone who still doesn't understand? And yes, it is and was meant to be "an indication of what -I- think."

Do you not understand the corollary?



timsi said:


> Please next time do not put words in my mouth, I am not sure where you read that I said that "DC/Abound will do "everything for everybody" and "claimed without proof that it's what Marriott promises"



Yes, I do believe that you attribute to Marriott malice that there's no proof of its current or future existence, that you misunderstand the DC/Abound and what Marriott says about it, and that you have been claiming for weeks now all over TUG that even if we haven't recognized it yet it's definitely coming soon and too many of us are unwilling or too stupid to realize it.


----------



## DRH90277 (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I do not and never will understand the angst about the DC/Abound being reliant on the DC/Abound Exchange Company. For those of us who owned Weeks prior to its inception, the program is LITERALLY just another exchange option! It's even NAMED the "Exchange Company!" For those who purchase Trust Points, the Exchange Company is what allows Trust Members to directly book into inventory that has not been conveyed to the Trust! Without the Exchange Company the program wouldn't function as well as it does!
> 
> But I guess that makes us stupid marks who are too ignorant to recognize that Marriott is screwing us? By giving us exactly what they say they are giving us?!?! Yeah, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Granted, there are sales reps who traffic in misinformation that might lead a person to believe that the DC/Abound is a program "that does everything for everybody." But smart timeshare owners, and certainly timeshare owners who come to TUG for information, know that that's something that simply doesn't exist at all anywhere in the timeshare sphere. And I have to say, here on TUG the only people I see writing that there's an expectation that the DC/Abound will do "everything for everybody" are people like you and @timsi who claim without proof that it's what Marriott promises - seemingly only so that you'll have yet another reason to bash Marriott when Marriott doesn't deliver on a ridiculous claim.



Can't get too exercised over your angst.  I'm not new to this and bought first weeks in 2006 and points in 2011.  You probably had a different sales presentation than I've had several times over the years.  It's ok but you are not necessarily entirely right in your view.    

In a nutshell, I've bought points twice and was always told the point proceeds would be used to buy inventory to be placed in the trust.  Owner deposited weeks would supplement the week demand.  So, a couple of us feel undue reliance is being placed on owner week deposits, thus we suffer on the reservation end.  

I've solved my problem by the addition of 11 great resale weeks to cover our needs.  Had the points program worked better for me, I may have bought more points.  

It's ok to agree to disagree.  You're entitled to your view but please don't disparage my experience.

Let's call a truce.  I'm sure you are well intentioned.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> Can't get too exercised over your angst.  I'm not new to this and bought first weeks in 2006 and points in 2011.  You probably had a different sales presentation than I've had several times over the years.  It's ok but you are not necessarily entirely right in your view.
> 
> In a nutshell, I've bought points twice and was always told the point proceeds would be used to buy inventory to be placed in the trust.  Owner deposited weeks would supplement the week demand.  So, a couple of us feel undue reliance is being placed on owner week deposits, thus we suffer on the reservation end.
> 
> ...


Do you have any reason to think that Marriott isn't using at least some of its profit from selling Points to acquire previously-sold Weeks and then conveying them to the Trust? I mean, Trust conveyances are ongoing and we don't know where all of that inventory is coming from, right? Also, how is Marriott supposed to acquire all these Weeks that end up playing in the Exchange Company, if the owners of those Weeks don't want to sell them? I'm just not sure that I understand why you're so disillusioned with your Trust Points purchases, or I maybe the better question is why you don't understand the limitations that Marriott faces in not being able to convey inventory that it doesn't own. Would you rather that Marriott's points program didn't have the Exchange Company component, which really wouldn't help you because it would mean that your Trust Points would only have access to the Trust conveyances?

It boils down to, what does it matter if a reliance on the exchange company is what makes Marriott's points program function, as long as it does function? 

Unlike you I don't see this little discussion between us a disagreement of the facts or even as us having different experiences to draw on. I simply don't understand how anyone can go to a sales presentation, buy the product, walk out with the Public Offering Statement that explains the purchase, acknowledge that there's a rescission period, and then not read the material to learn whether what you bought - and can rescind - is what you think you were led to believe it should be. And long after the rescission period is over, start asking the questions that should have been asked much sooner?


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> You wrote about "skim" being the difference between the value of what you deposit in the DC/Abound Exchange Company and what you get out of it, with *Marriott reaping the rewards. I acknowledged and agreed with what you said about like-for-like exchanges resulting in a "skim" that benefits Marriott.*
> 
> Are we in agreement there?
> 
> ...


 @dioxide45 wrote in the past that the skim was just a hidden fee. The skim is designed for the house to keep 6% in AVERAGE for a deposit. There will be losers and winners, but you can compare the skim with the house edge at the roulette.  Remember, we do not have a skim in VSN and it works just fine. This has nothing to do with Interval, you may just need a good Marriott Interval trader to fix that problem (if there is a problem). 

I have never said that Marriott acted with malice, again your words not mine. Just that your interests and mine (I assume we should be on the same side) and theirs may diverge many times. I just notice there is a tendency to benefit from any existing or new rule. I do not even blame them for that, as long as it is within the rules, and they do not stretch them like a chewing gum. First off, I have seen enough strange things with the inventory to be cautious (either firsthand or reported by others). Marriott is also the super uber mega renter (600-700 million dollars in rental income). The inventory rules give them maximum flexibility with minimum accountability. They can book units for their own rental business in ways others can’t and the units they sell come with all the features, but they restrict those sold by other owners. If they wanted to be more transparent about the inventory, they could easily show in the reservation system the number of available units. Would you support this idea?  Will they EVER do it though?  They actually went the other way, they disabled our ability to see if units are available before the opening of the reservation window in VSN. A coincidence, no doubt. One TUGger (who I respect, who is also on your side and who defends Marriott at almost every turn) called the inventory a black box. Marriott has such a large rental business and since they like to call us "owners", maybe we should know a little bit more. If you do not want more transparency, it is your right, but I just find it is strange to oppose other owners asking for it.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> *Do you have any reason to think that Marriott isn't using at least some of its profit from selling Points to acquire previously-sold Weeks and then conveying them to the Trust? *I mean, Trust conveyances are ongoing and we don't know where all of that inventory is coming from, right? Also, how is Marriott supposed to acquire all these Weeks that end up playing in the Exchange Company, if the owners of those Weeks don't want to sell them? I'm just not sure that I understand why you're so disillusioned with your Trust Points purchases, or I maybe the better question is why you don't understand the limitations that Marriott faces in not being able to convey inventory that it doesn't own. Would you rather that Marriott's points program didn't have the Exchange Company component, which really wouldn't help you because it would mean that your Trust Points would only have access to the Trust conveyances?
> 
> It boils down to, what does it matter if a reliance on the exchange company is what makes Marriott's points program function, as long as it does function?
> 
> Unlike you I don't see this little discussion between us a disagreement of the facts or even as us having different experiences to draw on. I simply don't understand how anyone can go to a sales presentation, buy the product, walk out with the Public Offering Statement that explains the purchase, acknowledge that there's a rescission period, and then not read the material to learn whether what you bought - and can rescind - is what you think you were led to believe it should be. And long after the rescission period is over, start asking the questions that should have been asked much sooner?



The Vistana weeks conveyed to the trust may be  a first step but let me just say I am not impressed so far, and I kind of doubt that's all they have.

How is the rental inventory owned directly by the developer? How about the resorts where _you_ own? I am talking about those that are in their books, not through the trust.
Do you know what they buy, what they keep to rent and what they convey to the trust? Resorts, seasons, sizes, views. Rhetorical question of course.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> The Vistana weeks conveyed to the trust may be  a first step but let me just say I am not impressed so far, and I kind of doubt that's all they have.
> 
> How is the rental inventory owned directly by the developer? How about the resorts where _you_ own? I am talking about those that are in their books, not through the trust.
> Do you know what they buy, what they keep to rent and what they convey to the trust? Resorts, seasons, sizes, views. Rhetorical question of course.


@SueDonJ you dug up the dead horse's carcass and handed @timsi a bat to beat it with again.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> @SueDonJ you dug up the dead horse's carcass and handed @timsi a bat to beat it with again.


Oh man, don't be upset for everything I write like your pay cheque depended on it. In any case, I am not going to take cues from anyone who can suggest that silver season is worth owning.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> Oh man, don't be upset for everything I write like your pay cheque depended on it. In any case, I am not going to take cues from anyone who can suggest that silver season is worth owning.


It's not everything you write. It's the same things that you write over and over and over and over and over and over...  Trust me my pay check has nothing to do with you, thank goodness. I'd quit because it'd be like listening to the same brainless speech every day at the beginning, middle and end of my work day. It's just that you are sooooo exhausting with your OCD need to try to attack MVC with the same old tired angles every time someone brings it up.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> It's not everything you write. It's the same things that you write over and over and over and over and over and over...  Trust me my pay check has nothing to do with you, thank goodness. I'd quit because it'd be like listening to the same brainless speech every day at the beginning, middle and end of my work day. It's just that you are sooooo exhausting with your OCD need to try to attack MVC with the same old tired angles every time someone brings it up.


It has nothing to do with _me_, nice way to put it. In case you did not notice, I was replying to Sue’s comment about me, and it was directly related to what she said. But indeed, you seem very uncomfortable when people mention Marriott’s rental business or the inventory processes. Maybe you are so exhausted because you come from so far on the other side, defending Marriott no matter what.


----------



## DRH90277 (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Do you have any reason to think that Marriott isn't using at least some of its profit from selling Points to acquire previously-sold Weeks and then conveying them to the Trust? I mean, Trust conveyances are ongoing and we don't know where all of that inventory is coming from, right? Also, how is Marriott supposed to acquire all these Weeks that end up playing in the Exchange Company, if the owners of those Weeks don't want to sell them? I'm just not sure that I understand why you're so disillusioned with your Trust Points purchases, or I maybe the better question is why you don't understand the limitations that Marriott faces in not being able to convey inventory that it doesn't own. Would you rather that Marriott's points program didn't have the Exchange Company component, which really wouldn't help you because it would mean that your Trust Points would only have access to the Trust conveyances?
> 
> It boils down to, what does it matter if a reliance on the exchange company is what makes Marriott's points program function, as long as it does function?
> 
> Unlike you I don't see this little discussion between us a disagreement of the facts or even as us having different experiences to draw on. I simply don't understand how anyone can go to a sales presentation, buy the product, walk out with the Public Offering Statement that explains the purchase, acknowledge that there's a rescission period, and then not read the material to learn whether what you bought - and can rescind - is what you think you were led to believe it should be. And long after the rescission period is over, start asking the questions that should have been asked much sooner?


A very simple question - Do you agree that point unit sales proceeds were to be invested in Trust Inventory?  So, for every point sold there is an asset added to the Trust.  Let's not get hung up on the exact dollars as I'm sure they withhold sales expenses and profits.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> I think in the absence of competition, the law might be there is an incremental cost/profit demanded for any change, breakage, etc.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 16, 2022)

Pamplemousse said:


> Yes, the skim.
> i don‘t know what MVC’s rational is for that- other than that they can do what they want.
> I do know if you mention it to the sales staff they will tell you you aren’t going to book your owned week/season with points anyway.
> If if the skim compensates MVC for the unbooked days it doesn’t help the users who want to book a stay of several days in the same unit.



I understand that skim means if you deposit your enrolled week, you will not get enough points to book back into your home resort. My question is why would anyone do this? It only makes sense to deposit an enrolled week if you want to go somewhere else. If so, then isn‘t skim irrelevant?


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> I understand that skim means if you deposit your enrolled week, you will not get enough points to book back into your home resort. My question is why would anyone do this? It only makes sense to deposit an enrolled week if you want to go somewhere else. If so, then isn‘t skim irrelevant?


This is how I see the skim, even if it is another resort. Am I wrong?
DC/Abound Inventory "Hidden" Restrictions? | Page 2 | Timeshare Users Group Discussion Forums (tugbbs.com)


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> This is how I see the skim, even if it is another resort. Am I wrong?
> DC/Abound Inventory "Hidden" Restrictions? | Page 2 | Timeshare Users Group Discussion Forums (tugbbs.com)


You could be right or you could be wrong, but due to your past approach, hardly anybody is listening anymore.


----------



## Dean (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> A very simple question - Do you agree that point unit sales proceeds were to be invested in Trust Inventory?  So, for every point sold there is an asset added to the Trust.  Let's not get hung up on the exact dollars as I'm sure they withhold sales expenses and profits.


That's not quite how it's done.  The developer generates or acquires inventory by building (new or adding on), reacquiring inevntory or taking over properties.  It's then deposited into the trust and later offered for sale or sold as weeks in some situation.  They cannot sell such inventory until it's been declared in the trust or weeks.  At that point they should have a return on investment that goes to profit, repay any acquisiton/development costs and pays any other costs including commissions.  As you wrote in this post, if I'm reading it correctly, you have it reversed.  There is no requirement they then reinvest in additional inventory and there is no requirement they deposit any inventory into the trust.  There is a requirement that any inventory previously declared stay either in the trust or weeks depending on where it originated.  

More to the other portions of this thread:  As for the skim, every system has to have a way to handle the inefficiencies of it's system.  The more flexible a points system is, the more inefficient it is.  Those timeshare systems that started with points, or have most of their resorts primarily in points, accounted for the inefficiencies up front.  It's just not as transparent as MVC makes the skim.  They also took the opportunity to essentially redefine or further segment the demand which is why there is variability rather than an across the board difference.  Do I think they overcompensated, yes, but I do not think it purposeful to generate income even if that ends up being the case.  No one is forced to take these options, everyone can use their weeks without the points being in play.  This is not really applicable to trust points anyway as the system was there up front, just enrolled weeks.  Many points systems tie the reservation directly to the underlying weeks when one is making a reservation.  Bluegreen does this as does Wyndham.  Doing so does create more situations where you can't get a reservation even though there are nights open for the desired option.  Often there is a minimum stay which we've seen some from MVC. IMO this was a valid argument in 2010 but not now as we're 12 years down the road and everyone has had the chance either to make an informed decision prior to purchasing or adjust accordingly long ago, it's no longer a reasonable point to argue IMO.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

Deleted


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> It has nothing to do with _me_, nice way to put it. In case you did not notice, I was replying to Sue’s comment about me, and it was directly related to what she said. But indeed, you seem very uncomfortable when people mention Marriott’s rental business or the inventory processes. Maybe you are so exhausted because you come from so far on the other side, defending Marriott no matter what.


I'm actually not defending Marriott no matter what. I actually told you before that I agree that I don't think Marriott should be able to let non-owners of Vistana rent outside of the home resort reservation period. My problem is that you keep trumpeting on and on about it without any proof that they're somehow screwing you over. It hasn't happened. If you can show proof that they are, once the program is actually live, then have at it. But they haven't done anything yet, you can't prove that they are planning to, but you keep looking for any possible reason to bash them preemptively. Like I said before, yes, it's possible that they *could* do wrong. But since they haven't yet, what are you crying about? Just like my other analogy: strangers on the street *could* hit or rob you. Are you going to campaign and endlessly rant and rave about stranger danger and try to get strangers banned from walking the same streets that you do, just in case? What a laugh.


