Marriott Abound

[rcv82]

Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at
any time after the beginning of the Home Resort Reservation Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the
Home Resort Reservation Period, for the purpose of depositing the reserved Vacation Periods with an External

If they follow this, it does imply that they could not take inventory prior to the owners at least getting a crack at it at exactly 12 months out. If there is evidence that they do, I think that would be a violation of this clause. But they clearly do not have to wait until 8 months out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CalGalTraveler]

.

 

[CPNY]

I think it may have been posted in another group first and then shared in his group? I also think it was posted here on TUG before it was shared by Chris in the FB group.

Yes, I pulled it from the Aruba Surf Club FB group first, then saw here posted here already.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

... if there is anticipated demand away from the better weeks of the season to use external exchanges or for Bonvoy point conversion. They could, in their discretion anticipate such demand, but are very likely going to look to historical reservation trends and act to preserve the value of their corporate good will.

Or not...they will have no history of Abound demand because it is new.

 

[SueDonJ]

You are trying to trivialize something that may have more profound implications.
If someone with just a few trust points can use ALL the points in the account to access the trust inventory, the 1/1 exchange theory goes to the bin.

It's not correct that a Marriott DC member who owns a combination of purchased DC Trust Points and DC Exchange Points (from enrolled/elected Weeks) allows that member to access intervals conveyed and available through the Trust up to the total value of the combined points. It's a talking point that many sales reps claim, that purchasing Trust Points will "supercharge" your Exchange Points. But it doesn't happen in practice - for one thing it can't happen because it would be a flagrant violation of the inventory controls! But for another, our confirmations indicate on them whether the inventory comes from the Trust or the Exchange Company and the overwhelming majority of confirmations show the Exchange Company. I think the only "supercharging" that happens when an Enrolled/Exchange Member buys Trust Points is that their status likely changes to give them more advantageous usage rules, but it's definitely something that the sales reps misrepresent often.

It is correct that Marriott generally makes all inventory including Trust inventory available via the DC Exchange Company, meaning, the majority of DC reservations are confirmed via the DC Exchange Company and not the DC Trust (and inventory in the Exchange Company can be booked with a combination of Trust and Exchange Points.) Most Exchange Company inventory is available when the 13-mos Reservation Windows open but a few select highest-demand intervals aren't moved from the DC Trust and made available via the exchange company until the 12-mos Reservation Window.

 

[timsi]

... if there is anticipated demand away from the better weeks of the season to use external exchanges or for Bonvoy point conversion. They could, in their discretion anticipate such demand, but are very likely going to look to historical reservation trends and act to preserve the value of their corporate good will.

After being at quite a few sales meetings and after seeing that rules are designed to favor them virtually all the time I am not sure I see their priorities the same way as you.

 

[timsi]

Or not...they will have no history of Abound demand because it is new.

This is a good point but it does not even matter, they have the discretion. There is no rule that they have to look at the historical trends, even if there were any. If they gradually move more and more good inventory to About in "anticipation of the demand", guess what, the demand will be there, the Vistana owners will have to deposit and book however they can if they want to go to their favorite resorts.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

It sounds like MVC cannot make any Vistana available until after the home resort opens at 12 mos. Whether it is milliseconds? or days later? or cherry picking best weeks to squeeze owners onto the trust? or fair?...who knows

No matter what they do, this weaseling in by MVC to the deeded owner pool is in poor taste, I do not trust them to do the right thing especially because their lawyers found (or recently added) a loophole to get their way even it it has never been done that way before and steps on deeded owners. So will not be adding to our ownership until they prove themselves otherwise.

 

[timsi]

If they follow this, it does imply that they could not take inventory prior to the owners at least getting a crack at it at exactly 12 months out. If there is evidence that they do, I think that would be a violation of this clause. But they clearly do not have to wait until 8 months out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not see how you can have "evidence". Theoretically speaking, they can book all the units a split second after midnight , they are within their right to do it. Think about all the nights when nobody could book anything because of the IT issues. So many free units for them to choose from!

