Marriott Vacations Worldwide Q4 2025 and Full Year Earnings

[dioxide45]

I don't follow financials all that closely, but listened to the earnings call this morning for Marriott Vacations Worldwide.

• This was the first earnings release for the new permanent CEO.
• Mr Flaskey said his bit at the new COO. I am wondering if they aren't grooming him for the next CEO?
• Sales were down and VPG was lower but their stock price is up about 10% in early trading today.
• Marriott Vacation Club seems to be making big adjustments with their Asia Pacific strategy which will result in 30% lower sales in that region. I'm not sure what this is all about, but they've delayed expenses related to inventory at two properties in Bali. They seem to be slowing new builds overall.
• Not Marriott Vacation Club related, but they announced they don't plan to develop the Hyatt Vacation Club property that was previously announced for Orlando. I wonder if Savannah, Charleston or Nashville could also be on the chopping block.
• They've updated their "asset disposition list" in a goal to generate 200 to 250 million dollars in cash over two years. I take this to mean selling properties that aren't developed or selling undeveloped land where development was never completed. We know they sold the Westin Cancun Resort & Spa hotel as well as the unsold land at Shadow Ridge. They also indicated previously that they sold the hotel portion of the Sheraton Kauai Resort. I don't really know where all they have undeveloped land other than Ko'Olina, Harbour Lake, Desert Willow, Frenchman's Cove, Lakeshore Reserve, Savannah, Charleston and that Hyatt property in Orlando.
• They did announce, and was mentioned in another thread, that they plan to acquire 64 purpose built timeshare units at the Marriott Puerto Vallarta Resort & Spa sometime in 2028. This was part of the same transaction that included the Westin Cancun.
• It seems overall that they are targeting better tour guest quality vs. quantity. Higher FICO scores and analyzing guest metrics for tours. They indicated in their presentation deck that VPG seems to drive better sales vs. quantity of tour guests. Perhaps they are seeing the light that inviting people over and over isn't the way to go?
• 
• II membership is down about 40,000 over the past year. An interesting statistic about II is that about 40% of the membership base is from owners within the Marriott Vacations programs (MVC, Vistana, Hyatt).

 

[Fasttr]

Good stuff, thanks for posting.

 

[TUGBrian]

was just about to post this, but you beat me to it!

here was an article with all the juicy details:

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260223201370/en/Marriott-Vacations-Worldwide-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2025-Financial-Results

 

[GetawaysRus]

"It seems overall that they are targeting better tour guest quality vs. quantity. Higher FICO scores and analyzing guest metrics for tours."

I'm curious how they would know these sorts of things. I try to keep financial details as private as possible.

 

[jp10558]

• Marriott Vacation Club seems to be making big adjustments with their Asia Pacific strategy which will result in 30% lower sales in that region. I'm not sure what this is all about, but they've delayed expenses related to inventory at two properties in Bali. They seem to be slowing new builds overall.

I find it interesting they're going for 30% less sales anywhere... Or is this less presentations?

• Not Marriott Vacation Club related, but they announced they don't plan to develop the Hyatt Vacation Club property that was previously announced for Orlando. I wonder if Savannah, Charleston or Nashville could also be on the chopping block.

Color me shocked, I recall TUG consensus was that Orlando has plenty of options. The only benefit I saw was pushing sales, but if they're looking to shrink number of presentations makes sense to go.

• It seems overall that they are targeting better tour guest quality vs. quantity. Higher FICO scores and analyzing guest metrics for tours. They indicated in their presentation deck that VPG seems to drive better sales vs. quantity of tour guests. Perhaps they are seeing the light that inviting people over and over isn't the way to go?
• View attachment 122501
  

Inviting the same people over and over obviously doesn't work that well if they've never bought retail. I think they have a tight needle to thread here though in my non expert opinion. You can't be sustainable if you're only selling to existing owners. They will eventually die out. OTOH their retail product is overpriced for what it is. Going upmarket doesn't solve that problem IMHO and the further you go targeting people who aren't focused on a value proposition - well, eventually you find people who just don't care about the supposed timeshare value either.