----------



## Pamplemousse (Oct 16, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> I understand that skim means if you deposit your enrolled week, you will not get enough points to book back into your home resort. My question is why would anyone do this? It only makes sense to deposit an enrolled week if you want to go somewhere else. If so, then isn‘t skim irrelevant?


As I said, a salesperson would reply just as you did- why would you do that.
And true, you wouldn’t elect points and them use them to rebook that same thing.
But if they charge someone 3000 points to stay in your ownership shouldn’t they give you that amount when you free up that spot? Why do they make a “profit” off you electing points?

Also, just to be clear I wasn’t talking about depositing a week, I was talking about electing to take points for the enrolled week rather than stay the ownership or deposit it into II.  Seems like that’s what you meant too.


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I then wrote that with certain ownerships there had always been a "skim" that benefits II, because for those ownerships like-for-like exchanges are practically non-existent. I believe I explained it quite clearly using my ownership as the example, but I'm happy to try to explain it better for anyone who still doesn't understand? And yes, it is and was meant to be "an indication of what -I- think."



One of the differences between this and the DC points skim is that it isn't universal and the beneficiary isn't primarily Marriott. 

In II it's very likely that your 3BR weeks went to someone who deposited a 2BR week and so got an "uptrade". Historically they didn't charge extra for that although they do now.

I've exclusively traded up in size via II - my sheraton units lock out into 2x one bedrooms, and I've never traded for anything smaller than a 2br, and on multiple occasions have traded for larger units (ie 3br/4br).

The DC skim is universal, every weeks owner pays, and the breakage it causes goes to MVC not other owners.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> I'm actually not defending Marriott no matter what. I actually told you before that* I agree that I don't think Marriott should be able to let non-owners of Vistana rent outside of the home resort reservation period.* My problem is that you keep trumpeting on and on about it without any proof that they're somehow screwing you over. It hasn't happened. If you can show proof that they are, once the program is actually live, then have at it. But they haven't done anything yet, you can't prove that they are planning to, but you keep looking for any possible reason to bash them preemptively. Like I said before, yes, it's possible that they *could* do wrong. But since they haven't yet, what are you crying about? Just like my other analogy: strangers on the street *could* hit or rob you. Are you going to campaign and endlessly rant and rave about stranger danger and try to get strangers banned from walking the same streets that you do, just in case? What a laugh.



I guess you mean that you agree that non-owners should not be able to "exchange" during the home resort reservation period, we were not discussing about non-owners "renting" outside of the HRRP. Yes, you were one of those who agreed with that at one point, but you made it clear all along you were not happy with me bringing it up and you continued to challenge me about certain details after that as if you had changed your mind. Maybe you were just playing devil's advocate. 

As I said before, why do I have to wait another day, week or a year until Abound is functional to comment on something that is already in the Abound Exchange Procedures? They have exceptions for few resorts (like the Ritz) but they announced booking at all the Vistana resorts at 12 months. If this does not show what they are going to do, what else will convince you? If your municipality announces they would change the taxes just for your street, are you going to wait for the bill in your mail? By the way, you are also very repetitive with the dead horses, pee in the coffee and the robbery analogy. We may have more in common that you realize, at least concerning the lack of creativity


----------



## Norcal5 (Oct 16, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> I understand that skim means if you deposit your enrolled week, you will not get enough points to book back into your home resort. My question is why would anyone do this? It only makes sense to deposit an enrolled week if you want to go somewhere else. If so, then isn‘t skim irrelevant?


I have many enrolled weeks, and the only reason I would not elect for points (despite the skim, which varies depending on which dates you are reserving, and in my most common case, can be over 25%), is if I am absolutely sure that I will use that week - (which is often not the case), or if I want to request one of the most highly requested buildings and floor levels, where owner occupied legacy weeks get top choice, or at properties where room requests are granted based on date reserved, which with legacy weeks reservations can often be available two months earlier than points become available to reserve.

Normally I don’t care what location I get THAT much, but on the rare occasion I’m setting up a big vacation with several villas that I want to be near each other, and room location is particularly important and/or hard to get, I don’t care what the skim is, as the accommodations cannot be duplicated via rental or cash reservation.

The benefits of being able to book as many days as you want, plus being able to cancel 60 days in advance, or less if absolutely necessary, (into holding points of course) is to me completely worth the skim charge, however high. I have 3 adult children who use my points almost as much as I do, and their schedules can change last minute due to work obligations, etc. They get stuck with their holding points if they cancel, but they know the implications and figure out a way to use them. Also, we stay at a couple of friends vacation houses occasionally, so I offer them points to reciprocate, and I need to know I can get the points back if they have to cancel, which has happened more than once.

So pretty much on January 1st I go ahead and elect most every week I have as soon as I can.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> That's not quite how it's done.  The developer generates or acquires inventory by building (new or adding on), reacquiring inevntory or taking over properties.  It's then deposited into the trust and later offered for sale or sold as weeks in some situation.  They cannot sell such inventory until it's been declared in the trust or weeks.  At that point they should have a return on investment that goes to profit, repay any acquisiton/development costs and pays any other costs including commissions.  As you wrote in this post, if I'm reading it correctly, you have it reversed.  There is no requirement they then reinvest in additional inventory and there is no requirement they deposit any inventory into the trust.  There is a requirement that any inventory previously declared stay either in the trust or weeks depending on where it originated.


Thank you for your detailed description. Other key elements are also very relevant when it comes to the quality of the inventory in the trust. I will limit my comment to the weeks acquired, not the trust points they buy.

The developer acquires inventory either through foreclosures, ROFR and buybacks. The ROFR weeks are not acquired in a competitive manner, they basically just pick and choose what the want, it can be just platinum weeks in Hawaii or just mud season in the mountains. Of course, for the right price it will be the former rather than the latter. Normally when they convey these weeks to the trust, the trust owners want the best weeks possible (better inventory, lower MF)  but it may also be in the interest of the developer to keep some of the best weeks for its rental business and convey the rest to the trust. What happens in reality, how many weeks do they acquire through these processes, how many they convey to the trust, how many they keep.  Marriott is the manager of the trust and it is managing its own business. If they can consistently rent a prime week for 2-3 times the MF, are they going to keep it or convey it to the trust? In a normal situation this would be easier to understand how they do it because there would be a negotiation and the inventory would be somewhat in the middle in terms of quality. But remember, the developer sits on both sides of the table, so what kind of internal rules do they have to make sure it is fair for both? Nobody knows.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> The Vistana weeks conveyed to the trust may be  a first step but let me just say I am not impressed so far, and I kind of doubt that's all they have.
> 
> How is the rental inventory owned directly by the developer? How about the resorts where _you_ own? I am talking about those that are in their books, not through the trust.
> Do you know what they buy, what they keep to rent and what they convey to the trust? Resorts, seasons, sizes, views. Rhetorical question of course.



Anyone who wants to learn how many/which Weeks at the individual resorts have been conveyed to the Trust can learn that information in public records. I think Marriott is under a limited obligation to disclose info related to the Trust make-up to purchasers of Trust Points, but again if somebody wants to know the level of detail you want - resort/season/size/view - then the only way to learn it is to scour the public records. This is no different than when Weeks were the only game in town, btw. Prior to the DC/Abound inception, if I wanted to know how many like intervals had been sold (in order to try to make an educated guess as to how much competition I'd face for the highest-demand periods) Marriott was under no obligation to give me that information. Their only obligation was that somewhere in the POS they needed to disclose where the public records were filed, and they did that.

Are you aware that Marriott owners can *choose* annually to deposit their Weeks directly into Marriott's rental program? And that as much as TUGgers know that it's not a good economical decision, in fact it's far less advantageous than it used to be, it still is something that long-time owners do because of the simplicity? Are you also aware that Marriott Weeks which are exchanged for Bonvoy Points (again, not economical, but an option used by more owners than you might think) are monetized as rentals, because Marriott Vacations Worldwide the timeshare company has to pay cash to Marriott Int'l the hotel/rewards program company for those Bonvoy points? Beyond that, nope, I have no idea how many Weeks MVW owns that they have chosen not to convey to the Trust for one reason or another, no idea how many of those are used by Marriott for rentals. I don't care. If through experience as a member of the DC/Abound I'd been subject to a pattern of not being able to use my ownership for its intended purpose, which cause appeared to be due to Marriott screwing its owners/members by renting out inventory that should have been available to them, well, then I'd probably care. But that hasn't been the case. <shrug>


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> If through experience as a member of the DC/Abound I'd been subject to a pattern of not being able to use my ownership for its intended purpose, which cause appeared to be due to Marriott screwing its owners/members by renting out inventory that should have been available to them, well, then I'd probably care. But that hasn't been the case. <shrug>


You mentioned indeed few times you were not able to book your deeded week 13 months before check in. You blamed other owners (who may have rented their reservations) but you do not seem to know if the other competitor, possibly a bigger competitor, was the developer.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> A very simple question - Do you agree that point unit sales proceeds were to be invested in Trust Inventory?  So, for every point sold there is an asset added to the Trust.  Let's not get hung up on the exact dollars as I'm sure they withhold sales expenses and profits.


No, I don't agree. I have not ever had a Marriott rep, either in sales or somewhere in the corporate structure, say to me that that's how Marriott was obligated to use the income derived from Points sales. Never. And as far as I've seen, there's nothing in the docs that sets the obligation either. So, nope.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> You mentioned indeed few times you were not able to book your deeded week 13 months before check in. You blamed other owners (who may have rented their reservations) but you do not seem to know if the other competitor, possibly a bigger competitor, was the developer.


You really came away from the entire explanation of how/why 13-mos Weeks reservations work, and why I wasn't successful with getting them every single year of my ownership, with the idea that your paranoia about Marriott being the biggest and baddest timeshare company in the universe was validated by my experience?!?! And that was despite me telling you that in one of my resort's governing docs, Marriott as the developer/declarant is specifically prohibited from using the 13-mos Weeks Reservation Window to book inventory it owns?

Yeah, you're just beyond reason at this point.

(Anybody else who wants to understand how Marriott Weeks reservation windows work, in particular when you're competing for the highest-demand holiday periods, ask me anytime. I'm happy to explain why sometimes an owner doesn't get what s/he wants because, above all else, in a floating timeshare system the primary caveat is, "subject to availability." But of course, anybody who wants to find malice where there's none will manufacture reasons out of thin air.)


----------



## Norcal5 (Oct 16, 2022)

Double post.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> You really came away from the entire explanation of how/why 13-mos Weeks reservations work, and why I wasn't successful with getting them every single year of my ownership, with the idea that *your paranoia about Marriott being the biggest and baddest timeshare company in the universe* was validated by my experience?!?! And that was despite me telling you that in one of my resort's governing docs, Marriott as the developer/declarant is specifically prohibited from using the 13-mos Weeks Reservation Window to book inventory it owns?
> 
> Yeah, you're just beyond reason at this point.
> 
> (Anybody else who wants to understand how Marriott Weeks reservation windows work, in particular when you're competing for the highest-demand holiday periods, ask me anytime. I'm happy to explain why sometimes an owner doesn't get what s/he wants because, above all else, in a floating timeshare system the primary caveat is, "subject to availability." But of course, anybody who wants to find malice where there's none will manufacture reasons out of thin air.)



Again you are putting words in my mouth. I was just trying to understand whether you had *proof* that you could not book your week because of other owners who beat you and who rented, if Marriott did not release all the units they had to or a combination of the two. Unless you saw ALL the units on Redweek the next day, I am not sure how you determined it was just the rentals. By the way, just because something is not supposed to happen, it does not mean it does not happen. Few days ago, there was a sighting in Interval, Westin Nanea  could be seen only with Marriott but not with Vistana. This wasn't supposed to happen, it was a new bulk deposit that should have been under Vistana preference for a while.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> Again you are putting words in my mouth. I was just trying to understand whether you had *proof* that you could not book your week because of other owners who beat you and who rented, if Marriott did not release all the units they had to or a combination of the two. Unless you saw ALL the units on Redweek the next day, I am not sure how you determined it was just the rentals. By the way, just because something is not supposed to happen, it does not mean it does not happen. Few days ago, there was a sighting in Interval, Westin Nanea  could be seen only with Marriott but not with Vistana. This wasn't supposed to happen, it was a new bulk deposit that should have been under Vistana preference for a while.


I never said that the reason I wasn't always successful with using the 13-mos Reservation Window to book my Weeks was because owner-renters beat me to them. I explained how the 13-mos Weeks window works, how all the variables need to fall into place and how much competition among owners there is because all of the inventory is NOT released at the 13-mos window, and that the highest-demand holiday periods are that much more competitive. I also said that it was irritating, not at all a positive in my view, to see owner-rentals of high-demand intervals including the ones I usually reserved on third-party sites six months prior to check-ins.

Those two things are not dependent on each other to be true. Nowhere did I claim that all of those owner-rentals were booked at the same 13-mos window that I tried to use. Consider for one thing that an owner who owns four or more Weeks, so at least one more than I own, can take advantage of the 13-mos window for consecutive reservations at least one week before I can. Consider for another that any owner could have just been lucky, calling in at the right time to pick up an interval that had been previously reserved/cancelled.

As for II deposits, I have no idea how Vistana works but in the Marriott system there have always been outliers that don't carry the Marriott preference. This is the Marriott forum so we can discuss that here if you want, but *as this forum's moderator* I'm asking that we please not take this thread/forum off on a tangent about how Vistana is supposed to work. There is a Vistana forum for that.


----------



## timsi (Oct 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I never said that the reason I wasn't always successful with using the 13-mos Reservation Window to book my Weeks was because owner-renters beat me to them. I explained how the 13-mos Weeks window works, how all the variables need to fall into place and how much competition among owners there is because all of the inventory is NOT released at the 13-mos window, and that the highest-demand holiday periods are that much more competitive. I also said that it was irritating, not at all a positive in my view, to see owner-rentals of high-demand intervals including the ones I usually reserved on third-party sites six months prior to check-ins.
> 
> Those two things are not dependent on each other to be true. Nowhere did I claim that all of those owner-rentals were booked at the same 13-mos window that I tried to use. Consider for one thing that an owner who owns four or more Weeks, so at least one more than I own, can take advantage of the 13-mos window for consecutive reservations at least one week before I can. Consider for another that any owner could have just been lucky, calling in at the right time to pick up an interval that had been previously reserved/cancelled.
> 
> As for II deposits, I have no idea how Vistana works but in the Marriott system there have always been outliers that don't carry the Marriott preference. This is the Marriott forum so we can discuss that here if you want, but *as this forum's moderator* I'm asking that we please not take this thread/forum off on a tangent about how Vistana is supposed to work. There is a Vistana forum for that.