 

[timsi]

It sounds like MVC cannot make any Vistana available until after the home resort opens at 12 mos. Whether it is milliseconds? or days later? or cherry picking best weeks to squeeze owners onto the trust?...who knows

No matter what they do, this weaseling in by MVC to the deeded owner pool is in poor taste, I do not trust them to do the right thing so I will not be adding to our ownership. Slippery slope.

It is now becoming obvious to me why they could not start at 13 months the booking period in Abound for the Vistana resorts.

 

[kozykritter]

It's not correct that a Marriott DC member who owns a combination of purchased DC Trust Points and DC Exchange Points (from enrolled/elected Weeks) allows that member to access intervals conveyed and available through the Trust up to the total value of the combined points. It's a talking point that many sales reps claim, that purchasing Trust Points will "supercharge" your Exchange Points. But it doesn't happen in practice - for one thing it can't happen because it would be a flagrant violation of the inventory controls! But for another, our confirmations indicate on them whether the inventory comes from the Trust or the Exchange Company and the overwhelming majority of confirmations show the Exchange Company. I think the only "supercharging" that happens when an Enrolled/Exchange Member buys Trust Points is that their status likely changes to give them more advantageous usage rules, but it's definitely something that the sales reps misrepresent often.

It is correct that Marriott generally makes all inventory including Trust inventory available via the DC Exchange Company, meaning, the majority of DC reservations are confirmed via the DC Exchange Company and not the DC Trust (and inventory in the Exchange Company can be booked with a combination of Trust and Exchange Points.) Most Exchange Company inventory is available when the 13-mos Reservation Windows open but a few select highest-demand intervals aren't moved from the DC Trust and made available via the exchange company until the 12-mos Reservation Window.

It seems to me the only way to know for sure whether or not what they represented is true would be what happens if they at some point put the barrier back up for DC inventory and then see what an owner with both enrolled points and trust points could book. Perhaps transactions labeled as DC trust are ones that are made trust points utilizing inventory that still is in the trust and those that say exchange company involved trust inventory and elected inventory that's been moved into the exchange company. That would possibly explain why so few transactions right now say DC trust because that inventory gets moved constantly into the exchange company. All just guesses from what I've observed in posts on this site. It all seems very nebulous! I guess the trick is to get it in writing from someone ;-)

 

[pchung6]

If Abound is just another external exchange system, like Interval, is it possible Abound will mostly only get low season deposits just like Interval? VSN will keep most prime weeks as we are today? If that's the case, it will be the best outcome for Vistana owners.

 

[dsmrp]

It is now becoming obvious to me why they could not start at 13 months the booking period in Abound for the Vistana resorts.

I think this is what I and others have said a few pages back.
It's obvious you and @CalGalTraveler distrust Marriott. And if I were an owner at a high MF resort, I might be suspicious too. But without a preponderance of evidence and Abound program TBA information, I'm trying to keep an open mind, even tho' I think VSN availability at 8 months may be less than before.

 

[timsi]

I think this is what I and others have said a few pages back.
It's obvious you and @CalGalTraveler distrust Marriott. And if I were an owner at a high MF resort, I might be suspicious too. But without a preponderance of evidence and Abound program TBA information, I'm trying to keep an open mind, even tho' I think VSN availability at 8 months may be less than before.

The TBA information will not change my opinion that the timeshare companies have too many levers to screw up the individual owner.