• II membership is down about 40,000 over the past year. An interesting statistic about II is that about 40% of the membership base is from owners within the Marriott Vacations programs (MVC, Vistana, Hyatt).

We of course don't know their normal range so... is that a lot?

 

[jp10558]

"It seems overall that they are targeting better tour guest quality vs. quantity. Higher FICO scores and analyzing guest metrics for tours."

I'm curious how they would know these sorts of things. I try to keep financial details as private as possible.

I bet they just pay one of the bureaus - that's how you get those "pre-approved" credit offers.

 

[dioxide45]

We of course don't know their normal range so... is that a lot?

I don't really know. When I looked back at this previously, they seemed to be in a slow and steady drop. They really only started breaking out this number like they do now in the past couple. Years. Looking back at a 2022 earnings release they indicated they had 1.3 million II members. That number is now at 1.5 million. So perhaps they are up overall longer term and it isn't something to be concerned with.

 

[Superchief]

I feel sorry for the more 'honest' sales people. With a reduction in presentations they will likely reduce staff, so the more ethical ones will lose their jobs.

 

[DanCali]

The stock can move up/down on any given announcement but the big picture is that it's down a lot (~60%)? in the past 5 years while the S&P 500 is up a lot (~80%+) over the same period.

To me, the one line that matters is the "sales of vacation ownership products" from the income statement (I care less about non-GAAP operating metrics like contract sales or VPG), and that's been flat since 2023 (the recent report shows it was $1,464 million in 2025). It's actually impressive even to pull that off when you consider how much maintenance fees increased since 2022, but it obviously didn't help the stock over time.

In a recent presentation I had a manager give me their "best offer" for a hybrid package and asked me what else it would take to get me to buy. I said I'll take the week they offered at the asking price, buy only 1000 points instead of 3000, and I also wanted to enroll a few resale weeks as well (that part was not on the table at all)... When the resale value of points is near-zero and the cost to rent/transfer points from other owners is lower than the maintenance fees, it's hard to see the value (especially when you can get equally functional resale points with equally high maintenance fees but at a fraction of the upfront cost). It's great when you can buy something for $2 and sell it for $17, but I don't want to be on the other end of that deal 3000 times!

I hope the new management is successful, because we need them to be, but it's hard to make an unaffordable product affordable again without paying a substantial cost upfront for that. One year of flat MFs is barely a start...

 

[rickxylon]

They talk about “impairment “. What does that mean? What is the impact on the properties they mention?

Thanks

 

[DanCali]

They talk about “impairment “. What does that mean? What is the impact on the properties they mention?

Thanks

It’s basically realizing a loss on assets due to a variety of possible reasons like decline in market value, obsolescence, change in company strategy, legal issues etc.

Impairment

During the fourth quarter, the Company performed a comprehensive review of its business and recorded a $546 million non‑cash impairment charge:

$175 million related to inventory, property and equipment, and other assets associated with future phases of existing projects in North America the Company does not expect to build, as well as inventory associated with its Legacy-Welk business, and $27 million for the impairment of vacation ownership units in Khao Lak, Thailand due to the strategy change in Asia Pacific;

$160 million to write down the value of real estate assets identified for disposition; and

$184 million primarily to write down goodwill and intangibles related to its previous acquisition of ILG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bizaro86]

They talk about “impairment “. What does that mean? What is the impact on the properties they mention?

Thanks

It's relatively common for a new CEO to take a "kitchen sink" quarter and anything that might not be worth what it's carried at gets written down all at once. That way all the potential bad news gets out when you can blame it on the last guy.

 

[jp10558]

The stock can move up/down on any given announcement but the big picture is that it's down a lot (~60%)? in the past 5 years while the S&P 500 is up a lot (~80%+) over the same period.

To me, the one line that matters is the "sales of vacation ownership products" from the income statement (I care less about non-GAAP operating metrics like contract sales or VPG), and that's been flat since 2023 (the recent report shows it was $1,464 million in 2025). It's actually impressive even to pull that off when you consider how much maintenance fees increased since 2022, but it obviously didn't help the stock over time.