Sure I understand about the bolded part, I will try to remember that. I did not realize it would be an issue, since the weeks could be seen with *Marriott, * it is not like WNA was seen with Hyatt or something else.

Sue, if you think the inventory is perfect, I will leave it at that. As I said before, I have not seen that evidence either through more clear rules or external scrutiny so please allow me to be more cautious.


----------



## Dean (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Thank you for your detailed description. Other key elements are also very relevant when it comes to the quality of the inventory in the trust. I will limit my comment to the weeks acquired, not the trust points they buy.
> 
> The developer acquires inventory either through foreclosures, ROFR and buybacks. The ROFR weeks are not acquired in a competitive manner, they basically just pick and choose what the want, it can be just platinum weeks in Hawaii or just mud season in the mountains. Of course, for the right price it will be the former rather than the latter. Normally when they convey these weeks to the trust, the trust owners want the best weeks possible (better inventory, lower MF)  but it may also be in the interest of the developer to keep some of the best weeks for its rental business and convey the rest to the trust. What happens in reality, how many weeks do they acquire through these processes, how many they convey to the trust, how many they keep.  Marriott is the manager of the trust and it is managing its own business. If they can consistently rent a prime week for 2-3 times the MF, are they going to keep it or convey it to the trust? In a normal situation this would be easier to understand how they do it because there would be a negotiation and the inventory would be somewhat in the middle in terms of quality. But remember, the developer sits on both sides of the table, so what kind of internal rules do they have to make sure it is fair for both? Nobody knows.


They also acquire inventory by either buying a new resort, developing a new resort or adding on to an existing resort.  They also acquire inventory FOR the trust to use by enrolling members.  How they acquire the inventory for the trust is really irrelevant to the functioning of the trust or the rest of the owners from a usage standpoint.  For ROFR I would argue they do take them in a competitive manner.  Anyone is not only welcome to go on the open market, they are required to.  What they take does highlight that for seasonal resorts, many weeks are not worth the paper the deed is written on.  They'd be idiots to take low demand weeks back without a specific need.  This applies to basically all bronze weeks and generally to silver as well.  For weeks already in weeks or the trust, they cannot simply take them out.  They can control the right to use the underlying options (points or the week) which they'd have to do in competition with the other owners.  The only way they can run inventory separate from either the applicable weeks or points system is to never declare to the system.

I'll ask again, why are you letting this steal your life?  If you're so upset over this and so distrustful of MVC, why would you be in business with them.  It doesn't matter you you got there, you're there now so you have to decide how to proceed.  You stated the rules are available, I'd suggest to you that not only can they change, but they almost certainly will and not in your favor. You should factor that into your decision to continue forward.  

I'll ask again on another question, maybe I missed it, but have you vetted this with your BOD and MVC management?  If not, you're just beating your head against the wall with no purpose but bandwidth.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

Dean said:


> They also acquire inventory by either buying a new resort, developing a new resort or adding on to an existing resort.  They also acquire inventory FOR the trust to use by enrolling members.  How they acquire the inventory for the trust is really irrelevant to the functioning of the trust or the rest of the owners from a usage standpoint.  For ROFR I would argue they do take them in a competitive manner.  Anyone is not only welcome to go on the open market, they are required to.  What they take does highlight that for seasonal resorts, many weeks are not worth the paper the deed is written on.  They'd be idiots to take low demand weeks back without a specific need.  This applies to basically all bronze weeks and generally to silver as well.  For weeks already in weeks or the trust, they cannot simply take them out.  They can control the right to use the underlying options (points or the week) which they'd have to do in competition with the other owners.  The only way they can run inventory separate from either the applicable weeks or points system is to never declare to the system.
> 
> I'll ask again, why are you letting this steal your life?  If you're so upset over this and so distrustful of MVC, why would you be in business with them.  It doesn't matter you you got there, you're there now so you have to decide how to proceed.  You stated the rules are available, I'd suggest to you that not only can they change, but they almost certainly will and not in your favor. You should factor that into your decision to continue forward.
> 
> I'll ask again on another question, maybe I missed it, but have you vetted this with your BOD and MVC management?  If not, you're just beating your head against the wall with no purpose but bandwidth.


It is a very interesting idea that the legacy weeks they get through ROFR are acquired in a competitive manner, maybe you can tell me how I can get some of those sweet deals.  The developer also acquires units from the resort HOAs and, to the best of my knowledge, the HOAs don’t routinely list those units on the market for the best possible bid. 

For every comment I make, there may be an opposite view, and some seem to come to the defense of the developer every single time. It would be ridiculous for me to ask why you or others waste time with this, and I am not going to do it. I will just assume that we do not see some things the same way.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Oct 17, 2022)

I had this happen at MOC two years ago. The villa was available for 10 days, but not 7. I am select and was booking 6 months out. I called and they booked the 7 nights. It had to do with the 3BR OF being fixed weeks and check in dates being funky. There was a risk we'd have to move midweek-but we didn't.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is a very interesting idea that the legacy weeks they get through ROFR are acquired in a competitive manner, maybe you can tell me how I can get some of those sweet deals.  The developer also acquires units from the resort HOAs and, to the best of my knowledge, the HOAs don’t routinely list those units on the market for the best possible bid.
> 
> For every comment I make, there may be an opposite view, and some seem to come to the defense of the developer every single time. It would be ridiculous for me to ask why you or others waste time with this, and I am not going to do it. I will just assume that we do not see some things the same way.


MVC Owners selling week(s) privately at ROFR required resorts must submit the agreed Sale price to MVC for review.
If MVC decide to invoke their ROFR rights, they must pay the same price to acquire those week(s).
So they will be purchasing them at that market competitive rate.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

bazzap said:


> MVC Owners selling week(s) privately at ROFR required resorts must submit the agreed Sale price to MVC for review.
> If MVC decide to invoke their ROFR rights, they must pay the same price to acquire those week(s).
> So they will be purchasing them at that market competitive rate.


As they explain, “many of our vacation ownership interests provide us with a right of first refusal on secondary market sales. *We monitor sales that occur in the secondary market and exercise our right of first refusal when it is advantageous for us to do so*, whether due to pricing, desire for the particular inventory, or other factors.” Can you and I do the same?

If they want to ROFR any transaction that is say under 10,000 for a particular resort, season, unit size and view, they would buy all units under 10,000 and the potential buyers would pay over 10,000 dollars every single time.  Maybe you see it differently but from the point of view of the buyers how is  a competition if Marriott can consistently get the best deals? To make it worse, the buyers do not know the cut-off so they may end up overpaying quite a bit trying to guess. If they knew for sure it was 10,000 dollars, they would just offer $10,001. Am I wrong?


----------



## bazzap (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> As they explain, “many of our vacation ownership interests provide us with a right of first refusal on secondary market sales. *We monitor sales that occur in the secondary market and exercise our right of first refusal when it is advantageous for us to do so*, whether due to pricing, desire for the particular inventory, or other factors.” Can you and I do the same?
> 
> If they want to ROFR any transaction that is say under 10,000 for a particular resort, season, unit size and view, they would buy all units under 10,000 and the potential buyers would pay over 10,000 dollars every single time.  Maybe you see it differently but from the point of view of the buyers how is  a competition if Marriott can consistently get the best deals? To make it worse, the buyers do not know the cut-off so they may end up overpaying quite a bit trying to guess. If they knew for sure it was 10,000 dollars, they would just offer $10,001. Am I wrong?


Whenever we have bought Resale weeks we have done so through 3rd Party Resale companies.
Some of these purchases have been in competition with other potential buyers before finalising an agreed price.
MVC themselves were unable to participate in this phase of the sales process and only able to decide whether to pay that competitively negotiated price or not.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> ... Sue, if you think the inventory is perfect, I will leave it at that. As I said before, I have not seen that evidence either through more clear rules or external scrutiny so please allow me to be more cautious.



Acknowledging that Marriott - as developer and manager - is granted usage and other myriad rights is not at all an assertion that I think, "the inventory is perfect." Of course you need to believe that that's what I think so that you'll have a talking point to bicker over, but it's incorrect to assume it.



timsi said:


> It is a very interesting idea that the legacy weeks they get through ROFR are acquired in a competitive manner, maybe you can tell me how I can get some of those sweet deals.  The developer also acquires units from the resort HOAs and, to the best of my knowledge, the HOAs don’t routinely list those units on the market for the best possible bid.



When the individual resort HOA's acquire inventory, which doesn't happen routinely and at some resorts doesn't happen at all, the BOD members in conjunction with Marriott as the manager most certainly can and do list them - the most common process is through public auctions of intervals whose owners have forfeited their ownership through nonpayment of MF's including taxes. Occasionally we see posts on TUG where people have copied/pasted the public notices of such auctions, and sometimes we see posts from people who acquire Weeks at those auctions.



timsi said:


> For every comment I make, there may be an opposite view, and some seem to come to the defense of the developer every single time. It would be ridiculous for me to ask why you or others waste time with this, and I am not going to do it. I will just assume that we do not see some things the same way.



Again, it's wrong to assume that acknowledgement of rights granted to Marriott, as the manager of the inventory or in any other capacity, is a de facto defense of Marriott. For me it simply means that I don't think it's reasonable or helpful to engage in a colossal waste of time, energy and money challenging them on anything unless you have proof in hand that your assertions of mismanagement are valid.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Maybe you were just playing devil's advocate.


I do tend to do that when people start to get annoying through repetition, even in cases where I agree with them on principle.


timsi said:


> If your municipality announces they would change the taxes just for your street, are you going to wait for the bill in your mail?


I would get upset, and seeing exactly how it's going to be x amount of dollars out of my bottom line, I'd have something concrete to complain about. When you have concrete proof that weeks you were able to get consistently in the past and cannot get them anymore at the same advance notice, then talk to me. Otherwise, you're not actually being harmed.


timsi said:


> By the way, you are also very repetitive with the dead horses, pee in the coffee and the robbery analogy. We may have more in common that you realize, at least concerning the lack of creativity


Yeah, annoying isn't it? Maybe you should realize that's why you're losing people like me that would potentially agree with you rather than gaining converts to your cult of anti-MVC.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> One of the differences between this and the DC points skim is that it isn't universal and the beneficiary isn't primarily Marriott.
> 
> In II it's very likely that your 3BR weeks went to someone who deposited a 2BR week and so got an "uptrade". Historically they didn't charge extra for that although they do now.
> 
> ...


I see your point and don't have a reason to quarrel with it.

But the only reason I introduced the concept of "skim" relative to II exchanges is because - for me - the consideration I give to whether or not enrollment in the DC/Abound is an advantage for Weeks owners, is the comparison between the exchange value that each exchange company delivers for Weeks deposits. If I'm remembering correctly the "SKIM!!!! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! MARRIOTT IS THE DEVIL AND THEY'VE PROVEN IT WITH THE DESTINATION CLUB!!!" posts started almost immediately when the program dropped in 2010, and it occurred to me then that a few of us own Weeks which hadn't ever pulled II exchanges equal to what we deposited. It occurred to me then that a form of "skim" was exactly what some of us had routinely suffered with II exchanges.

I don't blame Marriott or II for that, have explained that it's simply a matter of 3BR non-lock-off inventory being severely limited in the timeshare world. I just think that it's convenient for people who routinely get uptrades for their II deposits to not recognize that there had always been skim in II and gee, get all verklempt about it and put a name to it now that they were suffering it, too.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't blame Marriott or II for that, have explained that it's simply a matter of 3BR non-lock-off inventory being severely limited in the timeshare world. I just think that it's convenient for people who routinely get uptrades for their II deposits to not recognize that there had always been skim in II, too.


And II wins on both ends because they got the exchange fees, plus they got the upgrade fee from those who upgraded into the 3 bedrooms you deposited, while you get nothing for downgrading.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

bazzap said:


> Whenever we have bought Resale weeks we have done so through 3rd Party Resale companies.
> Some of these purchases have been in competition with other potential buyers before finalising an agreed price.
> MVC themselves were unable to participate in this phase of the sales process and only able to decide whether to pay that competitively negotiated price or not.


It is correct, when you _begin_ the buying process you are in competition with others, which is more like a qualifying round, no new deed is going to be recorded. Once this phase has ended, you will show your cards to the developer and you will start to play the real game, and they can beat you every single time. Maybe you see anybody that competes with the developer at this stage, I do not. The actual game will end with the purchase.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> I do tend to do that when people start to get annoying through repetition, even in cases where I agree with them on principle.
> 
> I would get upset, and seeing exactly how it's going to be x amount of dollars out of my bottom line, I'd have something concrete to complain about. When you have concrete proof that weeks you were able to get consistently in the past and cannot get them anymore at the same advance notice, then talk to me. Otherwise, you're not actually being harmed.
> 
> Yeah, annoying isn't it? Maybe you should realize that's why you're losing people like me that would potentially agree with you rather than gaining converts to your cult of anti-MVC.


Since I do not know you, it was not annoying, I just mentioned it because it was hard not to notice you almost made an effort to be less than perfectly polite.  Again, you can say it any number of times without bothering me, but you also have to have a healthy amount of unrelated information and I did see more of the former rather than the latter in the comments you addressed to me. Your choice but for that reason, I will block you. No, I am not a Marriot hater, it may just look that way if you come too deep from the fan club. I do have some concerns that I have mentioned in time, and I seem to see certain things in a different light that 4 or 5 people on this forum.

In ending my comment, you continue to talk about access I talk about rights as an owner. I said it before, if a neighbor puts his car on your driveway without telling you, you are not going to be happy if he says your driveway is big enough, that you still have “access” or that he will move the car when you have to get in or out.  Bye.


----------



## jme (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is correct, when you _begin_ the buying process you are in competition with others, which is more like a qualifying round, no new deed is going to be recorded. Once this phase has ended, you will show your cards to the developer and you will start to play the real game, and they can beat you every single time. Maybe you see anybody that competes with the developer at this stage, I do not. The actual game will end with the purchase.



The final say-so lies with the corporation which owns the whole thing. (If you consider that an abuse by Marriott, there are hundreds of worse examples by other corporations.)
They have set the rules and everything passes through them and nobody else. It's the world of business, and not much we can do.
For the matter at hand, all is documented for you to read at your leisure. I've heard a lot of ridiculous hypotheses and opinions of late.
Several have tried to explain and you accuse them of siding with the developer, but that's not exactly it.
It's just that they understand the long-established rules.You need to understand that all corporations make the rules to benefit their own interests.
Take it or leave it.
You essentially want to buy a new home at the builder's cost, allowing you to get "his deal".  It doesn't work that way, never has, never will. 
At some point it's best to get out of the wind...staying will not help, and it can make one sick.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> In ending my comment, you continue to talk about access I talk about rights as an owner. I said it before, if a neighbor puts his car on your driveway without telling you, you are not going to be happy if he says your driveway is big enough, that you still have “access” or that he will move the car when you have to get in or out.  Bye.