 

[SueDonJ]

It seems to me the only way to know for sure whether or not what they represented is true would be what happens if they at some point put the barrier back up for DC inventory and then see what an owner with both enrolled points and trust points could book. Perhaps transactions labeled as DC trust are ones that are made 100% with trust points and those that are made with a mix of points or elected points say exchange company but they're still accessing DC trust inventory because of the way it's handled right now. It all seems very nebulous! I guess the trick is to get it in writing from someone ;-)

The member selects which Points in his/her account are applied to a DC reservation, and the confirmations for reservations indicate clearly whether the inventory has been pulled from the DC Trust or the DC Exchange Company. The data needed to debunk the sales-speak about "supercharged" points is in plain view and we've had ten-plus years of experience to collect and analyze it.

It is possible to "know for sure" that when someone tells you that buying Trust Points will somehow "supercharge" (or whatever other stupid word they use) your Exchange Points from enrolled/elected Weeks such that the total combination can be used to book inventory directly from the DC Trust, they don't know what they're talking about. It's very basic: Trust Members (owners of purchased Trust Points) have access to inventory conveyed to and available through the DC Trust and the DC Exchange Company; Exchange Members (owners of enrolled Weeks which can be elected for Exchange Points) have access to only the inventory available through the DC Exchange Company. That's what the governing documents stipulate and that's what the practical experience of using the DC supports.

I'm not saying that Exchange Members do not and cannot access DC Trust-conveyed inventory. They can, but not unless/until that inventory is moved into the DC Exchange Company. We have closely watched inventory machinations since Day One, because Marriott people had the same concerns about inventory mismanagement by Marriott that are being raised now by Vistana people. We've learned a great deal about inventory machinations over these years, and tops on that list is that sales reps many times have no practical experience with the DC and they misunderstand the DC nuances at least as often as owners may.

There's never been any indication, either, that specific inventory will be moved from the Trust to the Exchange Company on demand if/when a member who owns Trust and Exchange Points requests it (as opposed to that inventory not being moved if a member with only Exchange Points requests it.) The only evidence we've seen that certain inventory is held for Trust Members is that certain highest-demand inventory isn't moved from the Trust to the Exchange Company until the 12-months Reservation Window opens. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with any "supercharging" variables at work, but rather an effort to preserve Trust Members' access to highest-demand/lowest-supply intervals.

 

[kozykritter]

The member selects which Points in his/her account are applied to a DC reservation, and the confirmations for reservations indicate clearly whether the inventory has been pulled from the DC Trust or the DC Exchange Company. The data needed to debunk the sales-speak about "supercharged" points is in plain view and we've had ten-plus years of experience to collect and analyze it.

It is possible to "know for sure" that when someone tells you that buying Trust Points will somehow "supercharge" (or whatever other stupid word they use) your Exchange Points from enrolled/elected Weeks such that the total combination can be used to book inventory directly from the DC Trust, they don't know what they're talking about. It's very basic: Trust Members (owners of purchased Trust Points) have access to inventory conveyed to and available through the DC Trust and the DC Exchange Company; Exchange Members (owners of enrolled Weeks which can be elected for Exchange Points) have access to only the inventory available through the DC Exchange Company. That's what the governing documents stipulate and that's what the practical experience of using the DC supports.

I'm not saying that Exchange Members do not and cannot access DC Trust-conveyed inventory. They can, but not unless/until that inventory is moved into the DC Exchange Company. We have closely watched inventory machinations since Day One, because Marriott people had the same concerns about inventory mismanagement by Marriott that are being raised now by Vistana people. We've learned a great deal about inventory machinations over these years, and tops on that list is that sales reps many times have no practical experience with the DC and they misunderstand the DC nuances at least as often as owners may.

There's never been any indication, either, that specific inventory will be moved from the Trust to the Exchange Company on demand if/when a member who owns Trust and Exchange Points requests it (as opposed to that inventory not being moved if a member with only Exchange Points requests it.) The only evidence we've seen that certain inventory is held for Trust Members is that certain highest-demand inventory isn't moved from the Trust to the Exchange Company until the 12-months Reservation Window opens. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with any "supercharging" variables at work, but rather an effort to preserve Trust Members' access to highest-demand/lowest-supply intervals.

