Increase on Marriott Prices Coming or Hoax by Marriott to drive sales?

[Latravel]

Firstly, I don't assume my units have zero residual value. I'm pretty sure i'll get something back if I sell. In fact, my Tahoe prime ski weeks should get me a lot back. I just don't have any feelings of entitlement or expectation regarding how much.

Secondly, we purchased directly from Marriott (we now have 4 platinum weeks) because we wanted to be part of the complete Marriott system, meaning, we saw the value of points- hence why we purchased from a large hotel system. At the time we purchased, Marriott was giving lots of incentive points. We applied the cost of those vacations that we purchased with points towards our puchase price and we calculated that by the time we use up all our points for vacations (over 1mil) our timeshares would have cost us very little. Keep in mind, my family likes to travel. We would have traveled to these places without Marriott points and we would have traveled in the same standard so points were a money saver to us.

Yes, we did know about the resale market and were/are not interested. With resale purchases, it may be cheaper to rent.

 

[dougp26364]

In financial terms, investments are the purchase of an item of value with the expectation of a favorable future return; they are the use of money in order to make more money. Timeshares are not investments- they should not be purchased with the expectation of making a profit.

However, that does not mean that a purchaser should not ordinarily expect them to retain some value. Marriott's paperwork does indicate that they are not investments, and therefore insulates itself from any legal recourse should the property lose some or even full value. In reality, most financial investments will have similar language. That doesn't mean the purchaser shouldn't have the expectation of some retention of value.

As pointed out above, everyone knows cars depreciate over time. In fact, there is a finite useful life, because cars are, after all, machinery. Would you buy a car for 30,40, 50K or more if it had zero value a week later? I doubt many here would. Since timeshares are property and we pay on-going MF's to prevent deterioration, the natural assumption is that they will have inherent value, and I don't think people are unrealistic to expect this.

Of course, it goes without saying that the primary reason to purchase is for usage.

Eventually, a car does have zero value and, a car quite often has a shorter useful life than a timeshare, and a car has maintenance fee's. I've had a few cars that had less than zero value. When they died, I had to pay a junk yard to take them off my hands.

So yes, people do pay several thousands of dollars for a car expecting less from it than they paid. Unlike timeshares, cars do maintain some residual value and are not worth $1 10 days after being purchased. However, that's what a timeshare will do. Read some of the posts under buying and selling. Go to E-bay. Read the TUG advice about selling your timeshare. Try to claim a timeshare sale loss on your taxe returns. Every piece of advice we give out here it to buy resale. Why? Because timeshares have such little residual value that they can be purchased for pennies on the dollar.

We can't have it both ways. Buy resale because the retail price is way over inflated from the actual value. Maintain residual value because there should be some value to owners when they're done with it. Sorry but we're talking out of both sides of our mouth here and the side is dependent upon how it affects us today.

Rule #1: Timeshares have no resale value
Rule #2: Buy resale because timeshares have no resale value
Rule #3: Understand rules #1 and #2 when you buy and you won't be disappointed when you find out your timeshare has no resale value.

How much you spend to buy your timeshare defines how much you will potentially lose when you sell it. You can pay developer pricing or, you can pay resale pricing but, you're still more likely to lose money than break even.

 

[davidvel]

As long as your resort's HOA and its manager (Marriott) conforms to your association's governing documents, there is nothing really to complain about with any "new system," whetehr you are a direct or resale buyer.

(But it sure is fun anyway... )

 

[m61376]

Doug- There is a difference between less value and no value. A developer purchaser should expect that the inherent value will be a lot less a week after purchasing. The resale buyer should be able to expect the inherent value to be about the same a week later, since they paid market value (assuming they shopped around). So you can buy resale (or direct) and still expect some retained value. Of course, just as with any real estate, unless you have a crystal ball there is no telling how value will fluctuate in the future. With timeshares, it is more realistic to expect a slow decline over time, but not to expect prices to plummet because of newly announced Marirott regulations.

I am not saying that's what will happen, but understand the concern.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

It really doesn't matter what any one of us thinks. We should look at the purchase documents as objective fact and guidance instead of stating personal opinions or beliefs.
.
.
.
Despite saying this, I do hope for something when I sell but I don't expect it since part of the purchase agreement states it's not promised and I accepted this fact when I purchased.


Tom-
"...I simply think that the second statement is more in touch with reality..."
What do you base this on? Maybe you have some sort of documentation that I don't?

I thought it would be clear since I started with "I simply think..." that it was a personal opinion... I hope that is still allowed here on this board

 

[Latravel]

I thought it would be clear since I started with "I simply think..." that it was a personal opinion... I hope that is still allowed here on this board

Yes, it was clear and that's my question. What do you base it on since you mentioned relying on the facts in the purchasing documents is not in touch with reality?

Is it ties with people "in the know" with Marriott? What is it that supercedes our purchasing documents?

 

[dougp26364]

Firstly, I don't assume my units have zero residual value. I'm pretty sure i'll get something back if I sell. In fact, my Tahoe prime ski weeks should get me a lot back. I just don't have any feelings of entitlement or expectation regarding how much.

Secondly, we purchased directly from Marriott (we now have 4 platinum weeks) because we wanted to be part of the complete Marriott system, meaning, we saw the value of points- hence why we purchased from a large hotel system. At the time we purchased, Marriott was giving lots of incentive points. We applied the cost of those vacations that we purchased with points towards our puchase price and we calculated that by the time we use up all our points for vacations (over 1mil) our timeshares would have cost us very little. Keep in mind, my family likes to travel. We would have traveled to these places without Marriott points and we would have traveled in the same standard so points were a money saver to us.

Yes, we did know about the resale market and were/are not interested. With resale purchases, it may be cheaper to rent.

I'm not so certain that you're assumption that your prime ski weeks will get you a lot back if/when you decide to sell. I guess it depends on what you consider a lot back.

Since I'm not really well versed in resale values for Tahoe, I honestly can't say that my opinion that you may be over valuing your ownership in terms of potential cash value. As a general rule, the advice of buy resale is predicated on the fact that the typical timeshare has far less value than if it was purchased from the developer.

Before the economic collapse, Marriott exercised ROFR on most of it's properties. This was a good deal for Marriott and a good deal for those wanting to sell their weeks. It was good for Marriott because they could increase inventory without the expense of developing from the ground up. It was good for those selling because it helped prop up resale prices for those who really wanted a Marriott timeshare but didn't want to pay developer pricing. It wasn't a good deal for those wanting to buy resale because the price was artifically inflated by Marriott's ability to step in and take the sale, thus you had to bid high enough it wasn't profitable for Marriott to exercise ROFR.