If you're getting your week, MVC isn't putting another person in the unit with you, so there's nobody in your driveway.

*Edited to add: And, if you are only a partial, as opposed to sole, owner of a property, with a driveway shared by multiple owners, those other owners will have the right to either park in that driveway or allow their guests to park there.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> ... In ending my comment, you continue to talk about access I talk about rights as an owner.



But the one thing that trips up all of your arguments is that the "subject to availability" elephant in the room, the caveat that applies in every floating timeshare system, is affected by and/or changed by more than just the expressed Owner rights in the governing documents!

In every single timeshare company the Developers have bestowed rights. The associated Trusts have bestowed rights. The Management Companies have bestowed rights. The Exchange Companies have bestowed rights. The affiliated hotel/rewards program companies have bestowed rights. So sure, in its simplest incantation an expressed Owner right will state that the Owner "assigns" his/her usage/access to the developer/manager/exchange or reward company, but it's the contractual agreements between the Developer and each of those affiliate companies that determines the basis on which the assignee can use or make available the assigned usage/access.

You're arguing from the standpoint of an owner. Good on you - it's never a bad thing for an owner to educate him/herself to the protections in the documents! But if you were to argue your case in front of a Court, they'd laugh you right out of it if you refused to acknowledge, or worse, tried to claim non-existent, the rights of the other parties. So bring your assertions to the Court, but expect that there, just like here, there will be people who will tell you that your deliberate ignorance of, or refusal to acknowledge, the rights of your adversary will be a relevant factor that hurts your argument.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

jme said:


> The final say-so lies with the corporation which owns the whole thing. (If you consider that an abuse by Marriott, there are hundreds of worse examples by other corporations.)
> They have set the rules and everything passes through them and nobody else. It's the world of business, and not much we can do.
> For the matter at hand, all is documented for you to read at your leisure. I've heard a lot of ridiculous hypotheses and opinions of late.
> Several have tried to explain and you accuse them of siding with the developer, but that's not exactly it.
> ...


It is not that I do not understand the rules or that I have a personal frustration about the ROFR process. We are simply discussing if the process of acquiring those units is competitive or not. I do not think that at the last stage of the buying process there is any competition, that's all, and at least we seem to agree about that.


----------



## jme (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> But the one thing that trips up all of your arguments is that the "subject to availability" elephant in the room, the caveat that applies in every floating timeshare system, is affected by and/or changed by more than just the expressed Owner rights in the governing documents!
> 
> In every single timeshare company the Developers have bestowed rights. The associated Trusts have bestowed rights. The Management Companies have bestowed rights. The Exchange Companies have bestowed rights. The affiliated hotel/rewards program companies have bestowed rights. So sure, in its simplest incantation an expressed Owner right will state that the Owner "assigns" his/her usage/access to the developer/manager/exchange or reward company, but it's the contractual agreements between the Developer and each of those affiliate companies that determines the basis on which the assignee can use or make available the assigned usage/access.
> 
> You're arguing from the standpoint of an owner. Good on you - it's never a bad thing for an owner to educate him/herself to the protections in the documents! But if you were to argue your case in front of a Court, they'd laugh you right out of it if you refused to acknowledge, or worse, tried to claim non-existent, the rights of the other parties. So bring your assertions to the Court, but expect that there, just like here, there will be people who will tell you that your deliberate ignorance or refusal of important information will be a relevant factor that hurts your argument.



"People rise." 
(slight pause as Judge Susan enters)
"Thank you counsel on both sides.
......... and so, based on the evidence presented here today I hereby dismiss the case."


----------



## jme (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is not that I do not understand the rules or that I have a personal frustration about the ROFR process. We are simply discussing if the process of acquiring those units is competitive or not. I do not think that at the last stage of the buying process there is any competition, that's all, and at least we seem to agree about that.



Exactly WHO said that at the last stage there had to be more competition?  

The point is that Marriott has established that it's within their rights to step in at that stage and take their football and go home. 
I have no beef with Marriott because they have given me more than 10 times the joy and pleasure than I ever expected.
My family has lived a dream for the past 24 years because of that, and we've seen the world. 
And btw, I have purchased 6 resales among my 10 Marriott ownership weeks, all passing ROFR in a fast and straightforward process, and the price WAS amazing.
You need to get out more, frankly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

jme said:


> "People rise."
> (slight pause as Judge Susan enters)
> "Thank you counsel on both sides.
> ......... and so, based on the evidence presented here today I hereby dismiss the case."


You would all be very sorry if I were the judge of how Marriott inventory should work, because my only two rules would be that I get to book the resort/dates/unit size and view I want without any competition at least a month ahead of everyone, and then I get to pick the unit I want at check-in even if it means I have to throw your stuff out on the lawn.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> You would all be very sorry if I were the judge of how Marriott inventory should work, because my only two rules would be that I get to book the resort/dates/unit size and view I want without any competition at least a month ahead of everyone, and then I get to pick the unit I want at check-in even if it means I have to throw your stuff out on the lawn.


I think you missed the fair and impartial lecture at law school.  ;-)


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> I think you missed the fair and impartial lecture at law school.  ;-)


I missed every day of law school but if somebody is going to call me Judge, I'm going to play the part on TUG. So, uh, where's your next stay? I think I might enjoy throwing stuff on the lawn.


----------



## jme (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> You would all be very sorry if I were the judge of how Marriott inventory should work, because my only two rules would be that I get to book the resort/dates/unit size and view I want without any competition at least a month ahead of everyone, and then I get to pick the unit I want at check-in even if it means I have to throw your stuff out on the lawn.



naturally...all very sound reasons..........
and, fyi, whenever Marriott Vacation Club's CEO Steven Weisz came to Grande Ocean with his family every June, not only did he get 5th floor corner Oceanfront, 
but the entrance door was always freshly painted. That's how we knew where he was.........(great guy, tho!!!)


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

jme said:


> naturally...all very sound reasons..........
> and, fyi, whenever Marriott Vacation Club's CEO Steven Weisz came to Grande Ocean with his family every June, not only did he get 5th floor corner Oceanfront,
> but the entrance door was always freshly painted. That's how we knew where he was.........(great guy, tho!!!)


My favorite posts in that monster Aruba thread all those years ago were the ones where we tried to imagine all the perks that Bill Marriott got when he stayed at the timeshares - and I still want three recently-sharpened pencils and a damned teal ottoman in every one of my units!


----------



## jme (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I missed every day of law school but if somebody is going to call me Judge, I'm going to play the part on TUG. So, uh, where's your next stay? I think I might enjoy throwing stuff on the lawn.



(sheesh, and I thought you were already the Judge.......)

as for throwing stuff on the lawn, it's not a big deal........... just don't park in MY driveway.


----------



## Dean (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is a very interesting idea that the legacy weeks they get through ROFR are acquired in a competitive manner, maybe you can tell me how I can get some of those sweet deals.  The developer also acquires units from the resort HOAs and, to the best of my knowledge, the HOAs don’t routinely list those units on the market for the best possible bid.


The open market sets the price therefore it is open for competition between potential buyers.  Sometimes a person may approach MVC directly and get an offer and that is not competitive, it's also usually lower than a ROFR price would be.  For HOA when they acquire units under foreclosure, they have a resale agreement with MVC as they should.  Otherwise they'd have to try to sell them on their own AND pay or eat the dues in the process plus commissions.  There's an easy way to get those deals, you could develope and sell a timeshare yourself and build in ROFR.  Or else you could pay sufficient price to get past ROFR.  It's purposefully designed to not be a completely level playing field and that is the system.  There are resorts where ROFR is not applicable.  Realize that as a developer and sales system, MVC would rather that resales not be possible at all as they compete with direct sales.  The reality is that by the time they pay their expenses, fees and commissions on resale, they really don't make the killing on them that some think they do, esp compared to new sales.  



> For every comment I make, there may be an opposite view, and some seem to come to the defense of the developer every single time. It would be ridiculous for me to ask why you or others waste time with this, and I am not going to do it. I will just assume that we do not see some things the same way.


I can't speak for others but for myself, I hold the position that I've agreed to an arrangement with a timeshare company, I understand what I've gotten myself into and I take personal responsibility rather than trying to find blame.  I also understand there is no perfect system and even if there was, what's perfect for you and me would be different.  I feel I understand both sides of the equation and that's where I feel you are missing the point.  In other circles I believe you would be considered a conspiracy theorist.  Still, at the end of the day, if your view were the most accurate one, why would you continue doing business with them?


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> When the individual resort HOA's acquire inventory, which doesn't happen routinely and at some resorts doesn't happen at all, the BOD members in conjunction with Marriott as the manager most certainly *can and do list them - the most common process is through public auctions* of intervals whose owners have forfeited their ownership through nonpayment of MF's including taxes. *Occasionally we see posts on TUG where people have copied/pasted the public notices of such auctions, and sometimes we see posts from people who acquire Weeks at those auctions*.



Can you tell me where I can find the listings or the references to these foreclosed units for the Vistana and the Marriott resorts?  I was under the impression that in many cases the HOAs had agreements with the developer and that the developer would acquire them. What is your source for saying that the resorts HOA's do not acquire inventory routinely or at all? I thought the HOA's could start the foreclosure procedures for the delinquent accounts in less than a year and that in average 2-4% of the owners may be delinquent in any given year. This could add to a lot of units per annually if you look at the number of resorts they manage.


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

Dean said:


> The open market sets the price therefore it is open for competition between potential buyers.  Sometimes a person may approach MVC directly and get an offer and that is not competitive, it's also usually lower than a ROFR price would be.  For HOA when they acquire units under foreclosure, they have a resale agreement with MVC as they should.  Otherwise they'd have to try to sell them on their own AND pay or eat the dues in the process plus commissions.  There's an easy way to get those deals, you could develope and sell a timeshare yourself and build in ROFR.  Or else you could pay sufficient price to get past ROFR.  It's purposefully designed to not be a completely level playing field and that is the system.  There are resorts where ROFR is not applicable.  Realize that as a developer and sales system, MVC would rather that resales not be possible at all as they compete with direct sales.  The reality is that by the time they pay their expenses, fees and commissions on resale, they really don't make the killing on them that some think they do, esp compared to new sales.



I do not think anyone who has looked at the ROFR can say that this is a competitive process when the potential buyer has zero power once the ROFR papers are submitted and can only hope Marriott does not exercise the ROFR. There is also no third party that can offer more or alter the process in any way at that point. There is only one decision maker, the developer. 

We were indeed discussing whether the units are acquired in a competitive manner. You should not only look at this from the prospective of the week owners who might have known of should have known of ROFR when they bought their timeshares.  You also have to take into account that they also manage the MVC trust, not just their own rental inventory. I think one of the earlier questions was if all the units acquired should end up in the trust or not and probably the question is what process is there to make sure that the interests of the trust owners are protected and advanced, when the developer sits at both sides of the table.


----------



## Dean (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not think anyone who has looked at the ROFR can say that this is a competitive process when the potential buyer has zero power once the ROFR papers are submitted and can only hope Marriott does not exercise the ROFR. There is also no third party that can offer more or alter the process in any way at that point. There is only one decision maker, the developer.
> 
> We were indeed discussing whether the units are acquired in a competitive manner. You should not only look at this from the prospective of the week owners who might have known of should have known of ROFR when they bought their timeshares.  You also have to take into account that they also manage the MVC trust, not just their own rental inventory. I think one of the earlier questions was if all the units acquired should end up in the trust or not and probably the question is what process is there to make sure that the interests of the trust owners are protected and advanced, when the developer sits at both sides of the table.


We'll have to disagree as we have very different ideas of competitive but then again, you should be used to that by now.  If you go back to the legal documents you'll see that you agreed that you are at a disadvantage in selling and renting, it's specifically spelled out there.  Trust owners have the same situation and up front potential knowledge.  Since the Abound/DC is an exchange add on system, it has even less power and less protections or expectations which is also addressed in the legal documents.  You do realize they could shut the exchange enrollment program down tomorrow if they wanted don't you?


----------



## timsi (Oct 17, 2022)

Dean said:


> We'll have to disagree as we have very different ideas of competitive but then again, you should be used to that by now.  If you go back to the legal documents you'll see that you agreed that you are at a disadvantage in selling and renting, it's specifically spelled out there.  *Trust owners have the same situation and up front potential knowledge.*  Since the Abound/DC is an exchange add on system, it has even less power and less protections or expectations which is also addressed in the legal documents.  You do realize they could shut the exchange enrollment program down tomorrow if they wanted don't you?


I do not think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to the trust. I am just referring to *the weeks* the developer acquires because with those they can improve or diminish the quality of the of the trust, depending on what they decide to convey to the trust.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Can you tell me where I can find the listings or the references to these foreclosed units for the Vistana and the Marriott resorts?  I was under the impression that in many cases the HOAs had agreements with the developer and that the developer would acquire them. What is your source for saying that the resorts HOA's do not acquire inventory routinely or at all? I thought the HOA's could start the foreclosure procedures for the delinquent accounts in less than a year and that in average 2-4% of the owners may be delinquent in any given year. This could add to a lot of units per annually if you look at the number of resorts they manage.


First I want to mention, unless I'm clear that what I'm talking about is related to Vistana timeshares, my comments relate only to Marriotts. I don't know anything about how Marriott as the parent company - and previously Starwood - approaches acquiring previously-sold Vistana inventory.

Here's a thread about TUGger @Beaglemom3's experience with purchasing Marriott Weeks at a foreclosure auction: [2011] Marriott Custom House T/S Auction Today

It's old but I searched for it specifically because from what I remember, this TUGger shared more about the experience than any other posts over the years. There are other sporadic threads but I don't remember who all was involved or which resorts, so I can't pinpoint search terms to find them easily.

Each resort's governing docs are the same in many ways but the one big difference is that each resort is subject to certain legislation of the state in which the resort is located. I believe foreclosures come under that umbrella, especially with respect to whether non-judicial foreclosures are allowed or not. That would make a difference in how easily/inexpensively Marriott could acquire or unload inventory in an auction. They also might forego auctions in favor of simply taking delinquent/foreclosed Weeks and re-selling them or conveying them to the Trust. As far as I know, there aren't any resort governing docs or state legislation that limits Marriott to foreclosure auctions as the only recourse for regaining previously-sold non-performing intervals, nor any language that obligates every HOA to perform the process of turning non-performing intervals to performing (because some state laws put that obligation on the Developer or Manager.)

Others probably know more about this subject than I do, and I welcome any of them correcting anything I'm getting wrong here.


----------



## Dean (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to the trust. I am just referring to *the weeks* the developer acquires because with those they can improve or diminish the quality of the of the trust, depending on what they decide to convey to the trust.