Thanks for sharing your years of observation and wisdom. I just feel like there's more to it but that's my own personal perspective.

 

[Venter]

You are trying to trivialize something that may have more profound implications.
If someone with just a few trust points can use ALL the points in the account to access the trust inventory, the 1/1 exchange theory goes to the bin.

????????

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The TBA information will not change my opinion that the timeshare companies have too many levers to screw up the individual owner.

Well said. The fact they are utilizing these levers (and lawyers) to find a way to gain more levers is not a good sign. How does this build trust? A number of Westin OF owners I know are different from your regular timeshare buyer because these owners bought OF developer as generational deeds in anticipation of passing these units down to their kids. I know one owner who owns WKORV OFC retail and bought another WKORVN OF retail so they could pass a unit down to each of their two children.

Aside from home week deed pool issues, as an VSN system owner it is not a good sign that they are devaluing SOs because that is part of our mandatory resale rights. So owner deeded rights are affected in multiple ways.

MVC is playing with fire if they monkey with the OF owners rights. Vistana knew it and stayed away because they did not add OF to the Flex trust.

 

[Venter]

MVC is playing with fire if they monkey with the OF owners rights. Vistana knew it and stayed away because they did not add OF to the Flex trust.

I think they did not add it because it made them more bucks to try and sell them again rather than put them into the Flex pool. If I understand the experts from other threads on this topic of why it is not in Flex correctly.

 

[dioxide45]

MVC is playing with fire if they monkey with the OF owners rights. Vistana knew it and stayed away because they did not add OF to the Flex trust.

I think they did not add it because it made them more bucks to try and sell them again rather than put them into the Flex pool. If I understand the experts from other threads on this topic of why it is not in Flex correctly.

It was about selling those OF weeks for much higher prices than they could get from the same number of Home Options. They even said this on a number of investor calls. If they were concerned about the legality of the trusts with OF, the issue is also there with the other views and nothing stopped them from adding those to Flex.

 

[SueDonJ]

Thanks for sharing your years of observation and wisdom. I just feel like there's more to it but that's my own personal perspective.

I get it, but it really doesn't help to suspect Marriott of violating inventory controls in specific ways when all indications are that they haven't historically and aren't currently doing so in those ways.

It makes perfect sense to speculate on what they may try to do and to consider how that might be a violation, sure, and in that respect this thread and others like it are a perfectly valid means to prepare for how ownerships might be impacted by what's coming down the pike. (And, these types of threads are excellent clearinghouses to focus attention on the legalities after whatever is coming finally gets here.) But these threads also highlight the fear of the unknown and how it fosters distrust that may not be warranted, so why contribute to that mindset without justification?

When it comes to this little sidebar we're having specifically, it is simply not true that purchasing Destination Club Trust Points will "supercharge" the Points that are allocated when an Exchange Member elects Exchange Points for enrolled Weeks such that a combination of those Points can directly access inventory that has been conveyed to the DC Trust. If it could happen, which it can't and it doesn't, but if it could, what would be the purpose of Marriott going to the trouble of developing the entirely separate component of the Destination Club that is the Exchange Company? Wouldn't they better have served their purposes (i.e. selling the points product) if "enrollment" meant only that a Trust Points purchase would be necessary to allow access to the Destination Club using existing Weeks?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@dioxide45 Good to know. AFAIK they have not proposed to put OF into the DP (or Flex) Trust. This is about deed enrollment which has never been done before.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I get it, but it really doesn't help to suspect Marriott of violating inventory controls in specific ways when all indications are that they haven't historically and aren't currently doing so in those ways.

It makes perfect sense to speculate on what they may try to do and to consider how that might be a violation, sure, and in that respect this thread and others like it are a perfectly valid means to prepare for how ownerships might be impacted by what's coming down the pike. (And, these types of threads are excellent clearinghouses to focus attention on the legalities after whatever is coming finally gets here.) But these threads also highlight the fear of the unknown and how it fosters distrust that may not be warranted, so why contribute to that mindset without justification?