View attachment 122522

In a recent presentation I had a manager give me their "best offer" for a hybrid package and asked me what else it would take to get me to buy. I said I'll take the week they offered at the asking price, buy only 1000 points instead of 3000, and I also wanted to enroll a few resale weeks as well (that part was not on the table at all)... When the resale value of points is near-zero and the cost to rent/transfer points from other owners is lower than the maintenance fees, it's hard to see the value (especially when you can get equally functional resale points with equally high maintenance fees but at a fraction of the upfront cost). It's great when you can buy something for $2 and sell it for $17, but I don't want to be on the other end of that deal 3000 times!

I hope the new management is successful, because we need them to be, but it's hard to make an unaffordable product affordable again without paying a substantial cost upfront for that. One year of flat MFs is barely a start...

I feel like this is MVCs main problem - you can razzle dazzle people a lot, but you either end up with bad debt in the worst case OR you just fail to see when people can't afford it / don't see the value. TS sales mostly make up the value anyway so unless you're in the know about resale (and if you are you're just not buying retail in almost all cases) so I think they're just hitting a point where people can't pay. Which is why they're now looking for more well to do people to do presentations to. I just don't know how much really is a numbers game or if there's realistically better targeting they could do. I guess obviously not just handing out gifts to anyone you shanghai in a Wal-Mart parking lot would be an easy way to aim higher.

IDK how MVC makes it affordable again without killing the profit margin or tanking the quality. I don't know if HGV's plan of mirroring the hotel chains market segmentation and adding a bunch of "lower tier" is going to work out or fail hard. MVC doesn't currently have anything like that set up that I can see. (and leaving aside how the inherited DRI pricing anyway is higher for the lower tier than HGVC higher tier ... it's the general idea) If they wanted to follow a segmentation model there's what, Capital to maybe buy?

 

[dioxide45]

IDK how MVC makes it affordable again without killing the profit margin or tanking the quality. I don't know if HGV's plan of mirroring the hotel chains market segmentation and adding a bunch of "lower tier" is going to work out or fail hard. MVC doesn't currently have anything like that set up that I can see. (and leaving aside how the inherited DRI pricing anyway is higher for the lower tier than HGVC higher tier ... it's the general idea) If they wanted to follow a segmentation model there's what, Capital to maybe buy?

Marriott has Sheraton Flex on the Vistana side which would be a decent lower tier product. The problem is, like the HVC collections, it isn't really cheaper than the main product that Marriott sells. I understand that HVC is actually more expensive than HGVC but Sheraton Flex is a few cents cheaper on maintenance fees than Abound Trust Points but the buy-in cost is about the same when compared to the equivalent number of Marriott trust points.

 

[DanCali]

IDK how MVC makes it affordable again without killing the profit margin or tanking the quality. I don't know if HGV's plan of mirroring the hotel chains market segmentation and adding a bunch of "lower tier" is going to work out or fail hard. MVC doesn't currently have anything like that set up that I can see. (and leaving aside how the inherited DRI pricing anyway is higher for the lower tier than HGVC higher tier ... it's the general idea) If they wanted to follow a segmentation model there's what, Capital to maybe buy?

There is a guaranteed way to dramatically lower the maintenance fees on trust points, but it would indeed kill margins in the short term. They can start ROFRing Platinum Plus and Holiday fixed weeks (or just select Platinum weeks with much lower MF/point weeks) and putting them in the trust. But obviously it's more profitable for them to buy and recycle 5000 points by paying peanuts for 2-3 silver weeks (with very high MF/point that don't affect their profitability) than spend $16-$20K on a PP NCV week 26 or something similar that has MFs of about $0.40/pt. Even if the fees at underlying resorts go up modestly, doing this can still pull MFs of trust points lower due to higher quality weeks being added to the pool. But when you're starting at 81.5 cents in MFs 15+ years after the points program launched, it's hard to pull off overnight.