At this point, your resale value could be considerably lower than it was just 2 or 3 years ago simply because Marriott changed it's stance on aquiring additional inventory in this manner.

It's my opinion that one should never anticipate or assume their timeshare will have any cash value after you buy it. With a timeshare, even though you might have a deed, all you really own is the right to use the space inside a unit in perpetuity. You don't own the land, the furniture, the fixtures or any of the amenities. All your really own is the right to use the property for a specified time period or.....you really own just air.

 

[Latravel]

If I get anything back, I consider myself ahead. Because of my purchase documents, in my mind, i'm very clear in my expectations regarding my timeshares. It makes all these proposed changes very stress free.

 

[dougp26364]

If I get anything back, I consider myself ahead. Because of my purchase documents, in my mind, i'm very clear in my expectations regarding my timeshares. It makes all these proposed changes very stress free.

That's pretty much why it's not bothering me. That and the fact there hasn't been an announcment outlining changes. We bought our Marriott properties to use without the expectation we'd be selling them anything in the near future. One we've owned since 2001 and still love going there every year. It's our year end relaxation vacation on the beach.

The only concern I have is pretty simple. If they change the exchange landscape, how can I best utlize the Marriott timeshares I own. Right now we've been exchanging a silver season studio, we have a one bedroom lock-off unit that we had planned on exchanging every year and, for the last two years, we used out two bedroom master suite at MGC to make request first exchanges into resorts we thought might be a tough exchange under the current system (we were perfectly fine going to MGC if the exchange didn't come through).

If Marriott does go to a points based system we'll have to look it over to decide if it works for us or not. If it doesn't, there's the consideration of the exchange value within Interval for units that might not be Marriott units. On the other hand, I've always considered the studio silver season week a throw away unit. If I spot a great trade, I take it. If not I don't worry about it. Maybe in a points based system it would provide enough points that could be combined with our 1 bedroom unit that would make trading that unit up super easy rather than deposit and hope. If the system give me what I need, it could be a good thing for me.

Despite what some have posted, those that use the system for vacations without concern about residual value can find advantages with a points based system. If you're worried about selling the timeshare you own, sure it can damage resale value by making resales units less attractive. But who buys a timeshare with the intention of selling it? Those that do are learning the mistake they've made and that's the assumption the playing field will remain unchanged.

There are a few on these forums that talk about making money buying cheap and renting for profit, buying cheap to exchange into greater value properties or, buying cheap to use the property then selling it at break even or for a slight profit. We'll the landscape is changing yet again and plans made previously might be just about to go up in smoke. Like any commidity, hold onto it to long and you can lose your shirt. Timeshare is a dangerous commidity to attempt to turn any sort of profit. It's best served when purchased strictly to take vacations and even better when you own a resort in a season you truely enjoy.

 

[DanCali]

Now let me ask you this. With all the changes that take place, why would anyone try to rationalize a timeshare purchase as anything other than a consumer purchase? Why would anyone with a reasonable sense of investment look at timeshare as a money savings tool or expect to break even or make a profit?

While history has shown that reale estate generally gains value of the years, the advice about buying a timeshare is exactly the opposite. No one on these forums equates buying timeshare to buying real estate. They equate it to buying a new car. And yet there are people who are not just expecting but demanding there will be a cash return on their investment.

As this entire thread points out, expecting a cash return on timeshare ownership is highly speculative and subject to many things out of our control. Today the real estate market is down. Does anyone believe real estate is still a bad investment and that real estate is a horrible investment for the future? What would you say about timeshares? Are they a good cash investment for the future? There's a reason why timeshare developers are prohibited from selling timeshares as real estate investments.

I think you missed my point. I am not saying it is about getting an actual cash return in the form of appreciating resale value. I am saying that I expect the timeshare purchase to save money over rental costs after taking into account (i) opportunity costs of the initial purchase, (ii) MFs, and (iii) depreciation in value.

In my eyes, because a retail purchase has a higher opportunity costs (larger upfront cost) and depreciates 50%-80% seven to ten days after you buy it, it is almost impossible to come out ahead versus renting. A $30K developer purchase has an opportunity cost of about $1500 (at 5%) and depreciates about $20K almost immediately ($1000 a year over 20 years). Add to that MFs of about $1000 and the annual costs over the next 20 years is $3500 (assumning no more depreciation and no MF increases). It's pretty hard to come out ahead versus renting at this cost...

With a resale purchase, the math looks better because of lower opportunity costs and slower depreciation. Note that I am still talking about depreciation and not appreciation, but I still expect to come out ahead versus renting. Just like the car purchase, this is about the old lease versus buy decision... If the slow depreciation assumption in a resale purchase is flawed, one is just better off always renting (and still enjoying the benefits of vacationing in a timeshare).

 

[Latravel]

I think you're missing the benefits you get from points in your equation (and I love equations!). For example, I purchased a unit at Shadow Ridge for $27K. I got enough incentive points to purchase a 2 week trip to Italy worth about $16K (2 1st class tickets LA to Rome, 7 nts at the Grand Flora, 7nts at the JW Capri). I still have points left over. Now my purchase at Shadow Ridge costed $11K (27K-16K).

In addition, if I trade my unit for points 2 years in a row (plus the points I have left over from my incentive points), I can get enough points for another 1st class vacation for a week just for the cost of 2 maintenance fees of about $2000. The cost of that vacation is around $9K so now the cost savings of $7000 (9K-2K) is applied against the cost of my unit at 11K - 7K. So now, my Shadow Ridge unit cost me $4,000. So on and so on.

That's how my husband and I can justify a developer purchase.

On the other hand, if one buys resale, there is nothing I can apply to the initial purchase price so you really have to get a low initial resale price to come out ahead of renting.

 

[m61376]

Heidi- Your point is valid- however, you have to factor in the additional expense of the lost opportunity cost on the extra 15 or 20K that the developer purchase ran you. So your real cost would be another $750 to $1000/year (assuming a 5% rate of return), whether or not you use or trade your unit in for points, ad infinitum. That has to be included if you want to compare apples to apples in your equation.

However, I do agree that when developer prices were less (as they were 5-10 years ago and at initial pre-construction pricing of many of the resorts), purchase incentives were in the area of double of the more recent offerings, MF's were, in many cases, $250 to perhaps $500 less per year, and prior to the point devaluations, that justification added more to the equation than in today's climate, with much higher up front costs, higher on-going costs (MF's), lower up front incentives and less value for your trades (more points for smaller packages). Of course, the economic forces which caused resale prices to plummet at many properties really helps tip the scales.