But MVC is playing with deeded owner inventory and the SO program, are they not?

Loss of trust may not be warranted?!!? MVC made this announcement with zero written program details. Heck even HGVC Max rollout (which has not been great), at least had a Q&A, a web page with descriptions and sent emails out to owners on the same day. Mark Wang, CEO of HGV even responded with clarifying details to an owner in 3 days (letter was shared by that owner online) when concerns and questions were raised. None of this delivered by MVC.

It is obvious this announcement was window dressing for investor day; owners are an afterthought to MVC by the way they acted on this rollout. They talk about re-engaging customers - pure marketing BS.

Watch how they act, not what they say. We have had limited MVC interactions as a Vistana owner - weeks of crappy IT with no response when owners could not book their week, poor telephone response times and untrained agents, zero customer engagement so far on Abound except empty announcements with threats to devalue what I own. Nice way to start a relationship MVC.

I realize that this may not have been your experience as a long-time MVC owner, but this is mine as a new member of the MVC family.

 

[SueDonJ]

But MVC is playing with deeded owner inventory, are they not?

Loss of trust may not be warranted?!!? MVC made this announcement with zero written program details. Heck even HGVC Max rollout (which has not been great), at least had a Q&A, a web page with descriptions and sent emails out to owners on the same day. None of this delivered by MVC.

So let's talk about justification and how to build trust with owners. It is obvious this announcement was window dressing for investor day; owners are an afterthought to MVC by the way they acted on this rollout. They talk about re-engaging and engaging Vistana customers - pure marketing BS for investor day. Watch how they act, not what they say. We have had limited MVC interactions as a Vistana owner - Crappy IT, poor telephone response, zero customer engagement so far on Abound except empty announcements with threats to devalue what I own. Nice way to start a relationship.

There is yet to be an "official" roll-out/implementation date of whatever Abound will mean for Vistana owners. From my viewpoint, you all have gotten infinitely more advance notice than what we Marriott owners got at the inception, which was an abrupt change to the owners' website shortly after midnight on Sunday, 6/20/10, with a very short blurb on that website and links to all of the Destination Club Trust and Exchange Company governing documents. We were well into the first year after the rollout before we were able to understand most of the major changes, and well into the third year before the practical aspects of the minor nuances were understood. Marriott was roundly and well-deservedly lambasted for that rollout without any warning, and now they're being lambasted for an early warning before the official rollout. They can't win support either way! That's the nature of change.

So in my opinion with respect to Abound, Vistana owners have already gotten more from Marriott than they ever gave Marriott owners. As far as them ensuring that their investors' concerns are taken into consideration, I don't have a problem with that. If Marriott didn't take their investors' concerns into consideration, none of us could be certain of the company's viability and thus none of us certain about our ownerships. They're a public company indebted to their investors - that's basic business. Of course they also owe their "customers" including those who have purchased timeshare interests from them but IMO unless/until they remove deeded rights from those owners, unwarranted criticism and charges that they can't be trusted don't help anybody.

I've been reading this forum for a long time. Marriott has been criticized since the day it absorbed Vistana, in some cases deservedly but in other cases not. And I wonder at how quickly some Vistana owners have forgotten that they had legitimate reasons to criticize Starwood for years prior to Marriott entering the picture.

* Most of what I've contributed to these threads has been related to the enrollment of existing sold Weeks side of the house, less about Trust Points supported by intervals conveyed to the Trust (and the little sidebar in which I've commented about suspecting Marriott of something they're not doing is specific to which inventory DC Exchange Points can directly access.) So I'm not quite sure what your comment about Marriott playing with deeded owner inventory means, if you want to clarify?

 

[kozykritter]

Everyone has a right to their own opinions and feelings here. They also have the right to use the ignore feature if someone is working their last good nerve