Aside from this it's really hard to see how you change the perception that paying $100K upfront for 6000 points (that have a resale value of maybe $10K) and then another $5000 annually on MFs to have the privilege to compete for a 2BR OV in Hawaii 13 months in advance is not a great deal. And adding options of using points at hotels at a value of $0.30/pt doesn't help that perception; how do you market that - "the more you use, the more you lose"?

One company that seems to be maintaining the value of timeshare ownership (for now) is Disney. It has a vibrant resale market, multiple resorts trade a discount of just 25%-40% to direct prices (enough to justify buying some direct points to get extra perks), owners can rent points at 2x-3x the cost of the MFs pretty easily, and many alternative use options (e.g. cruises) provide decent value that at least cover the MFs - not the best use, but not a guaranteed loss either. Some of that may adversely change with more recent resale restrictions; time will tell...

 

[Dean]

There is a guaranteed way to dramatically lower the maintenance fees on trust points, but it would indeed kill margins in the short term. They can start ROFRing Platinum Plus and Holiday fixed weeks (or just select Platinum weeks with much lower MF/point weeks) and putting them in the trust. But obviously it's more profitable for them to buy and recycle 5000 points by paying peanuts for 2-3 silver weeks (with very high MF/point that don't affect their profitability) than spend $16-$20K on a PP NCV week 26 or something similar that has MFs of about $0.40/pt. Even if the fees at underlying resorts go up modestly, doing this can still pull MFs of trust points lower due to higher quality weeks being added to the pool. But when you're starting at 81.5 cents in MFs 15+ years after the points program launched, it's hard to pull off overnight.

Aside from this it's really hard to see how you change the perception that paying $100K upfront for 6000 points (that have a resale value of maybe $10K) and then another $5000 annually on MFs to have the privilege to compete for a 2BR OV in Hawaii 13 months in advance is not a great deal. And adding options of using points at hotels at a value of $0.30/pt doesn't help that perception; how do you market that - "the more you use, the more you lose"?

One company that seems to be maintaining the value of timeshare ownership (for now) is Disney. It has a vibrant resale market, multiple resorts trade a discount of just 25%-40% to direct prices (enough to justify buying some direct points to get extra perks), owners can rent points at 2x-3x the cost of the MFs pretty easily, and many alternative use options (e.g. cruises) provide decent value that at least cover the MFs - not the best use, but not a guaranteed loss either. Some of that may adversely change with more recent resale restrictions; time will tell...

They'll exercise ROFR on the higher demand weeks but they're not likely to up the limits they're will to pay too much. I suspect those owners are less likely to want out and less likely to take a bargain basement price. They're really the only weeks in the system that have any real inherent value to speak of.

DVC has one major advantage, the parks, other than that they're just another good timeshare. They do a fabulous job with theming though even that has lessened over the last few years somewhat. Just look at VB & HH DVC options then imagine if those resort were cut off from using the points at WDW or DL.

 

[dioxide45]

They'll exercise ROFR on the higher demand weeks but they're not likely to up the limits they're will to pay too much. I suspect those owners are less likely to want out and less likely to take a bargain basement price. They're really the only weeks in the system that have any real inherent value to speak of.

I think the problem is they have to pay more per point for the higher end weeks. They just don't want to do that when they can have people pay them $400 to take back the lower end weeks. All the points sell for the same price, so flipping something that cost them $0 is better than flipping something that might have cost them $2-$4pp. It is a rather short sighted approach though.

 

[bizaro86]

I think the problem is they have to pay more per point for the higher end weeks. They just don't want to do that when they can have people pay them $400 to take back the lower end weeks. All the points sell for the same price, so flipping something that cost them $0 is better than flipping something that might have cost them $2-$4pp. It is a rather short sighted approach though.

Yeah. Buying the good weeks would make their product intrinsically more valuable, which would improve the long term sustainability of their business. But long term value isn't something that TS developers have historically put a lot of importance on, which I think is too bad.

 

[Dean]

I think the problem is they have to pay more per point for the higher end weeks. They just don't want to do that when they can have people pay them $400 to take back the lower end weeks. All the points sell for the same price, so flipping something that cost them $0 is better than flipping something that might have cost them $2-$4pp. It is a rather short sighted approach though.