Resale purchases are likely to depreciate very little over time (or at least very slowly) unless the product changes drastically, so the "loss" there is, at least in my opinion, just a minimal vacation expense.

 

[dougp26364]

I think you missed my point. I am not saying it is about getting an actual cash return in the form of appreciating resale value. I am saying that I expect the timeshare purchase to save money over rental costs after taking into account (i) opportunity costs of the initial purchase, (ii) MFs, and (iii) depreciation in value.

In my eyes, because a retail purchase has a higher opportunity costs (larger upfront cost) and depreciates 50%-80% seven to ten days after you buy it, it is almost impossible to come out ahead versus renting. A $30K developer purchase has an opportunity cost of about $1500 (at 5%) and depreciates about $20K almost immediately ($1000 a year over 20 years). Add to that MFs of about $1000 and the annual costs over the next 20 years is $3500 (assumning no more depreciation and no MF increases). It's pretty hard to come out ahead versus renting at this cost...

With a resale purchase, the math looks better because of lower opportunity costs and slower depreciation. Note that I am still talking about depreciation and not appreciation, but I still expect to come out ahead versus renting. Just like the car purchase, this is about the old lease versus buy decision... If the slow depreciation assumption in a resale purchase is flawed, one is just better off always renting (and still enjoying the benefits of vacationing in a timeshare).

I'm afraid that, over the long run, if you expecting a timeshare to ever save you money you'll be dissapointed. After 12 years of owning timeshares, even if I elemintated the original purchased price, the MF's, exchange company fee's and exchange fee's pretty much wipe out any significant cost saving if there were any savings at all. Owning is convenient in how I'm allowed to gain access to reservations where I want to go for the resorts I want to stay in. It's more a lifestyle choice, similar to driving a Cadilac rather than a Chevy.

Perry has at least one thing correct. Developers would like to squash resale purchases. The only way they can do this is to make it more of an advantage to buy retail than resale. The only way they can do this is by adding perks or offering exclusivity.

Where he's off base is that it's most of the major timeshare developers. It's not desperation. It's not that Marriott is going bankrupt. It's business as usual.

DRI excludes resales from their internal program unless you buy some developer inventory. They use to off a buy in for $2,995 but, word on the street is that off is off the table now. Presently I've been hearing the a resale buyer must spend at least $5,000 to join.

Wyndham and Hilton offer exclusive perks to retail buyers that are not available to resale buyers. With Hilton it's Elite status. I think it's the same with Wyndham but, I don't know that product well enough to state it as fact.

Marriott thought that Rewards points was their exclusive golden ticket to get people to buy retail. If there are less than 10% that buy resale vs retail buyers, I suppose one could say that's worked well for them.

But over time the sales landscape has changed for Marriott. The majority of the developers have added another aspect to their programs in the form of low cost or no cost internal exchanges. Another exclusive perk they can offer their retail buyers. Marriott is probably feeling that they're not as competitive anymore because they don't have a program that compete's well.

Now comes the economic downturn and developers who are having difficulty moving inventory. Sales are down and profits are off. However there is an opportunity to produce income without the cost of building inventory. That is the offering of a new product that current owners will buy into if the price is right and the benefit offers enough incentive people want to be a part of it.

Basically, it's the perfect storm. They need to be competitive, they need to earn money and, they need to give their sales staff more amunition to make Marriott the best timeshare product on the market. TA DA, internal exchange comes to Marriott. It offers exclusivity (retail vs resale and internal exchange's before all others), it can boost income without a significant cost factor, it will put people like me back in front of salesmen to learn about what's going on, competitiors can't say they're better than Marriott because Marriott doesn't have an internal program and it puts Marriott back on par with all the other hotel/developers on the block.

Yes I look for this to be more expensive for resale buyers. I don't look for Marriott to completely shut out past resale buyers if only for the reason there aren't that many of them AND, Marriott wants to make a little money off of them as well by welcoming them into the "official" fold. Some say $2,500 to join for resale buyers. I think the ratio is more likely to be $500 for retail buyers and $1,500 for resale buyers.

Whatever they do, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter. You either bought the timeshare to use or you bought it to manipulate. If you buy to manipulate, eventually the landscape will change and you'll either change with it or get rid of the timeshare. If you bought it to use then change isn't going to affect you that much. Fotunately for us we learned that lesson early on.

The change will affect us and I know that. If I wanted to sell my timeshare, it is very likely this change will lower the resale value. However I would challange that, without ROFR, there wasn't a lot of resale value there to begin with. We've all seen prices fall once Marriott stopped exercising ROFR.

The biggest change for us will likely be how we exchange within the Marriott system. How much will it cost? No one knows. We're assuming it will be a points based exchange system but, Marriott hasn't givent details. What will the value of my exchange be? We've learned how to manipulate the system to get more value out of our exchanges. If there is a new system, how can we get the most out of our ownership? To me those are the big questions. The one question that shouldn't be of concern is, what's my resale value? The short answer is, once Marriott stopped exercising ROFR, the resale value is closer to zero than ever before and, it's not likely to get any better.

Who will this hurt the most? I'm assuming people who bought a cheap lower season week in order to exchange into more expensive higher season weeks. Will they still be able to manipulate the system to get that value out of their low to mid level weeks? I believe they probably will but, they'll have to look at it with new eyes. Tossing the baby out with the bathwater at this point in the game is a foolish thing to do. If Marriott is going to introduce a new wrinkle, it's going to be introduced. All the gnashing of teeth, preaching and crying won't change it.

Nothing has happened yet. Everything is just speculation and wild rumors. Fletch said we're all over thinking this and he's right. Nothing happens until Marriott makes an announcement. I understand the anxiety that even the rumor of change can bring but, I don't understand the few people who are predicting total collapse just because they're way of exchanging is likely to be affected.

Buy what you're willing to use and you'll probably be happy. Buy to manipulate the system and you'll have to be flexible when change comes around the corner. Over the last 12 years, we've been both happy and we've found we had to be flexible. Some units that were originally purchased to use became exchange units. As the landscape has changed, we've had to change with it. Sometimes that's cost us a little more money but, in the final anylsis it's returned us more than the cost. We've made decent decisions but, we've also been lucky in some instances. At this point in time, I feel that if a person can get at least 10 good years from a timeshare purchase they're doing well. If you can extend that amount of time you're doing great. So far, we're doing great. I'll have to wait and see what happens sometime this year (I'm not buying the June date just yet) to know where we stand with out Marriott weeks.

