DC/Abound Inventory "Hidden" Restrictions? [MERGED]

[JIMinNC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?



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.

@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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.