If they acquire the weeks they can do anything they want.  The week must stay in the system but they can reserve to rent or convey to the trust or sell if they want.  They have no reason to withhold weeks from the trust once they acquire them but they will make decisions about value and price differently for each week inherent to that week on the ROFR sde.  Realistically I would think it likely they improve the quality of the trust and the inventory available to the trust by ROFR because they'll take the better weeks and thus expand the inventory for high demand weeks over low demand weeks.  The reality is that for seasonal resorts where the fees are the same (or nearly so) for all weeks, those with low demand weeks are supplementing the higher demand weeks.  At the end of the day it doesn't matter as there will only be X amount of points in play and X days/weeks to reserve.  I'll say again there are 3 groups.  Weeks owners, Trust owners and those who are exchanging using points from enrolled weeks.  The first 2 knew or should have known what they were getting into and the latter is playing in a game that could end tomorrow which would also affect trust owners and limit them to ONLY weeks in the trust removing what's the larger inventory for most resorts, points from enrolled weeks.  Will it change, 100% yes, will it change for the better for you or I, unlikely but it's possible.  IMO you are far too heavily vested in an area that makes little to no difference to the system and the only control any of us have is whether to stay in or get out.  What did your BOD and MVC corporate say when you made this case to them?


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not think anyone who has looked at the ROFR can say that this is a competitive process when the potential buyer has zero power once the ROFR papers are submitted and can only hope Marriott does not exercise the ROFR. There is also no third party that can offer more or alter the process in any way at that point. There is only one decision maker, the developer.



There isn't any question in my mind that Marriott has a built-in advantage when acquiring inventory. Their ROFR terms give them a structural advantage against any other buyer. They have final say, and the only way to beat them is to offer the selling owner a price high enough that they don't exercise their right. I'm not going to get into a debate on whether that advantage is "fair" or "unfair", but I will agree that it exists.

Remember, however, that advantage is against the *prospective buyer*. Don't forget how Marriott's ROFR right impacts the *selling owner*. Since Marriott has the right to match any offer, smart buyers usually attempt to offer a price high enough to exceed Marriott's maximum price point, often with guidance from a good broker. Most people assume, therefore, that ROFR actually helps place a floor under resale prices and helps the selling owner get a higher price than they otherwise might have in a market where there was no ROFR.

So you can bemoan Marriott's ROFR rights from the buyer's perspective all day, but don't forget how it may help those owners who are selling.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is not that I do not understand the rules or that I have a personal frustration about the ROFR process. We are simply discussing if the process of acquiring those units is competitive or not. I do not think that at the last stage of the buying process there is any competition, that's all, and at least we seem to agree about that.


The ROFR process may not be competitive, but the price MVC must offer the Seller is competitive.
The end result can be advantageous to the Seller and definitely shouldn’t be disadvantageous except just possibly for the completion timeframe?
The potential loser is the private Buyer, but generally they can get a fairly good idea of what should get through the ROFR process.


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

bazzap said:


> The ROFR process may not be competitive, but the price MVC must offer the Seller is competitive.
> The end result can be advantageous to the Seller and definitely shouldn’t be disadvantageous except just possibly for the completion timeframe?
> The potential loser is the private Buyer, but generally they can get a fairly good idea of what should get through the ROFR process.



If the cutoff is say 10,000 and Marriott exercises ROFR on all sales under 10,000 and all the other purchases are all over 10,000, how are they paying “market price”? If we knew the cuttoff would be one thing but we don’t so inevitably you have buyers who just want to "try" at 7k or 9k and they do not pass. Others want to be “sure” and they will offer 11k or 13k, especially if it is a rarer unit and it would take weeks if not months to find another one.

Marriott has a well-oiled sales machine, and it needs a lot of inventory. If they had to bid alongside the other potential buyers, what do you think it would happen to the resale prices?

@JIMinNC  Not restricting the resale features is the best thing they could do for the sellers. "May" is the key word in your last sentence. The platinum Lagunamar prices have doubled in the last few years with no ROFR.


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> *But the only reason I introduced the concept of "skim" relative to II exchanges is because - for me - the consideration I give to whether or not enrollment in the DC/Abound is an advantage for Weeks owners, is the comparison between the exchange value that each exchange company delivers for Weeks deposits.* If I'm remembering correctly the "SKIM!!!! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! MARRIOTT IS THE DEVIL AND THEY'VE PROVEN IT WITH THE DESTINATION CLUB!!!" posts started almost immediately when the program dropped in 2010, and it occurred to me then that a few of us own Weeks which hadn't ever pulled II exchanges equal to what we deposited. It occurred to me then that a form of "skim" was exactly what some of us had routinely suffered with II exchanges.
> 
> I don't blame Marriott or II for that, have explained that it's simply a matter of 3BR non-lock-off inventory being severely limited in the timeshare world. I just think that it's convenient for people who routinely get uptrades for their II deposits to not recognize that there had always been skim in II and gee, get all verklempt about it and put a name to it now that they were suffering it, too.



We continue to mix apples and oranges, Interval is an external exchange, VSN and Abound are internal exchanges. It is normal for an external exchange to charge an additional fee otherwise it would collapse. The internal exchanges have other mechanisms and *VSN does not have a skim*. If I am not mistaken (@dioxide45 please correct me if I am wrong), the Vistana owners already pay for the reservation system, it is “owners services” on our bills. Now that Marriott has announced they will integrate the Abound and the VSN booking platforms, I wonder why there is a skim in addition to the amount we pay for the “owners services”.

Again, you need a good, cheap Marriott trader for Interval, comparing your current unique situation is not relevant when you have better options available to you.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> We continue to mix apples and oranges, Interval is an external exchange, VSN and Abound are internal exchanges. It is normal for an external exchange to charge an additional fee otherwise it would collapse. The internal exchanges have other mechanisms and *VSN does not have a skim*. If I am not mistaken (@dioxide45 please correct me if I am wrong), the Vistana owners already pay for the reservation system, it is “owners services” on our bills. Now that Marriott has announced they will integrate the Abound and the VSN booking platforms, I wonder why there is a skim in addition to the amount we pay for the “owners services”.
> 
> Again, you need a good, cheap Marriott trader for Interval, comparing your current unique situation is not relevant when you have better options available to you.


I really wish that you would stop telling me that you know what is best for me. It's irritating and it's demeaning, but most of all it's just wrong. Have you not bothered to read the many posts from several of us in response to you that tell you point-blank that we do not use the same qualifiers as you do to measure the worth of our specific ownerships?

You define skim the way you want and I'll define it the way I want. All I know is that over the years as the topic has come up, the TUGgers who I think are most intelligent and who don't have an axe to grind for one reason or another have at least given some consideration to how my definition makes sense, and they've not felt it necessary to tell me that if I'd simply stop thinking wrongly then I'd be better off.

I don't know what you're talking about with the Vistana and Abound booking platforms. For us Marriott owners, the booking platforms for Weeks and Points are separate and there hasn't been any communication from Marriott that the current booking set-up will change after Vistana resorts can be booked with Abound Points. Again, for us Marriott owners the addition of Vistana inventory simply means that we'll have access to it in the Abound Exchange Company - that and the name change from Destination Club to Abound are the only changes we are facing. There's even a notice on our website that pops us and tells us exactly that! Now maybe you're right and you Vistana owners will be getting something entirely foreign to Marriott owners but you know what? My educated guess is that nope, you're going to be getting the exact same thing we Marriott owners have had for more than a decade now, i.e. entry into a new-to-you exchange company if you want it, and, many of the features including the booking platform will be very familiar to Marriott owners - so you might want to stop deliberately irritating us with your I-know-what's-best-for-everyone attitude because we can help you.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> If the cutoff is say 10,000 and Marriott exercises ROFR on all sales under 10,000 and all the other purchases are all over 10,000, how are they paying “market price”? If we knew the cuttoff would be one thing but we don’t so inevitably you have buyers who just want to "try" at 7k or 9k and they do not pass. Others want to be “sure” and they will offer 11k or 13k, especially if it is a rarer unit and it would take weeks if not months to find another one.
> 
> Marriott has a well-oiled sales machine, and it needs a lot of inventory. If they had to bid alongside the other potential buyers, what do you think it would happen to the resale prices?
> 
> @JIMinNC  Not restricting the resale features is the best thing they could do for the sellers. "May" is the key word in your last sentence. The platinum Lagunamar prices have doubled in the last few years with no ROFR.


As others have said, this is all about how you define competitive pricing.
Wiith ROFR, MVC will pay the same price as the maximum offer a private Seller has received by marketing their week(s) directly or through a 3rd Party Reseller on the open market.
For me this means that they are paying a competitive price.


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

bazzap said:


> As others have said, this is all about how you define competitive pricing.
> Wiith ROFR, MVC will pay the same price as the maximum offer a private Seller has received by marketing their week(s) directly or through a 3rd Party Reseller on the open market.
> For me this means that they are paying a competitive price.


OK, but I am sure it does not feel that way to the potential buyers that do not pass ROFR and have to start over and possibly have to pay more for the same unit, not to mention the additional time and frustration, additional money transfers and fees etc.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> OK, but I am sure it does not feel that way to the potential buyers that do not pass ROFR and have to start over and possibly have to pay more for the same unit, not to mention the additional time and frustration, additional money transfers and fees etc.


I agree that ROFR is essentially a Seller friendly process, not a Buyer friendly one.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> If the cutoff is say 10,000 and Marriott exercises ROFR on all sales under 10,000 and all the other purchases are all over 10,000, how are they paying “market price”? If we knew the cuttoff would be one thing but we don’t so inevitably you have buyers who just want to "try" at 7k or 9k and they do not pass. Others want to be “sure” and they will offer 11k or 13k, especially if it is a rarer unit and it would take weeks if not months to find another one.
> 
> Marriott has a well-oiled sales machine, and it needs a lot of inventory. If they had to bid alongside the other potential buyers, what do you think it would happen to the resale prices?
> 
> @JIMinNC  Not restricting the resale features is the best thing they could do for the sellers. "May" is the key word in your last sentence. The platinum Lagunamar prices have doubled in the last few years with no ROFR.



If Marriott had to bid in a truly open market rather than utilize ROFR, it may not impact resale prices as much as you might think. Given that Marriott is primarily looking for weeks to resell as points, they are not as motivated by a desire to have any one specific ownership as an individual buyer might be. As a result, the maximum price Marriott is going to be willing to pay is likely going to be about the same whether they are making the initial offer for an interval or waiting to offer that same price at ROFR time. If they had to compete, they might also choose to "try" your low ball $7k or $9k offer just like you or I might. They are not emotionally invested in a particular interval as a regular buyer might be. They just become one more interested party for any listing on the market. I doubt they would get into any bidding wars, and would just move on to the next listing, but how often do we really see bidding wars for timeshares in the first place? 

In some ways, I think having Marriott lurking in the background on every transaction, potentially ready to snap up low ball deals, might even have a more powerful psychological effect on buyers to make higher offers to beat out "Mr. Marriott" than it might if Marriott was just one more nameless, faceless buyer perusing the Redweek listings. The Seller benefits in either case.

What Lagunamar prices have done in the last few years is not that relevant to the discussion. The relevant question is, would they be higher if that property had ROFR?

In the end, this is another pointless debate, since anyone who buys most Marriott weeks agrees to give Marriott a Right of First Refusal if and when they sell. It's an unambiguous part of the "contract." So why are we even debating this in the first place?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 18, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> ... In the end, this is another pointless debate, since anyone who buys most Marriott weeks agrees to give Marriott a Right of First Refusal if and when they sell. It's an unambiguous part of the "contract." So why are we even debating this in the first place?



Now I'm probably wrong again but I think we're off on yet another tangent about how Marriott is the devil because, well, it's just so easy to claim that Marriott is the devil.


----------



## needvaca (Oct 18, 2022)

I own both VSN (love it) and more recently Marriott, and the Marriott skim really does annoy/irritate me.  If I were to trade in my Marriott Grand Ocean week, it would cost me 20% more in points to get the week I want, maybe only 7% more for a less desirable week.

I know Marriott owners have come to accept Marriott's skim (aka extra profit for Marriott), but I basically think of it as an extra fee to me, like a 7%-10% surcharge on my maintenance fee.

No other big timeshare groups have a skim.  Not VSN, Hyatt, Hilton, Wyndham, probably more.  but Marriott does... because it can


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 18, 2022)

needvaca said:


> I own both VSN (love it) and more recently Marriott, and the Marriott skim really does annoy/irritate me.  If I were to trade in my Marriott Grand Ocean week, it would cost me 20% more in points to get the week I want, maybe only 7% more for a less desirable week.
> 
> I know Marriott owners have come to accept Marriott's skim (aka extra profit for Marriott), but I basically think of it as an extra fee to me, like a 7%-10% surcharge on my maintenance fee.
> 
> No other big timeshare groups have a skim.  Not VSN, Hyatt, Hilton, Wyndham, probably more.  but Marriott does... because it can


Yeah, the skim is the one thing that irritates me about the program. However, I just don't really see myself electing Abound points so for the most part it won't affect me.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 18, 2022)

needvaca said:


> I own both VSN (love it) and more recently Marriott, and the Marriott skim really does annoy/irritate me.  If I were to trade in my Marriott Grand Ocean week, it would cost me 20% more in points to get the week I want, maybe only 7% more for a less desirable week.
> 
> I know Marriott owners have come to accept Marriott's skim (aka extra profit for Marriott), but I basically think of it as an extra fee to me, like a 7%-10% surcharge on my maintenance fee.
> 
> No other big timeshare groups have a skim.  Not VSN, Hyatt, Hilton, Wyndham, probably more.  but Marriott does... because it can


Are any of the other big timeshare companies set up in such a way that an independent Exchange Company is utilized to facilitate "internal" exchanges? Because that's what the DC/Abound Exchange Company is, a completely separate component that was established at the DC inception, and one in which Marriott can invite any other timeshare systems to participate regardless of whether such companies come under the Marriott Vacations Worldwide umbrella or not.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 18, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Are any of the other big timeshare companies set up in such a way that an independent Exchange Company is utilized to facilitate "internal" exchanges? Because that's what the DC/Abound Exchange Company is, a completely separate component that was established at the DC inception, and one in which Marriott can invite any other timeshare systems to participate regardless of whether such companies come under the Marriott Vacations Worldwide umbrella or not.


Would the HGV Max program set up to facilicate exchanges between HGVC and DRI be similar? I have no idea, I have no ownership in either system.


----------



## Dean (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> OK, but I am sure it does not feel that way to the potential buyers that do not pass ROFR and have to start over and possibly have to pay more for the same unit, not to mention the additional time and frustration, additional money transfers and fees etc.