 

[john_olson_aqrj]

Longer term issues for Platinum Owners

I feel the KEY is that non-Marriott purchased weeks will not be able to get into the new MVCI points/exchange system unless you pay more money. Senior Marriott sales executives are NOT transferring their Platinum Oceanfronts at Grande Ocean on Hilton Head into the new system per my MVCI source. I think Platinum owners will NOT flee into the new system, but the silvers will; thinking they will be able to get to use Platinum weeks. This will be a challenge for everyone but one I can manage.

My concern is the BIG problem will be a few years down the road when over 20% of a resort's weeks are owned by some MVCI trust. They will have gotten many bronze, silver, and some gold and platinum weeks. Who gets to vote for new Board members ?? Only a small percentage of people actually "vote" in board elections. Marriott already has the precedence of controlling the Board when a resort is being built as they "own" many weeks.

Once in; MVCI may decide to do only what is good for MVCI or at least that is what the lawsuit will allege. The Board and MVCI a will probably get sued in a class action and legal costs will create problems. I think MVCI may have thought about this and it will be a "friendly class action". Owners get coupons for reduced upgrade charges while the layers get large fees. The bottom line, I feel, is lawyers and MVCI sales people get rich and middle class gets the shaft (This idea came from TUG postings on RCI class action suit).

My nightmare is if MVCI gets control of a Board, would they act like a NYC rent control landlord who lets the building run down to force the old tenants out so they can resell it out for new "condos" at a big profit ??? The other alternative is MVCI keeps the resort up BUT changes the way maintenance fees are allocated so Platinum owners pay 100 % more and Bronze far less. This may force Platinum owners to move to the new system.

The Oceanfront Platinum owners have a potential to get hurt either way. The best hope I feel is that multi-week MVCI owners who are also Elite level Marriott Hotel members get mad and start complaining. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this ?? Should we use the "H" word, Hyatt. I hear Warren Buffet may be in discussion to buy in and expand that chain.

In any case, the people who I feel sorry for are the MVCI Operations staff who will be in the middle. Folks may take out their frustration in resort surveys and become harder to make happy. We will be at Marriott's Grande Ocean on Hilton Head on June 15th so it should be an "interesting" week.

 

[dougp26364]

I feel the KEY is that non-Marriott purchased weeks will not be able to get into the new MVCI points/exchange system unless you pay more money. Senior Marriott sales executives are NOT transferring their Platinum Oceanfronts at Grande Ocean on Hilton Head into the new system per my MVCI source. I think Platinum owners will NOT flee into the new system, but the silvers will; thinking they will be able to get to use Platinum weeks. This will be a challenge for everyone but one I can manage.

Maybe. But, if a Platinum owner in an expensive resort wants to trade out but, feels that in the weeks based system Marriott has now, they're not getting their value, they may feel that a points based system provides some equality.

For example, a Platinum ocean front week will likely recieve more points than my Silver Ocean Pointe week. If I own that Platinum week, trading into a lower season is pretty much a waste of trade power.

Now what if I'm given a number of points, for the sake of a arguement lets say 1,000 points (totally pulled out of thin air) for a Platinum ocean front HHI week. I want to go to S. Florida but, my travel plans call for a November week, which is either Gold or Silver season depending on the resort. Let's say that a Silver season week has a value of 500 points. A Platinum season can make the exchange and still have trade value left over. Again, keep in mind that I'm pulling numbers out of the air. I have no idea how Marriott might assign point values. I'm probably way off on my numbers. I just want to illustrate how a points based exchange system levels the playing fielf for those who own high value weeks.

In the old system it's week for week whether you trade up or trade down. It can be more advantagous to own a lower week and manipulate the system to exchange up than to own the most expensive week and always be trading down. It might actually encourage high season owners at expensive resorts to exchange more since they can get value for their weeks.

To that end, I disagree that you'll see more low season weeks than high season weeks if/when the change is made. A weeks based exchange system favors the cheap resorts if you know how to work the system and mangage to trade up.

A points based system is likely to hurt my Silver season studio I've been using for exchanges. Right now, I can easily trade it into Branson for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit that's listed as Platinum season for that resort. In a points based system, my bet is I won't have enough points to pull that off. To that end, I'm not sure I want that week in a points based system. It has low value and, I can still use Interval's weeks based system to trade up, even if it's not a Marriott resort.

My concern is the BIG problem will be a few years down the road when over 20% of a resort's weeks are owned by some MVCI trust. They will have gotten many bronze, silver, and some gold and platinum weeks. Who gets to vote for new Board members ?? Only a small percentage of people actually "vote" in board elections. Marriott already has the precedence of controlling the Board when a resort is being built as they "own" many weeks.

If Marriott is going to a trust based ownership, this is a major concern. The trust will vote their block of weeks and, eventually the trust will have enough weeks to essentially control the resorts without any real owner input. Search threads about DRI to find complaints about potential strong arm tactics and 20% MF increases.

Once in; MVCI may decide to do only what is good for MVCI or at least that is what the lawsuit will allege. The Board and MVCI a will probably get sued in a class action and legal costs will create problems. I think MVCI may have thought about this and it will be a "friendly class action". Owners get coupons for reduced upgrade charges while the layers get large fees. The bottom line, I feel, is lawyers and MVCI sales people get rich and middle class gets the shaft (This idea came from TUG postings on RCI class action suit).

Again, it could happen. It hasn't so far with other trust based systems but, it's still a possiblity.

My nightmare is if MVCI gets control of a Board, would they act like a NYC rent control landlord who lets the building run down to force the old tenants out so they can resell it out for new "condos" at a big profit ??? The other alternative is MVCI keeps the resort up BUT changes the way maintenance fees are allocated so Platinum owners pay 100 % more and Bronze far less. This may force Platinum owners to move to the new system.

The Oceanfront Platinum owners have a potential to get hurt either way. The best hope I feel is that multi-week MVCI owners who are also Elite level Marriott Hotel members get mad and start complaining. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this ?? Should we use the "H" word, Hyatt. I hear Warren Buffet may be in discussion to buy in and expand that chain.

In any case, the people who I feel sorry for are the MVCI Operations staff who will be in the middle. Folks may take out their frustration in resort surveys and become harder to make happy. We will be at Marriott's Grande Ocean on Hilton Head on June 15th so it should be an "interesting" week.