Agreed, unless they're hurting for points they aren't likely to up their offers on the higher demand weeks and there's really no reason for them to do so from a sales standpoint because the sale price per point is the same. If lack of availability starts hurting sales in their eyes they'll likely be more aggressive in buying back the better weeks.

 

[Dean]

Yeah. Buying the good weeks would make their product intrinsically more valuable, which would improve the long term sustainability of their business. But long term value isn't something that TS developers have historically put a lot of importance on, which I think is too bad.

That's one of several problems with a points system, that every point is viewed as prime by the buyer but in reality the resorts are still VERY seasonal though some more than others. So from a sales standpoint it doesn't matter as their just selling points and for those of us that know how to play the game it doesn't matter much most of the time. The reality is that every floating system in timeshares (points or weeks) is basically pitting one owner against another.

 

[bizaro86]

That's one of several problems with a points system, that every point is viewed as prime by the buyer but in reality the resorts are still VERY seasonal though some more than others. So from a sales standpoint it doesn't matter as their just selling points and for those of us that know how to play the game it doesn't matter much most of the time. The reality is that every floating system in timeshares (points or weeks) is basically pitting one owner against another.

For sure, everyone buying assumes they are getting the prime weeks. So adding more prime weeks will probably increase owner satisfaction.

But even on the front end it helps, because prime weeks would lower the MF on trust points, which makes buying more favourable.

 

[DanCali]

For sure, everyone buying assumes they are getting the prime weeks. So adding more prime weeks will probably increase owner satisfaction.

I don't know if that aspect itself makes much of a difference (but lower MFs would).

Based solely on the high MF per trust point, I assume the quality of weeks in the trust on average is below average. Not a lot of fixed holiday weeks, not a lot of Platinum, not a lot of oceanfront. That hasn't really stopped them from trying to get people to buy points because of the "two buckets of inventory" and how you need to have own points to get access to the allegedly superior trust inventory. But there is not much transparency on that - I even asked them during a presentation to show me a list of all the great weeks in the trust to see what I was missing (I never got to see it, and was told I can look it up myself online anytime).

 

[TolmiePeak]

"It seems overall that they are targeting better tour guest quality vs. quantity. Higher FICO scores and analyzing guest metrics for tours."

I'm curious how they would know these sorts of things. I try to keep financial details as private as possible.

All of that information is public.

 

[bizaro86]

I don't know if that aspect itself makes much of a difference (but lower MFs would).

Based solely on the high MF per trust point, I assume the quality of weeks in the trust on average is below average. Not a lot of fixed holiday weeks, not a lot of Platinum, not a lot of oceanfront. That hasn't really stopped them from trying to get people to buy points because of the "two buckets of inventory" and how you need to have own points to get access to the allegedly superior trust inventory. But there is not much transparency on that - I even asked them during a presentation to show me a list of all the great weeks in the trust to see what I was missing (I never got to see it, and was told I can look it up myself online anytime).

I agree the lower MFs would be a bigger benefit to owner satisfaction. But I definitely think there are people (not tuggers probably) who go online and try and get a good week, don't get, and get told they need to be online exactly at 12/13 months. Then the next year they do that and still don't get it. That probably kills the chance of that person upgrading in the future, and if there were more actual prime weeks in the trust they'd have a better chance of getting that week.

 

[Dean]

I don't know if that aspect itself makes much of a difference (but lower MFs would).

Based solely on the high MF per trust point, I assume the quality of weeks in the trust on average is below average. Not a lot of fixed holiday weeks, not a lot of Platinum, not a lot of oceanfront. That hasn't really stopped them from trying to get people to buy points because of the "two buckets of inventory" and how you need to have own points to get access to the allegedly superior trust inventory. But there is not much transparency on that - I even asked them during a presentation to show me a list of all the great weeks in the trust to see what I was missing (I never got to see it, and was told I can look it up myself online anytime).

I'm not sure that lower MF would make a big difference overall. It certainly would for the informed but probably not for the rest.