At it's core, ROFR is designed to negate competition by creating uncertainty and aggravation and pushing potential buyers to retail.  That happens because of the price floors which are variable due to things like the economy and directly by potential buyers avoiding or getting fed up with the process.  ROFR does prop up the sales prices a small amount though variably depending on demand, the economy, etc but it does drive some potential buyers away.  I'd say the net effect to a seller is fairly neutral.  It's certainly negative to the buyer and that is the goal of the option.


JIMinNC said:


> If Marriott had to bid in a truly open market rather than utilize ROFR, it may not impact resale prices as much as you might think. Given that Marriott is primarily looking for weeks to resell as points, they are not as motivated by a desire to have any one specific ownership as an individual buyer might be. As a result, the maximum price Marriott is going to be willing to pay is likely going to be about the same whether they are making the initial offer for an interval or waiting to offer that same price at ROFR time. If they had to compete, they might also choose to "try" your low ball $7k or $9k offer just like you or I might. They are not emotionally invested in a particular interval as a regular buyer might be. They just become one more interested party for any listing on the market. I doubt they would get into any bidding wars, and would just move on to the next listing, but how often do we really see bidding wars for timeshares in the first place?
> 
> In some ways, I think having Marriott lurking in the background on every transaction, potentially ready to snap up low ball deals, might even have a more powerful psychological effect on buyers to make higher offers to beat out "Mr. Marriott" than it might if Marriott was just one more nameless, faceless buyer perusing the Redweek listings. The Seller benefits in either case.
> 
> ...


Actually if MVC had a more direct conduit to resales, it'd likely lower the overall prices because it'd be low ball offers.  


SueDonJ said:


> Are any of the other big timeshare companies set up in such a way that an independent Exchange Company is utilized to facilitate "internal" exchanges? Because that's what the DC/Abound Exchange Company is, a completely separate component that was established at the DC inception, and one in which Marriott can invite any other timeshare systems to participate regardless of whether such companies come under the Marriott Vacations Worldwide umbrella or not.


Not that I know of other than for some limited options in HI.  I fully expected the internal exchange preference for II to go away after the points came on the scene.  I'm really happy it hasn't but it is still a very possible change going forward.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2022)

Dean said:


> At it's core, ROFR is designed to negate competition by creating uncertainty and aggravation and pushing potential buyers to retail.  That happens because of the price floors which are variable due to things like the economy and directly by potential buyers avoiding or getting fed up with the process.  ROFR does prop up the sales prices a small amount though variably depending on demand, the economy, etc but it does drive some potential buyers away.  I'd say the net effect to a seller is fairly neutral.  It's certainly negative to the buyer and that is the goal of the option.



I'm not sure ROFR's *primary* purpose or design is to create uncertainty and negate competition. That may be a side effect or secondary benefit to the developer, but I think the primary purpose of ROFR is to reacquire inventory for resale at a significantly lower cost than building new resorts, and without a long term capital commitment.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2022)

Maybe I will be accused of being a Marriott sales person again for the following comments. I understand skim is when you get fewer points than you would need to book the same week using points. People would like to be assigned the points for a higher value week. People say it is like a 7% to 10% penalty or fee. However you are not required to convert to points. You can always use your week as it is. It is your choice if you want to have the skim. Also, if you do decide to convert to points, then if you think of it as losing 7%-10% of value, you can also think of it as paying a little for a benefit so you have the opportunity to stay somewhere else in the Marriott system. 

I am not into nitty gritty details of what I consider to be small fees with timeshares or trying to maximize every dollar. I am happy all my weeks are enrolled so I have the choice of using them as a week or I can elect points to go other places. I think folks who really want to maximize value should buy a low cost resale week with low MFs and use the week or trade in II. None of this is for me but it could work for others who do not like the skim.


----------



## Dean (Oct 18, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> I'm not sure ROFR's *primary* purpose or design is to create uncertainty and negate competition. That may be a side effect or secondary benefit to the developer, but I think the primary purpose of ROFR is to reacquire inventory for resale at a significantly lower cost than building new resorts, and without a long term capital commitment.


My info suggests otherwise but I don't have direct confirmation.  I can say with 100% certainty that this is the way DVC looks at ROFR.  In the end it really doesn't matter as both are in play though as I pointed out earlier, they don't make the killing on them that some think they do.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2022)

Dean said:


> My info suggests otherwise but I don't have direct confirmation.  I can say with 100% certainty that this is the way DVC looks at ROFR.  In the end it really doesn't matter as both are in play though as I pointed out earlier, they don't make the killing on them that some think they do.



During their earnings calls and investor presentations they are very clear in their statements that reacquired inventory is bought at significant discount to new build inventory. If that’s not true, then executive mgmt is making misleading statements. That’s generally frowned upon by the SEC.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 18, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> Maybe I will be accused of being a Marriott sales person again for the following comments. I understand skim is when you get fewer points than you would need to book the same week using points. People would like to be assigned the points for a higher value week. People say it is like a 7% to 10% penalty or fee. However you are not required to convert to points. You can always use your week as it is. It is your choice if you want to have the skim. Also, if you do decide to convert to points, then if you think of it as losing 7%-10% of value, you can also think of it as paying a little for a benefit so you have the opportunity to stay somewhere else in the Marriott system.




That's not really an accurate description of skim.

Skim is when you get less than the AVERAGE points required to book a week in your season. With 3475 points for Platinum NCV election, there are about 14 weeks in that season you can book 8 nights with those points - pretty much any week from mod-September to mid-December is only 2900 points. Does that mean there is no skim or that there is "reverse skim" as some called this feature? No, because the other 14 weeks in that season require 4225 or 4725 points to book 7 nights, with the "average week" in the 28-week season being somewhere around 3725. Hence a 3475 election value means there is skim... 

Mathematically, it would be infeasible (and probably illegal) to give more than 3725 points per week and if we got that amount some would still complain they couldn't book the peak weeks with points, but in that, case there would be no skim. They can't give more points than the "average" week because then there would be a surplus of unusable points in the system.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 18, 2022)

DanCali said:


> That's not really an accurate description of skim.
> 
> Skim is when you get less than the AVERAGE points required to book a week in your season. With 3475 points for Platinum NCV election, there are about 14 weeks in that season you can book 8 nights with those points - pretty much any week from mod-September to mid-December is only 2900 points. Does that mean there is no skim or that there is "reverse skim" as some called this feature? No, because the other 14 weeks in that season require 4225 or 4725 points to book 7 nights, with the "average week" in the 28-week season being somewhere around 3725. Hence a 3475 election value means there is skim...
> 
> Mathematically, it would be infeasible (and probably illegal) to give more than 3725 points per week and if we got that amount some would still complain they couldn't book the peak weeks with points, but in that, case there would be no skim. They can't give more points than the "average" week because then there would be a surplus of unusable points in the system.



That is what I meant by skim. I am not sure what part of what I wrote was confusing.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 18, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> During their earnings calls and investor presentations they are very clear in their statements that reacquired inventory is bought at significant discount to new build inventory. If that’s not true, then executive mgmt is making misleading statements. That’s generally frowned upon by the SEC.


That was my understanding also. They don't have the volume with ROFR that they can get with a new build or conversion. They probably only reacquire a few thousand weeks each year via ROFR. A new resort with 300 units would be over 15,000 weeks. Marketing costs of a timeshare though are usually 45-50%, I suspect they are probably looking to reacquire at less than new build or conversion, but overall the margins are probably fairly close.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 18, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> That is what I meant by skim. I am not sure what part of what I wrote was confusing.



The part where you said that you "cannot book the same week using points". That argument is more relevant to a single-week season like an event week or a fixed week. Less so to a floating season week where each week in the season may require different points to book.

As I mentioned in my prior post, at NCV you can actually use points to book 8 nights instead of 7 nights in 14 of the 28 Platinum weeks. That doesn't mean there isn't skim. 



TravelTime said:


> I understand skim is when you get fewer points than you would need to book the same week using points.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> That was my understanding also. They don't have the volume with ROFR that they can get with a new build or conversion. They probably only reacquire a few thousand weeks each year via ROFR. A new resort with 300 units would be over 15,000 weeks. Marketing costs of a timeshare though are usually 45-50%, I suspect they are probably looking to reacquire at less than new build or conversion, but overall the margins are probably fairly close.


I think the number they quoted on Investor Day was 10,000 or so weeks per year reacquired. That’s the number that sticks in my mind.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 18, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> I think the number they quoted on Investor Day was 10,000 or so weeks per year reacquired. That’s the number that sticks in my mind.


Perhaps. I suspect much of that comes back in through foreclosure. It would even include foreclosure on trust points.


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> That was my understanding also. They don't have the volume with ROFR that they can get with a new build or conversion. They probably only reacquire a few thousand weeks each year via ROFR. A new resort with 300 units would be over 15,000 weeks. Marketing costs of a timeshare though are usually 45-50%, I suspect they are probably looking to reacquire at less than new build or conversion, but overall the margins are probably fairly close.


45-50% marketing costs seem very high, not sure it is accurate


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> I think the number they quoted on Investor Day was 10,000 or so weeks per year reacquired. That’s the number that sticks in my mind.


If in average they could sell a week for 50,000 dollars, their value would be 500 million dollars but they only paid a small fraction for acquiring them. Not bad.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> 45-50% marketing costs seem very high, not sure it is accurate











						An economic analysis of a timeshare ownership - Journal of Retail & Leisure Property
					

Timeshare vacation ownership, a purchase of the right to occupy accommodation or a facility for a defined period of time during a year over a specified number of years or perpetually, has over the past 30 years experienced a significant and sustained growth to become one of the most sought after...




					link.springer.com
				




_In addition to being aggressive, advertising and promotion is expensive. Marketing costs are responsible for a significant portion of the final timeshare price accounting for at least 43 percent and in most cases in excess of 50 per cent to the timeshare price._


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> An economic analysis of a timeshare ownership - Journal of Retail & Leisure Property
> 
> 
> Timeshare vacation ownership, a purchase of the right to occupy accommodation or a facility for a defined period of time during a year over a specified number of years or perpetually, has over the past 30 years experienced a significant and sustained growth to become one of the most sought after...
> ...


The article may refer to new developments 15-20 years ago. I am not sure we can translate this into the marketing costs for _existing _resorts in a digital world today. 

"Marketing costs as percentage of Price::
43 per cent

The costs and revenues for the second phase and all the marketing expenses (43 per cent of the contract price) were 100 per cent recognised because selling timeshare contracts commences 12–18 months prior to occupancy8 and since phase one started in 2005 and each of the four phases was scheduled to be completed in 14 months (Simpson and Stephen, 2002) there was ample time to sell almost all the contracts."

*"Stage four: Marketing and sales*
*The marketing and promotion campaign for timeshare contracts begins immediately after breaking the ground for construction and past the completion date until all the contracts are sold.* This lead time is necessary because of the high volume of contracts that have to be sold and the complexity of the timeshare product. Each unit in the resort potentially needs up to 52 contracts and for a 100-unit resort, the contracts amount to 5,200."


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> The article may refer to new developments 15-20 years ago. I am not sure we can translate this into the marketing costs for _existing _resorts in a digital world today.


Not much has changed in how timeshares are marketed and sold today as compared to 15 years ago. Most sales still happen while a guest is at a resort onsite in a sales presentation. The gifts are still there, the commissions are still there, paying the people to sit and make phone calls to sign people up and paying body snatchers is all still the same. Same day incentives (bonus points when you buy) are still there. They may do a few percentage points more in telephone sales today than they did then, but you really can't buy a developer timeshare online.

I am sure specifics are buried in SEC and quarterly earning filings, but I don't have the time to dig it all up.


----------



## timsi (Oct 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Not much has changed in how timeshares are marketed and sold today as compared to 15 years ago. Most sales still happen while a guest is at a resort onsite in a sales presentation. The gifts are still there, the commissions are still there, paying the people to sit and make phone calls to sign people up and paying body snatchers is all still the same. They may do a few percentage points more in telephone sales today than they did then, but you really can't buy a developer timeshare online.


Right but with an existing resort you constantly have a flow of guests, and it is much less costly to lure them to a presentation. Visiting a resort that is in construction is a much bigger effort both for the developer and for the potential buyer.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> Right but with an existing resort you constantly have a flow of guests, and it is much less costly to lure them to a presentation. Visiting a resort that is in construction is a much bigger effort both for the developer and for the potential buyer.


Not sure why are thinking that. They usually offer existing owners better incentives to come to an owner update than a non owner. They still market to people staying at the local Marriott hotel in addition to those staying onsite.

Since you don't seem to beleive me, I looked at VAC's 2nd quarter 2022 earnings release. They indicate $214M in marketing and $425M in sales. Looks like about half. Looking at the same quarter in 2021 (when getting tour flow was harder), their marketing expense was $164M and sales were $220M. An interesting point is that their cost of vacation ownership product sold in Q2 2022 was $80M.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 19, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Perhaps. I suspect much of that comes back in through foreclosure. It would even include foreclosure on trust points.


Yeah, it definitely includes both ROFR and foreclosure. My assumption though has always been that ROFR was the lion's share. Do you think they really foreclose a lot? I have no info either way.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

DanCali said:


> The part where you said that you "cannot book the same week using points". That argument is more relevant to a single-week season like an event week or a fixed week. Less so to a floating season week where each week in the season may require different points to book.
> 
> As I mentioned in my prior post, at NCV you can actually use points to book 8 nights instead of 7 nights in 14 of the 28 Platinum weeks. That doesn't mean there isn't skim.


It is variable because they took the opportunity to essentially redefine the seasons.  For MGO OS, all Platinum weeks cost 4500 points and get 4200.  For the week of the 4th they've also manipulated the Saturday points to make Saturday to Saturday over the 4th more points.  For 2021 that week was 4825 points and for 2022, 4950 points.  In addition they made several of the Gold weeks 4500 points as well.  In general one would have to look at the entire year from both sides to figure out the true skim.  One would also need to know how they accounted for maintenance.  I'm thinking that at some of the resorts they sold an average of 51.5 weeks which would make maintenance very tight on the weeks side and even tighter in a points system due to the inevitable fragmentation.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> Yeah, it definitely includes both ROFR and foreclosure. My assumption though has always been that ROFR was the lion's share. Do you think they really foreclose a lot? I have no info either way.


When I browse filings with Orange County (at least with Vistana), I see a lot of foreclosure filings. I would suspect there is similar with Marriott but I have no idea really either.


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure why are thinking that. They usually offer existing owners better incentives to come to an owner update than a non owner. They still market to people staying at the local Marriott hotel in addition to those staying onsite.
> 
> Since you don't seem to beleive me, I looked at VAC's 2nd quarter 2022 earnings release. They indicate $214M in marketing and $425M in sales. Looks like about half. Looking at the same quarter in 2021 (when getting tour flow was harder), their marketing expense was $164M and sales were $220M. An interesting point is that their cost of vacation ownership product sold in Q2 2022 was $80M.


According to Marriott, it costs less to sell to owners: “Sales to existing owners typically have significantly lower sales and marketing costs than sales to new owners.”