I think concerns are fine right now but, there's nothing to complain about yet. While some might want to jump off a bridge, there's no bridge to jump from at this time.

Rather than worry about what's coming down the line, something we don't really have control over anyway, why don't we wait to see what's offered. If it's a bad deal, I don't see a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon. IMHO it would take decades for Marriott to sell enough trust memberships to effectively take control of the majority of resorts. A lot can happen in that amount of time. I'm willing to wait and see what's offered, then make my decision if it's good or bad. Until we see something, there's nothing to complain about. Who knows, this might be the greatest things since sliced bread. It might be a trust or, it might just be an internal exchange system that uses points to establish the value of a unit. No more guessing what your unit is worth, you'll have it in writing. It might not be as bad as everyone fears.

In the FWIW column, if Marriott does go with a trust based program, the likelyhood I'll give up my deeds is pretty low. I'll look at and consider anything they offer but, I bought the resorts we own because we like those resorts. I'm not in favor of becoming a member a trust and giving up my deed and my deeded voting rights. Then again, they could toss my MGC resort in with the Hawaiian resorts and make it so easy to get into Hawaii that I can't resist. Time will tell. I'll reserve final judgement until such time as Marriott makes me an offer. Until then, it's a good discussion and gets us all thinking. Hopefully, we'll be ahead of the power curve when they introduce something and have good questions ready when they try to sell it to us.

 

[JimIg23]

Maybe. But, if a Platinum owner in an expensive resort wants to trade out but, feels that in the weeks based system Marriott has now, they're not getting their value, they may feel that a points based system provides some equality.

.

My understanding was that most MVC complaints were that they cannot get the trades they want, not equality issues. I really don't think most MVC owners (non tuggers) think about equality issues. 10 to 1, a normal (non-tugger) MVC Hawaii owner has NO idea how much any other MVC property costs, nor do they care unless they want to buy there. I don't know if the typical owner says, "well, I paid 50k for my HI week in 2008, yet I want to trade into NCV which only costs 35k, I am getting robbed" I think people will join because they think they will get the trades they want, the question will be will the inventory be in the system to support this.

 

[m61376]

My understanding was that most MVC complaints were that they cannot get the trades they want, not equality issues. I really don't think most MVC owners (non tuggers) think about equality issues. 10 to 1, a normal (non-tugger) MVC Hawaii owner has NO idea how much any other MVC property costs, nor do they care unless they want to buy there. I don't know if the typical owner says, "well, I paid 50k for my HI week in 2008, yet I want to trade into NCV which only costs 35k, I am getting robbed" I think people will join because they think they will get the trades they want, the question will be will the inventory be in the system to support this.

I don't think the typical owner knows the numbers, like you say, but many are aware of relative value. I have friends who don't want to trade their Plat. Caribbean week even for a Florida Plat. week, because they feel they are getting "gypped." I've spoken with Ko'Olina owners who return year after year because they don't think they'd be getting equivalent value on a trade, but are tired of the trip. However, I think that most people will, ultimately, make the trade though if they can get to where they'd like to go when they want to travel.

So I think both considerations are an issue- inventory and quality. The equality issue is a double edged sword for Marriott, though. Those really prime Platinum weeks owners are bound to be happy (for now, at least, but if Marriott uses it as a sales tool and gives unfair weight to newer properties regardless of their relative worth, then that may be a different story a few years down the road), but there are lots of other Platinum week owners (many of whom paid tens of thousands of dollars as well) who are apt to feel slighted. Right now, all Platinum owners feel relatively equal; there was just a recent post about the great trades MGV owners were getting by reserving President's week and locking off, with hopes of getting 2BR Plat. Caribbean units even from the lock-off. Other MGV owners were reporting having done just that. Fast forward to IF and when Marriott releases its points system- imagine the look on that MGV owner's face when he/she likely finds that 2BR Plat. MGV unit is only worth 3 or 4 days in a Plat. Caribbean unit, or a week in a 1BR at best.

For a system to be really efficient and function more than just on paper, a lot of owners have to join, from a broad spectrum of ownerships. In order for those premium properties to get the due "value" from their weeks, there have to be both other premium weeks and lesser quality weeks for them to trade into, so that they get like for like (quality/size/days) or a larger size and/or more days if going to a less premium property (quality or season). IF those "lesser quality" week owners don't join (because they don't see much in it for them and they'll still be able to get those week trades in II), there won't be the inventory to make the system work.

Whether it is a trust based system or an overlay system, or the cost is different, I suspect the relative week value will approximate what was offered in the Asia Pacific program. Just like the Phuket owner who posted it felt he wasn't getting enough value for his week, I suspect there will be many Platinum week owners who take issue with the point assignments and, for perhaps the first time, equality (or perceived inequality) will become a major focus. Again- nice for the premium Platinum weeks. Not so nice for the "lesser" Platinum week owners, who never thought of themselves as being subordinate. Certainly not so nice for Gold and Silver and esp. Bronze week owners.

Which brings me back full circle to one of my concerns in all this- Marriott sold a system based on a certain pattern of trading (whether or not that was equitable is a matter of whose eyes you are looking at it through), with MF's being the same across all seasons at each resort. IF Bronze week owners can only get the trade value of a Bronze week (and not the upgrades that many are used to), and Silver week owners, and Gold week owners, will they all be willing to pay the same MF's? I think it is going to be hard to superimpose something new on a functioning structure, because while it will smooth our some of the current inequities, it may well create others.

I may be guessing wrong here, but I am guessing that many Platinum week owners would like the strength of higher point values, but would be very upset if MF's were commensurate with point value assignment (which, btw, Marriott did do in their Asia Pacific program, so the idea isn't so far fetched).

 

[dougp26364]

My understanding was that most MVC complaints were that they cannot get the trades they want, not equality issues. I really don't think most MVC owners (non tuggers) think about equality issues. 10 to 1, a normal (non-tugger) MVC Hawaii owner has NO idea how much any other MVC property costs, nor do they care unless they want to buy there. I don't know if the typical owner says, "well, I paid 50k for my HI week in 2008, yet I want to trade into NCV which only costs 35k, I am getting robbed" I think people will join because they think they will get the trades they want, the question will be will the inventory be in the system to support this.

They might not see the value now but, offer a Hawaii week owner twice the number of points an Orlando week will get and they'll see that value. IMHO, it will encourage Platinum and high value week owners to become members and be discouraging for lower value week owners, not the other way around. I can see more Platinum members joining and fewer Bronze or Silver week owners.

I would disagree that non-TUG member owners don't understand the value of their timeshare. At the very least, they understand the value of the seasons when they purchase. I would venture to guess that the typical Silver season owner undestands that his/her week is not as valuable as a Platinum season owner. For that reason, I believe that Platinum season owners would not want to trade down in season with a week to week based exchange system but, in a points based system where they will have some residual value, value that can be used for additional exchanges or to purchases services such as renting a car or purchase of FF miles, it might appeal to them.

Basically, unlike those that feel only low season owners might join a points based program, I feel the opposite is true. Low season owners won't see the value but, those owning high season weeks that receive the most points will see value. I see more reasons for high season week owners to join a points based program.

 

[dougp26364]

I don't think the typical owner knows the numbers, like you say, but many are aware of relative value. I have friends who don't want to trade their Plat. Caribbean week even for a Florida Plat. week, because they feel they are getting "gypped." I've spoken with Ko'Olina owners who return year after year because they don't think they'd be getting equivalent value on a trade, but are tired of the trip. However, I think that most people will, ultimately, make the trade though if they can get to where they'd like to go when they want to travel.

So I think both considerations are an issue- inventory and quality. The equality issue is a double edged sword for Marriott, though. Those really prime Platinum weeks owners are bound to be happy (for now, at least, but if Marriott uses it as a sales tool and gives unfair weight to newer properties regardless of their relative worth, then that may be a different story a few years down the road), but there are lots of other Platinum week owners (many of whom paid tens of thousands of dollars as well) who are apt to feel slighted. Right now, all Platinum owners feel relatively equal; there was just a recent post about the great trades MGV owners were getting by reserving President's week and locking off, with hopes of getting 2BR Plat. Caribbean units even from the lock-off. Other MGV owners were reporting having done just that. Fast forward to IF and when Marriott releases its points system- imagine the look on that MGV owner's face when he/she likely finds that 2BR Plat. MGV unit is only worth 3 or 4 days in a Plat. Caribbean unit, or a week in a 1BR at best.

For a system to be really efficient and function more than just on paper, a lot of owners have to join, from a broad spectrum of ownerships. In order for those premium properties to get the due "value" from their weeks, there have to be both other premium weeks and lesser quality weeks for them to trade into, so that they get like for like (quality/size/days) or a larger size and/or more days if going to a less premium property (quality or season). IF those "lesser quality" week owners don't join (because they don't see much in it for them and they'll still be able to get those week trades in II), there won't be the inventory to make the system work.

Whether it is a trust based system or an overlay system, or the cost is different, I suspect the relative week value will approximate what was offered in the Asia Pacific program. Just like the Phuket owner who posted it felt he wasn't getting enough value for his week, I suspect there will be many Platinum week owners who take issue with the point assignments and, for perhaps the first time, equality (or perceived inequality) will become a major focus. Again- nice for the premium Platinum weeks. Not so nice for the "lesser" Platinum week owners, who never thought of themselves as being subordinate. Certainly not so nice for Gold and Silver and esp. Bronze week owners.

Which brings me back full circle to one of my concerns in all this- Marriott sold a system based on a certain pattern of trading (whether or not that was equitable is a matter of whose eyes you are looking at it through), with MF's being the same across all seasons at each resort. IF Bronze week owners can only get the trade value of a Bronze week (and not the upgrades that many are used to), and Silver week owners, and Gold week owners, will they all be willing to pay the same MF's? I think it is going to be hard to superimpose something new on a functioning structure, because while it will smooth our some of the current inequities, it may well create others.

I may be guessing wrong here, but I am guessing that many Platinum week owners would like the strength of higher point values, but would be very upset if MF's were commensurate with point value assignment (which, btw, Marriott did do in their Asia Pacific program, so the idea isn't so far fetched).

You've done a good job of understanding and touching on the fear factor. Those of us like myself and Perry, who understand the system and can work the system to trade up, are likely to be hurt by switching to a points based system. I've been able to work the system so that I feel I'm gettting more value from my Silver season studio week and my Platinum season Vegas week than they're probably really worth.

What's missing from the discussion are the values and rules. Unlike some, I'm not crying that the sky is falling or the word as we know it is comnig to an end. At least not yet. I want to see the program first. Even in a points based program there are advantages that can be worked. While I'm assuming I might lose value, I could also be surprised at the relative value of my ownership. I might also find that I can combine the points in my ownership, still get what I want out of the resorts I own and do even better with what's left over for exchange.

I consider that Silver season studio lock-out a throw away unit. We bought the three bedroom in FL for future needs. When the kids start having kids themselves, we envisioned needing the space. To date we haven't needed the space and we've lock-off the studio side. We exchange it for what ends up being long weekend trips to either Branson or Breckenridge.

We also own a 3 bedroom in Vegas. We own that unit because we liked the layout of the unit and the unit location at the resort. We didn't buy it because we needed a 3 bedroom unit. It also helps that the lock-off is a full one bedroom unit and trades like a full one bedroom unit through Interval and with Marriott. This unit has been used for some pretty nice exchanges up in to larger units in May for HHI and for a May exchange into Custom House. We've been very pleased with how it has exchanged in the weeks based program.

Under a points based program, I might not have the trade value (or I might, we haven't seen anything yet) but, I can combine points to get more value. That throw away studio's points might be combinable with the 1 bedroom week in Vegas so that we can get what we want without having the request and hope. It might save me two exchange fee's that cost $109 to $139 each depending on if I'm trading within the Marriott system or outside the Marriott system.

I think that it's important that we take into consideration what we see with other points based systems but, at the same time we don't over think this thing. The world isn't coming to an end, the sky isn't falling, Marriott isn't going bankrupt and, from what I can see they're not desperate either. On the other hand, every other developer seems to have gone to better internal exchange systems so, Marriott might just be wanting to catch up with the rest of the industry and get their competitive edge back when it comes to sales.