I looked at same numbers and generally they do not mention just marketing costs, rather "sales and marketing" and indeed they seem to be about half. However, I assume a very good chunk of that is actually sales costs including salaries, commissions etc. If we are referring strictly to marketing, I still do not believe it is close to 40%-50% but I do not know if they show more granular data.
Additionally, the marketing costs may actually include other businesses they conduct (rental, exchange etc) and they may not all be related to the sales of VOIs. If I understand correctly the 2021 10k report, EXCHANGE & THIRD-PARTY MANAGEMENT for example show 320 million dollars in revenue but *zero * Marketing and sales expenses for 2021 and 2020. Curiously it also shows _zero rental costs_ but 40 million dollars in rental revenue under the exchange and third-party management umbrella.

Concerning their cost of vacation ownership, I suspect it includes a mix of ROFR, foreclosures (extremely low, close to zero in many cases) but also the "cost" of taking some weeks back when week owners convert to point products. If a points product is sold for 50,000 dollars and they offer a credit of 40,000 dollars, the "cost" for that part of the inventory is very high even if no amount is being paid to the owner. Not sure if I am right because they do not seem separate those costs into sub-segments. If that is the case thought, the profit realized from selling the ROFR and foreclosed units must be significantly higher since their cost of acquisition should be very low.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> I looked at the same numbers and generally they do not mention just marketing costs, rather "sales and marketing" and indeed they seem to be about half. However, I assume a very good chunk of that is actually sales costs including salaries, commissions etc. If we are referring strictly to marketing, I still do not believe it is close to 40%-50% but I do not know if they show more granular data.
> Additionally, the marketing costs may actually include other businesses they conduct (rental, exchange etc) and they may not all be related the sales of VOIs. If I understand correctly the 2021 10k report, EXCHANGE & THIRD-PARTY MANAGEMENT for example show 320 million dollars in revenue but *zero * Marketing and sales expenses for 2021 and 2020. Curiously it also shows _zero rental costs_ but 40 million dollars in rental revenue under the exchange and third-party management umbrella.


We're splitting hairs here. Of course it includes salaries and commissions. That is part of how you sell a product. We aren't just talking about ads on TV when talking about marketing. Perhaps I used the term marketing too narrowly. It is really sales and marketing. The cost to sell a product outside the cost of the asset. It is 50% of just junk. Nothing close to the sales and marketing cost of whole ownership condo which is probably closer to 10-15% on new build and only agent commission on resale.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 19, 2022)

DanCali said:


> The part where you said that you "cannot book the same week using points". That argument is more relevant to a single-week season like an event week or a fixed week. Less so to a floating season week where each week in the season may require different points to book.
> 
> As I mentioned in my prior post, at NCV you can actually use points to book 8 nights instead of 7 nights in 14 of the 28 Platinum weeks. That doesn't mean there isn't skim.



In my comment, I was going to mention there are some weeks where they have given you enough points to book a week, it just not be the week you want, and it is not always the case. I just do not understand why people complain about skim if it only applies to you if you elect points, which is totally voluntary. Just don’t do it if you do not like it.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> In my comment, I was going to mention there are some weeks where they have given you enough points to book a week, it just not be the week you want, and it is not always the case. I just do not understand why people complain about skim if it only applies to you if you elect points, which is totally voluntary. Just don’t do it if you do not like it.


Also, the skim does not apply to all MVC resorts and even where it does you can still in many or perhaps even most cases get more than a week’s stay with your elected week’s points if different dates / unit size / view designation… meets your needs.
We have been able to use this to good effect and that has definitely been one of the benefits of enrolling our weeks.


----------



## dj_drf (Oct 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> It is variable because they took the opportunity to essentially redefine the seasons.  For MGO OS, all Platinum weeks cost 4500 points and get 4200.  For the week of the 4th they've also manipulated the Saturday points to make Saturday to Saturday over the 4th more points.  For 2021 that week was 4825 points and for 2022, 4950 points.  In addition they made several of the Gold weeks 4500 points as well.  In general one would have to look at the entire year from both sides to figure out the true skim.  One would also need to know how they accounted for maintenance.  I'm thinking that at some of the resorts they sold an average of 51.5 weeks which would make maintenance very tight on the weeks side and even tighter in a points system due to the inevitable fragmentation.


This raises a question - I've been told that the points charts cannot be changed except to reflect annual calendar shifts in the date / day of week variations.  Apparently, this was incorrect?  And yes, I was told this during a sales presentation .


----------



## jmhpsu93 (Oct 19, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> This raises a question - I've been told that the points charts cannot be changed except to reflect annual calendar shifts in the date / day of week variations.  Apparently, this was incorrect?  And yes, I was told this during a sales presentation .


I've seen five years worth of charts since I joined the DC and other than the variance you noted around holidays they've been the same as far as I could tell.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> This raises a question - I've been told that the points charts cannot be changed except to reflect annual calendar shifts in the date / day of week variations.  Apparently, this was incorrect?  And yes, I was told this during a sales presentation .


With those holiday weeks, they actually keep the point allocation the same for the entire week, they just increase the number of points needed for certain days (usually the actual holiday) and decrease the number of points for the other days. When you look at the whole week, it is still the same number of points as the other Platinum weeks, but booking certain check in day can impact the number of points needed.


----------



## wuv pooh (Oct 19, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> This raises a question - I've been told that the points charts cannot be changed except to reflect annual calendar shifts in the date / day of week variations.  Apparently, this was incorrect?  And yes, I was told this during a sales presentation .



It is just a misunderstanding.  The TOTAL points cannot change.  The intervals are tied to a number of total points to prevent the developer from selling the same points multiple times.  The individual points per week or per unit can change, especially when trying to balance demand.  In the beginning there were many changes between seasons, room sizes, and M-Thu vs. Fri-Sat in order to more adequately match demand.  I have not noticed this as much after the initial balancing, but can certainly be done any time in the future.


----------



## dj_drf (Oct 19, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> It is just a misunderstanding.  The TOTAL points cannot change.  The intervals are tied to a number of total points to prevent the developer from selling the same points multiple times.  The individual points per week or per unit can change, especially when trying to balance demand.  In the beginning there were many changes between seasons, room sizes, and M-Thu vs. Fri-Sat in order to more adequately match demand.  I have not noticed this as much after the initial balancing, but can certainly be done any time in the future.


Thanks for the info!  Also to @jmhpsu93 and @dioxide45


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> We're splitting hairs here. Of course it includes salaries and commissions. That is part of how you sell a product. We aren't just talking about ads on TV when talking about marketing. Perhaps I used the term marketing too narrowly. It is really sales and marketing. The cost to sell a product outside the cost of the asset. It is 50% of just junk. Nothing close to the sales and marketing cost of whole ownership condo which is probably closer to 10-15% on new build and only agent commission on resale.


Quite interesting that the marketing costs do not seem to be detailed for all the business activities, at a brief glance they almost make them look like they are all sales related. I wonder why.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> This raises a question - I've been told that the points charts cannot be changed except to reflect annual calendar shifts in the date / day of week variations.  Apparently, this was incorrect?  And yes, I was told this during a sales presentation .


There are likely those here that know more on this specific subject than I do.  The points for a given year cannot change but they can be rearranged as MVC wants.  The one area I am unsure about for MVC is whether the total only has to stay the same for the entire resort for the year or whether each view category must stay the same.  For DVC it's simply across the resort as a whole for FULL units ignoring lock off portions.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 19, 2022)

bazzap said:


> Also, the skim does not apply to all MVC resorts and even where it does you can still in many or perhaps even most cases get more than a week’s stay with your elected week’s points if different dates / unit size / view designation… meets your needs.
> We have been able to use this to good effect and that has definitely been one of the benefits of enrolling our weeks.



So why would anyone want to deposit a week to book back into a week in the same unit type they own? I am fine with what is called skim bc I see it as paying for the opportunity to exchange somewhere else in the MVC system.


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> So why would anyone want to deposit a week to book back into a week in the same unit type they own? I am fine with what is called skim bc I see it as paying for the opportunity to exchange somewhere else in the MVC system.


That happens in VSN all the time (no skim) if you need a different check in day or you want a stay that is shorter or longer than 7 nights.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> So why would anyone want to deposit a week to book back into a week in the same unit type they own? I am fine with what is called skim bc I see it as paying for the opportunity to exchange somewhere else in the MVC system.


To get a different week, different view type or for a reservation they couldn't get with the weeks.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> To get a different week, different view type or for a reservation they couldn't get with the weeks.



Exactly so why are they complaining about a privilege they do not have with weeks? I have been asking a rhetorical question. I already stated why. I know why. People need to stop whining about skim. You do not get things for free nor should you. Do these guys work for free too? Another rhetorical question.


----------



## dj_drf (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> So why would anyone want to deposit a week to book back into a week in the same unit type they own? I am fine with what is called skim bc I see it as paying for the opportunity to exchange somewhere else in the MVC system.


Admittedly, there is a lot I don't know about booking / changing / cancelling a Week Reservation, but the advantage I see to Points is the flexibility of changing or cancelling those reservations, even if the intended destination is the same.  Also, I have the option to bank points later in the year if it turns out that I can't vacation due to other commitments.  And it seems easier to make reservations for a period less than or greater than 7 days.  The downside is whether the desired timeframe costs more points than I received in exchange or if the desired timeframe is not available.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 19, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> Admittedly, there is a lot I don't know about booking / changing / cancelling a Week Reservation, but the advantage I see to Points is the flexibility of changing or cancelling those reservations, even if the intended destination is the same.  Also, I have the option to bank points later in the year if it turns out that I can't vacation due to other commitments.  And it seems easier to make reservations for a period less than or greater than 7 days.  The downside is whether the desired timeframe costs more points than I received in exchange or if the desired timeframe is not available.



Pros and cons but do not elect points if you want to book back into your week. I own weeks too and can elect points. I paid a fortune for this privilege since it was not enrolled for free/low cost based on pre-2010.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> Exactly so why are they complaining about a privilege they do not have with weeks? I have been asking a rhetorical question. I already stated why. I know why. People need to stop whining about skim. You do not get things for free nor should you. Do these guys work for free too? Another rhetorical question.


@timsi and others are correct in saying that "skim" is an issue with more than just electing your Week for DC/Abound Points and then not having enough Points to book the same interval. Skim is also an issue with some -- not ALL, some -- like-for-like exchanges that can typically be had in Interval International.

For example, a 2BR Barony Week can be used in II to exchange into a 2BR Maui Ocean Club. That would be like-for-like in II, and if the deposit is made as far out as possible it's not a difficult exchange except for the highest-demand calendar weeks. But a 2BR Gold Barony Week is allotted 3,725 DC/Abound Points, and there's not one 2BR calendar week in the MOC Points Chart for less than 4,700 points.

That's why we should look at "skim" as more than just a home resort usage issue, because at its most basic it's the difference in value between what you deposit into the exchange company and what you get out of it in return. For some Weeks it means you don't get like-for-like out of the DC/Abound Exchange Company. For other Weeks it means you don't get like-for-like out of Interval International. Owners all need to figure out which exchange company works best based on the specific Weeks owned and the intended/typical usage - and neither exchange company works for everyone.

Here on TUG the prevailing wisdom is that people should buy (on the external resale market, of course) "cheap traders" and then play in II's playground as if your life depends on it! But the developers price and sell the Weeks intervals according to demand, and naturally high-demand in-season Weeks sell better among the direct-purchase crowd (which, let's be real, far outnumbers the external resale crowd.) The reason the DC/Abound is successful is because those of us who bought the high-demand Weeks, either direct or external, are the ones getting better exchange value out of it _as compared to what we got from II_. I know I'm very happy with exchanging my 3BR in the DC/Abound to get a-2BR-plus-a-points-surplus as compared to the 2BR that I'd get out of II, even knowing that the points allotted for my 3BR at SurfWatch aren't enough to book any and every calendar week in a Hawaii 3BR. That surplus is the measurable difference-maker.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> Exactly so why are they complaining about a privilege they do not have with weeks? I have been asking a rhetorical question. I already stated why. I know why. People need to stop whining about skim. You do not get things for free nor should you. Do these guys work for free too? Another rhetorical question.


I understand the concern many have but do not agree it was done purposefully for profit.  My sense is they did this as a cushion because they really didn't know how things were going to go plus fragmentation.    Personally I feel that 3-5% cushion across a given resort should have been sufficient when added to the time already allotted to maintenance by way of not selling 52 weeks but only 51 or 51.5.  I do agree that no one has lost anything, we can use our weeks without electing points and be whole.


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

Interval is an external exchange, Abound and VSN are internal exchanges.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> @timsi and others are correct in saying that "skim" is an issue with more than just electing your Week for DC/Abound Points and then not having enough Points to book the same interval. Skim is also an issue with some -- not ALL, some -- like-for-like exchanges that can typically be had in Interval International.
> 
> For example, a 2BR Barony Week can be used in II to exchange into a 2BR Maui Ocean Club. That would be like-for-like in II, and if the deposit is made as far out as possible it's not a difficult exchange except for the highest-demand calendar weeks. But a 2BR Gold Barony Week is allotted 3,725 DC/Abound Points, and there's not one 2BR calendar week in the MOC Points Chart for less than 4,700 points.
> 
> That's why we should look at "skim" as more than just a home resort usage issue, because at its most basic it's the difference in value between what you deposit into the exchange company and what you get out of it in return. For some Weeks it means you don't get like-for-like out of the DC/Abound Exchange Company. For other Weeks it means you don't get like-for-like out of Interval International. Owners all need to figure out which exchange company works best based on the specific Weeks owned and the intended/typical usage - and neither exchange company works for everyone.


If I'm understanding correctly, you're simply saying that not all exchanges are equal.  That was true before points as well.  Since we can't trade points for MVC resorts through II, this is an artificial way of comparing exchanges.  EVERY exchange I do I expect to trade up in at least 2 of 3 areas (unit size, season, demand).  Personally I feel comparing the real value in dollars is a far better comparison for exchanges and is often more skewed than your example.    


timsi said:


> Interval is an external exchange, Abound and VSN are internal exchanges.


Actually when only request MVC resorts to MVC resorts, it is an internal exchange through II.


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> I understand the concern many have *but do not agree it was done purposefully for profit*.  My sense is they did this as a cushion because they really didn't know how things were going to go plus fragmentation.    Personally I feel that 3-5% cushion across a given resort should have been sufficient when added to the time already allotted to maintenance by way of not selling 52 weeks but only 51 or 51.5.  I do agree that no one has lost anything, we can use our weeks without electing points and be whole.