 

[kschauberger]

I would like to ask questions to you all. I would like to know who came up with the idea that Marriott is coming out with a point system? Can we prove with any certainty that there will be a point system? Are we going on the words of our truthful sales reps, whom some could have been working fast food yesterday. Look I don't ever believe anything until it has been made 100% official by Marriott. Even if they do move to a point based system they most likely are not going to force you to it. We own at Polo towers, and when Diamond announced that we were able to go to points we were not forced to. We did only with paying another 3000 dollars to a them, and finding out later we made a HUGE mistake, as our MFs went through the roof and now we are paying club dues. I regret that decision everyday. The only good thing is we can use the resort collection of Diamond. Before we just put it into II. I feel we are no better. We were told that our ability to use the Polo towers in trading would be much more difficult. Granted we have found our 1 week has gone a lot further then 1 week in trading but at a great monetary cost. If we all think Marriott will produce a point system that can work then we all should look forward to it. Please never expect this conversion to be free. Though Marriott could force all owners into the new system kind of what Diamond did with us, by making trading outside of our home resort much more difficult. If I remember right we all own deeded property at 1 resort or more if you own at more then one. Who knows maybe they will tell us that we can't internally trade into a Marriott without the move to points, but can still use II to trade into a non Marriott place. Again this is all speculation from another system we have dealt with.

 

[SueDonJ]

If whatever new exchange system they introduce does not impact home resort usage then maintenance fees shouldn't enter into the equation. M/F are set according to the costs to run a resort, and those are the same whether you're dealing with a Bronze gardenview or Plat oceanfront or any week in between. It's in the selling prices where there is a differential and where Marriott has determined a value for each week, which is why I think that Marriott's pricing structure is a better indicator for exchange points value.

 

[dougp26364]

I would like to ask questions to you all. I would like to know who came up with the idea that Marriott is coming out with a point system? Can we prove with any certainty that there will be a point system? Are we going on the words of our truthful sales reps, whom some could have been working fast food yesterday. Look I don't ever believe anything until it has been made 100% official by Marriott. Even if they do move to a point based system they most likely are not going to force you to it. We own at Polo towers, and when Diamond announced that we were able to go to points we were not forced to. We did only with paying another 3000 dollars to a them, and finding out later we made a HUGE mistake, as our MFs went through the roof and now we are paying club dues. I regret that decision everyday. The only good thing is we can use the resort collection of Diamond. Before we just put it into II. I feel we are no better. We were told that our ability to use the Polo towers in trading would be much more difficult. Granted we have found our 1 week has gone a lot further then 1 week in trading but at a great monetary cost. If we all think Marriott will produce a point system that can work then we all should look forward to it. Please never expect this conversion to be free. Though Marriott could force all owners into the new system kind of what Diamond did with us, by making trading outside of our home resort much more difficult. If I remember right we all own deeded property at 1 resort or more if you own at more then one. Who knows maybe they will tell us that we can't internally trade into a Marriott without the move to points, but can still use II to trade into a non Marriott place. Again this is all speculation from another system we have dealt with.

There are a couple of tuggers that have connections a little higher up that most. Notably DaveM and Fletch. Both have confirmed that changes are coming and both seem to believe it will be a points based exchange system. The details haven't been released.

On the other hand, this has been a persistant rumor for a couple of years now. It's possible that nothing will change. That makes all this talk about potential changes nothing more than speculation. Thus, it's nothing that should get any of us all excited or worried.

Right now, the antcipated announcement date is sometime around June of this year. Keeping in mind that some also believe the world is going to end on 12/12/2012 this may or may not be a real date. I'm betting that June will come and go without an announcement but, I also believe that something will be announced before the end of this year. Exactly what Marriott announces no one really knows.

As to Polo Towers and their points system. We own two weeks at Polo Towers and, like you, we paid $2,995 to join their points based system. MF's have gone up over 10% for the last two years but, what you're neglecting is the fact that they didn't go up at all for the three years before that. It wasn't that they went up so much that last two years as the fact they should have gone up 3 to 5% per year during the years they didn't go up. Our BOD/HOA balanced the budget by decreasing the cash reserves collections. Remember that $1,000 per 2 bedroom SA? That's because the BOD/HOA didn't collect enough money for cash reserves to pay for future renovations. MF's were held to low.

It's not the points system that increased MF's. It was past decisions by the BOD/HOA that put us into a position of having large increases the last couple of years. One had nothing to do with the other.
Unlike you we've made very good use of the points based exchange system. Here's how it's worked for us.

1. We were using our PT's units strictly to exchange. Each excahgne was costing us $139 throug Interval. Using the internal exchange we don't pay that fee. Two exchanges saves us more than the membership fee. The membership fee has paid for itself every year we've been a member becasue of this one feature.

2. We were trading full weeks for short stays in Branson. We actually own more timeshares than we can use. With PT's, we were locking off and using the studio side for short stays in Branson. That meant paying with a full weeks usage when we only needed to pay for 3 or 4 nights. Now we're only paying for what we use and, we're no longer paying an exchange fee to do it.

3. We had been trading down in value and getting nothing in return. With the points system, we have 26,500 points. If we wanted to exchange through Interval, it costs 7,500 points for a two bedroom exchange or, 15,000 points for two weeks in 2 bedroom units. That would leave us 11,500 points left over to get the exact same thing we were getting before. We can either use those points for additional exchanges or, we can us them for other costs or services. We can trade for FF miles, car rentals, cruise discounts or discounts on our MF's. Remember we were getting two 2 bedroom exchanges anyway so anything above that is a bonus. These last couple of years we've used our excess points to lower our MF's. By next year we'll have taken all the exchanges we would have normally taken, saved the Interval exchange fee's AND covered the initial $2,995 joiner fee. From this point forward, until something else changes, we'll be ahead of the game as far as expenses are concerned. We'll get the same exchanges as before but, we won't necessarly have to pay exchange fee's and we'll have residual value to put towards something else.

4. One last benefit to the points program was that one of our weeks, a Skyview Suite's at Polo Towers week, is a fixed week. Times changed and week 36 in Las Vegas no longer works for us. Should we ever want to return to our home resort we can now float our week in the points based program without having to wait until 90 days prior to check in. So we were able to turn a fixed week that didn't work for us into a floating week that can work for us. Sure it cost us $2,995 to do that but, that was cheaper than selling the fixed week, then searching for, buying and paying closing costs on another week that maybe suited our needs better.

DRI's points system certainly doesn't work that well for everyone. For instance, someone that always uses their home resort week wouldn't see much, if any, benefit from it.

The one thing you shouldn't do is equate the increase in MF's to the points based system. One had nothing to do with the other. Mismanagement of MF's the previous years had more to do with the large increases than anything else.

Any change to how Marriott handles exchanges will require close scrutiny by each individual own to see if they can gain value from it. Some will undoubtedly see value while others will see it as a bad thing. Some will see value while some will see an end to the great exchanges they've been able to get. I've managed some good exchanges by understanding how the system works. If they change, it will take me a little while to learn the new system and determine if it's right for me. Hopefully, Marriott will give existing owners time to think about wether any new changes are good or bad for each owner. It would be a tragedy IMHO if they presented it and told us we had to make a decision right now rather than giving us time to examine our options.

 

[m61376]

If whatever new exchange system they introduce does not impact home resort usage then maintenance fees shouldn't enter into the equation. M/F are set according to the costs to run a resort, and those are the same whether you're dealing with a Bronze gardenview or Plat oceanfront or any week in between. It's in the selling prices where there is a differential and where Marriott has determined a value for each week, which is why I think that Marriott's pricing structure is a better indicator for exchange points value.

While MF's are set according to individual resort costs, IF Marriott's new system (IF there is a new system) retains home resort advantage (which, btw, Fletch indicated would NOT be the case), then the MF structure should stay the same. However, where it may come into play is that lower season owners, many of whom may have been accustomed to using II to get perhaps greater benefit from their ownership than their purchase should have given them, who may no longer be able to derive the same benefit that they used to, may balk at those MF's. You only have to look over at Starwood to see the impact of MF defaults on overall MF's.

Remember, timesharing is really a closed system, so that if exchanges become more equitable, for every Platinum owner that gets more value (perhaps getting full value and even a fairer value) there is someone on the other end that gets less (although, again, possibly a fairer representation of what they should be getting). So, for every happy owner, there's bound to be one less happy owner. How that unhappy owner may react is anyone's guess, but is a risk if a new system is superimposed upon a current ownership.

I know we have discussed the issue of valuations before, and of course you are entitled to feel that it should be set according to the selling prices, but I think that would be a big mistake. Although selling prices escalate over time with inflation, the price differential does not fully reflect the price differentials of construction over time. Thus, if two identical resorts were built at the same location let's say a decade apart, I would fully expect the newer resort to be selling for more money, as a by-product of the time of its construction. Using a pricing structure as an evaluative tool will be ensuring that future resorts will be out of the reach of current owners, so that even today's premium properties will hold relatively lesser value than many of tomorrow's, even if in a less desirable location. Akin to the devaluation in the Reward points system, I think using sales prices to determine timeshare point value is destined to effectively create a relative devaluation as time marches on, despite paying higher and higher MF's to ensure that those older resorts are kept up to current standards.

I think value is determined by location and resort amenities, and is really a function of market forces (supply in, and demand of, the location). Marriott rental prices also reflect a differential, are continually readjusted over time but reflect the relative valuation of properties as a function of the market forces that determine desirability (supply and demand), and are a consistent reflection of the true value over the course of time. Setting valuations according to real rental values would ensure that valuations are calculated according to a set figure and reflect only relative differences between different ownerships and are not a factor of time, nor artificially inflated as a sales tool. To put it simplistically- if a room at resort A rents for $100 a night assign it 700 points for a week; if another resort, B, rents for $300 a night it gets 2100 points. At the onset of the program, the number of points assigned should mathematically reflect the rental rates. Fast forward 10 years- that $100 a night room is now $150 and that $300 a night room $450. A new resort, C, is built and it rents for $450 a night; it should get the same portion of points that resort B was assigned at the inception of the program- 2100 points. If, however, resort C rents for $675 a night at the time that resort B is renting for $450, then it should get 150% of the points- or 3150. Thus, point assignments remain fairly distributed over time, and are purely a reflection of true value (and, really, the value of a week is determined by its demand- which rental rates reflect- and not by the cost to build it or its sales price).

Prices at Marco are a perfect example of why sales prices are not the true reflection of value. What sales price should the units be valued at- the initial price, or the current 35% discounted price? Their value hasn't changed, but the sales prices have changed markedly. The only consistent reflection of value is what people are willing to pay to rent the units- which is already calculated by Marriott in the prices they have set for rental units. The differences for seasons (averaging prices across the weeks in question), unit size and views are already in place. Extrapolating it to a timeshare point valuation would be a relatively easy task and would ensure consistency over the years rather than arbitrary periodic devaluations.

 

[davidvel]

If whatever new exchange system they introduce does not impact home resort usage then maintenance fees shouldn't enter into the equation. M/F are set according to the costs to run a resort, and those are the same whether you're dealing with a Bronze gardenview or Plat oceanfront or any week in between. It's in the selling prices where there is a differential and where Marriott has determined a value for each week, which is why I think that Marriott's pricing structure is a better indicator for exchange points value.

Sue is correct. In CA and I suspect most other states, the MF are set based on the expenses and must be distributed evenly unless there is a disparate cost related to a certain group. Demand (ie. season) is not part of the equation. Also, the MF are in each resort's CCRs as dividing equally, and cannot be changed by a Board vote.

As manager, it has to follow those recorded entitlements. It can't institute any new "program" that conflicts.

This is where Marriott is a bit stuck with its deeded condo/HOA based resorts, why there is a different economic model from traditional resorts/hotels, and why increasing MFs ultimately will kill a resort as lesser seasons pay more than they should based upon demand/value of the week (and higher seasons get "subsidized.") By destroy I mean those that hold the lesser weeks get to a point whre they abandon the week.

 

[m61376]

Sue is correct. In CA and I suspect most other states, the MF are set based on the expenses and must be distributed evenly unless there is a disparate cost related to a certain group. Demand (ie. season) is not part of the equation. Also, the MF are in each resort's CCRs as dividing equally, and cannot be changed by a Board vote.

As manager, it has to follow those recorded entitlements. It can't institute any new "program" that conflicts.

This is where Marriott is a bit stuck with its deeded condo/HOA based resorts, why there is a different economic model from traditional resorts/hotels, and why increasing MFs ultimately will kill a resort as lesser seasons pay more than they should based upon demand/value of the week (and higher seasons get "subsidized.") By destroy I mean those that hold the lesser weeks get to a point whre they abandon the week.

That's exactly my point- IF there is a new system that diminishes the value of certain weeks, will Bronze, etc. week owners abandon their responsibilities over time? Alternately, IF Marriott institutes a trust based system (they can't take away deeded rights, but owners can voluntarily join a new internal trading system and relinquish those rights, as in the Asia Pacific program offered last year to overseas customers), then Platinum week owners, who would benefit from higher point allocations, would also incur higher expenses (assuming that system would have MF's allocated on a per point basis).

That's why I see MF's as a potential problem when superimposing a new system on an old one. I am not saying it cannot be done, but it is not a simple matter, which is why I think Marriott has repeatedly postponed rolling out such a system, assuming one has really been in the works for several years.