 If the total number of trust points sold in the trust matches the total number of VOIs conveyed to the trust (and they should match), there is no skim on the trust side. Why would they only need a cushion for the week deposits? Additionally, in no system all resources are used 100% all the time, people get sick, cancel, they have other problems, don't pay their dues etc. Airlines figured out a long time ago that on average, the number of people not turning up to flights is around 5 percent, but, in certain circumstances, that number can be up to 15 percent.  Why would Marriott need an additional cushion? How come Vistana can have a very decent inventory without a skim if the cushion was indeed necessary?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> If I'm understanding correctly, you're simply saying that not all exchanges are equal.  That was true before points as well.  Since we can't trade points for MVC resorts through II, this is an artificial way of comparing exchanges.  EVERY exchange I do I expect to trade up in at least 2 of 3 areas (unit size, season, demand).  Personally I feel comparing the real value in dollars is a far better comparison for exchanges and is often more skewed than your example. ...



I wish my II history was of up-trades but no matter how much I followed what TUGgers told me to do and how to ask for more, I wasn't ever successful with getting anything more than a 2BR for my 3BR non-lock-off SurfWatch deposits. Nature of the beast, what with so few n-l-o 3BR units in the timeshare world, but I still didn't like it. When the DC/Abound came along and the Points Charts showed me how much more I could get from it compared to from II, it was an easy decision to leave II behind.

Granted, for years before the DC/Abound I'd always said that a marriage of DVC's flexible points system with Marriott's extensive resort network would be my ideal timeshare system. The DC/Abound is pretty darn close.


----------



## timsi (Oct 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> If I'm understanding correctly, you're simply saying that not all exchanges are equal.  That was true before points as well.  Since we can't trade points for MVC resorts through II, this is an artificial way of comparing exchanges.  EVERY exchange I do I expect to trade up in at least 2 of 3 areas (unit size, season, demand).  Personally I feel comparing the real value in dollars is a far better comparison for exchanges and is often more skewed than your example.
> 
> Actually when only request MVC resorts to MVC resorts, it is an internal exchange through II.


Since the same reservation can be made by anyone in the system, not just by the Marriott owners, Interval should be considered an external Exchange.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> If the total number of trust points sold in the trust matches the total number of VOIs conveyed to the trust (and they should match), there is no skim on the trust side. Why would they only need a cushion for the week deposits? Additionally, in no system all resources are used 100% all the time, people get sick, cancel, they have other problems, don't pay their dues etc. Airlines figured out a long time ago that on average, the number of people not turning up to flights is around 5 percent, but, in certain circumstances, that number can be up to 15 percent.  Why would Marriott need an additional cushion? How come Vistana can have a very decent inventory without a skim if the cushion was indeed necessary?


I can't speak to Vistana specifically.  For trust only resorts I suspect they've accounted for this issue by adjusting the number of points sold.  For weeks resorts, the underling week would translate to points in such a way as to account for this issue.  While I don't know how Vistana or Westin accounts for fragmentation and maintenance, they must do so in one way or another.


SueDonJ said:


> I wish my II history was of up-trades but no matter how much I followed what TUGgers told me to do and how to ask for more, I wasn't ever successful with getting anything more than a 2BR for my 3BR non-lock-off SurfWatch deposits. Nature of the beast, what with so few n-l-o 3BR units in the timeshare world, but I still didn't like it. When the DC/Abound came along and the Points Charts showed me how much more I could get from it compared to from II, it was an easy decision to leave II behind.
> 
> Granted, for years before the DC/Abound I'd always said that a marriage of DVC's flexible points system with Marriott's extensive resort network would be my ideal timeshare system. The DC/Abound is pretty darn close.


That's why I always try to be trading up.  Personally a trade through II for exactly the same option is a downgrade in my book due to loss of control and unit assignment priority.  Personally I do all 3 options by using weeks, exchanging through II and using Club points.  Using the combination gives one significant advantages but does require a certain amount of volume.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> Interval is an external exchange, Abound and VSN are internal exchanges.


I don't know the set-up of how VSN inventory is/has been manipulated by first Starwood and now Marriott, but if it's not done through a stand-alone exchange company then it's not done the same way as DC/Abound exchanges are done. The DC/Abound Exchange Company comes under the Marriott Vacations Worldwide umbrella, yes, but in many respects it's as independent an exchange company as II is. For our purposes the exchanges we make through it are internal, but "internal" is always how Marriott and II defined MVC-to-MVC exchanges dating back forever, to long before II was under a Marriott umbrella.


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> Since the same reservation can be made by anyone in the system, not just by the Marriott owners, Interval should be considered an external Exchange.


II runs the internal exchange system for MVC weeks.  With limited exceptions, those weeks are not available for anyone at the onset.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> Airlines figured out a long time ago that on average, the number of people not turning up to flights is around 5 percent, but, in certain circumstances, that number can be up to 15 percent.  Why would Marriott need an additional cushion?


Airlines deal with this no show impact by overbooking flights. It's illegal to overbook a timeshare. Different industries; different rules.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 20, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> Airlines deal with this no show impact by overbooking flights. It's illegal to overbook a timeshare. Different industries; different rules.


I recall when Stephen Cloobeck of DRI was on Undercover Boss, he talks about overbooking. It seemed Diamond Resorts did it. With many cash stays, I suspect it is possible they overbook a timeshare like Marriott and I don't think it is illegal. They would just have to walk the cash guest. Resort destinations tend to have fewer no shows than business hotels so I think an overbooking situation is rare.


----------



## Eric B (Oct 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I recall when Stephen Cloobeck of DRI was on Undercover Boss, he talks about overbooking. It seemed Diamond Resorts did it. With many cash stays, I suspect it is possible they overbook a timeshare like Marriott and I don't think it is illegal. They would just have to walk the cash guest. Resort destinations tend to have fewer no shows than business hotels so I think an overbooking situation is rare.



I just had a Club Wyndham stay for a room type that was overbooked. They wound up switching me to a better room. This was booked using my ownership there. I'm not sure how often it happens, but it sounds like it's confirmed that it does for Wyndham and DRI.

I don't think there's any specific law that would make it illegal for points based systems.  It would be for a fixed time fixed unit type of ownership, obviously, but when you have to go through a reservation system and the management company has set up the guidelines for the use of that system you can bet on there being allowances for errors, etc., on their part.


----------



## Dean (Oct 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I recall when Stephen Cloobeck of DRI was on Undercover Boss, he talks about overbooking. It seemed Diamond Resorts did it. With many cash stays, I suspect it is possible they overbook a timeshare like Marriott and I don't think it is illegal. They would just have to walk the cash guest. Resort destinations tend to have fewer no shows than business hotels so I think an overbooking situation is rare.


The system books to the room availability.  At times they may block rooms to have a cushion since rooms go out of service often.  It would be illegal to oversell but likely not to overbook.  With timeshare generally "overbooking" is related to rooms going out, holdover guests, system glitches and the like; not from purposefully overbooking.  For timeshares they get "paid" whether the guest shows up or not other than for cash guests where they may only get the deposit.


----------



## timsi (Oct 20, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> Airlines deal with this no show impact by overbooking flights. It's illegal to overbook a timeshare. Different industries; different rules.


I agree with you, it is illegal to sell more points than the capacity of the resort, but this was not what I was referring to. Simply a skim is not necessary to run a smooth inventory because not all those who have timeshares, plane tickets, vouchers, airlines or hotels loyalty points, etc. end up using everything they have. Vistana has very good inventory (better than MVC some claim) with no skim. Not only Vistana does not have an inventory problem with no skim, but the developer routinely rents for profit units not booked by owners. By the way, the developers should compensate the HOA for the unbooked units, or at least I found nowhere in our rules that the developer can grab them *for free.*


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> I agree with you, it is illegal to sell more points than the capacity of the resort, but this was not what I was referring to. Simply a skim is not necessary to run a smooth inventory because not all those who have timeshares, plane tickets, vouchers, airlines or hotels loyalty points, etc. end up using everything they have. Vistana has very good inventory (better than MVC some claim) with no skim. Not only Vistana does not have an inventory problem with no skim, but the developer routinely rents for profit units not booked by owners. By the way, the developers should compensate the HOA for the unbooked units, or at least I found nowhere in our rules that the developer can grab them *for free.*



My point was not so much to defend the MVC “skim” as it was to point out that comparing airline no shows to timeshare unused nights was an apples to oranges comparison, since airlines can overbook flights, but timeshare companies can’t sell more points than the underlying inventory dictates.

Comparing MVC, to VSN, to HGVC, etc is fair game because they all play under the same rules. I can only speak to MVC and HGVC myself. HGVC has a 3-night minimum stay and significant a la carte fees. MVC has a 1-night minimum, no extra fees, plus skim.


----------



## timsi (Oct 20, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> My point was not so much to defend the MVC “skim” as it was to point out that comparing airline no shows to timeshare unused nights was an apples to oranges comparison, since airlines can overbook flights, but timeshare companies can’t sell more points than the underlying inventory dictates.
> 
> Comparing MVC, to VSN, to HGVC, etc is fair game because they all play under the same rules. I can only speak to MVC and HGVC myself. HGVC has a 3-night minimum stay and significant a la carte fees. MVC has a 1-night minimum, no extra fees, plus skim.


You also have to see if you do not pay already for bookings through the maintenance fees for the Marriott weeks. We do pay for "owners services" at the Vistana resorts and if I am not mistaken it is for the reservation system. This is in addition to the management fee (10%).


----------



## DanCali (Oct 20, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> In my comment, I was going to mention there are some weeks where they have given you enough points to book a week, it just not be the week you want, and it is not always the case. I just do not understand why people complain about skim if it only applies to you if you elect points, which is totally voluntary. Just don’t do it if you do not like it.



I view it as paying a transaction fee equal to 7%. 

People complain about it because it can be viewed as egregious. I see you own WKORV-N so you know that the Vistana system has zero skim. The Staroptions owners get are exactly equal to what it takes to book an "average week" (or any week, since they are all the same) in the season they own. Total Points In = Total Points Out. And when using Staroptions you can still book 1+ nights so the whole justification of skim compensating for "broken weeks" kind of falls apart. That system has been around for decades and worked very well (at least until MVC touched it) so that's a testament that it can also be done in a more owner-friendly way... Skim is just a way to pad the bottom line with rentals.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 20, 2022)

DanCali said:


> I view it as paying a transaction fee equal to 7%.
> 
> People complain about it because it can be viewed as egregious. I see you own WKORV-N so you know that the Vistana system has zero skim. The Staroptions owners get are exactly equal to what it takes to book an "average week" (or any week, since they are all the same) in the season they own. Total Points In = Total Points Out. And when using Staroptions you can still book 1+ nights so the whole justification of skim compensating for "broken weeks" kind of falls apart. That system has been around for decades and worked very well (at least until MVC touched it) so that's a testament that it can also be done in a more owner-friendly way... Skim is just a way to pad the bottom line with rentals.


The one thing that VSN has to disincentivize short stays is some fees. Cancellation fees, banking fee, prepay MF to borrow, housekeeping fees. Of course, all of those are supposed to go away with Abound.


----------



## timsi (Oct 20, 2022)

Let's not forget that a 7% skim is more than 7% of the cost of the maintenance fees since you need to pay money upfront to buy timeshares. The real cost is probably double for most owners.


----------



## timsi (Oct 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> The one thing that VSN has to disincentivize short stays is some fees. Cancellation fees, banking fee, prepay MF to borrow, housekeeping fees. Of course, all of those are supposed to go away with Abound.


The housekeeping costs will be covered by the resorts going forward they are not going to be paid by Marriott. If the cancellation fees, banking fees etc go away, does it mean that the amount we pay to the resorts for the "owner services" will go up?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> The housekeeping costs will be covered by the resorts going forward they are not going to be paid by Marriott. If the cancellation fees, banking fees etc go away, does it mean that the amount we pay to the resorts for the "owner services" will go up?


Most likely. When Marriott rolled out DC, we did see a fairly steady increase in housekeeping costs for the first few years. Someone has to pay for short stays. The only time the HOA gets any reimbursement for short stays is when someone is booked in on trust points or a cash stay. We will certainly also see an increase in owner services fee. Someone has to pay for what used to be revenue for VAC and that usually lands on the customer.


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 3, 2022)

Another 3 night minimum I stumbled across.  Thurs Sept 14th, 2023 check in at Grande Ocean requires a 3 night minimum to show as available. 

Oddly enough, Thurs Sept 7th only requires 2 night minimum.


----------



## Red elephant (Nov 3, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> Another 3 day minimum I stumbled across.  Thurs Sept 14th, 2023 check in at Grande Ocean requires a 3 day minimum to show as available.
> 
> Oddly enough, Thurs Sept 7th only requires 2 night minimum.


Wow!! Why do they have these minimums ? Why is it not transparent ?


----------



## Dean (Nov 3, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> Another 3 night minimum I stumbled across.  Thurs Sept 14th, 2023 check in at Grande Ocean requires a 3 night minimum to show as available.
> 
> Oddly enough, Thurs Sept 7th only requires 2 night minimum.


Grande Ocean has had 7 day minimums during the height of the summer the last couple of years.    It does make sense to me they would do that but I see no reason it shouldn't be posted so members could plan accordingly.


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 3, 2022)

Dean said:


> Grande Ocean has had 7 day minimums during the height of the summer the last couple of years.    It does make sense to me they would do that but I see no reason it shouldn't be posted so members could plan accordingly.


At the very least, color those days a different color, indicating availability, but with a minimum # of nights, so you can then figure out how many nights are needed.  Seems they are likely to have more waste as they currently just don’t show as available with a 1 night looksy.   People just move on, but perhaps they would book it after finding 2 or even 3 nights were needed to book it.


----------



## Dean (Nov 3, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> At the very least, color those days a different color, indicating availability, but with a minimum # of nights, so you can then figure out how many nights are needed.  Seems they are likely to have more waste as they currently just don’t show as available with a 1 night looksy.   People just move on, but perhaps they would book it after finding 2 or even 3 nights were needed to book it.


I anticipate more minimum stays as we go forward, seems inevitable to me.  Just let me know the parameters and I can adjust my plans and/or expectations.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 6, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> At the very least, color those days a different color, indicating availability, but with a minimum # of nights, so you can then figure out how many nights are needed.  Seems they are likely to have more waste as they currently just don’t show as available with a 1 night looksy.   People just move on, but perhaps they would book it after finding 2 or even 3 nights were needed to book it.



If it was color coded, you may actually get an idea of how widespread this is... too much transparency!

Instead of trying to sell points, salespeople may find themselves having to justify the policy for 90 minutes to someone who bought more points to book "1+ days at 13 months out"


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 6, 2022)

DanCali said:


> If it was color coded, you may actually get an idea of how widespread this is... too much transparency!
> 
> Instead of trying to sell points, salespeople may find themselves having to justify the policy for 90 minutes to someone who bought more points to book "1+ days at 13 months out"


Top 2 reasons I give the sales folks for not buying more….

- 13 month 1+ night benefit is a joke as often nothing has been loaded at 13 months, and for what is loaded, too many 3, 5 and 7 night minimums to make it a benefit 

- The crappy website


----------

