• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Marriott/Vistana overlay

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
8,271
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
I agree that MVC on paper has more locations, but if you factor in that only 60% of owners have enrolled after almost 10 years (leaving 40% of weeks properties unavailable to MVC owners to trade into), plus the trust which has a lot of off-season junk that no one wants, I would say that # of units available to trade is not much different but there are fewer high season, highly desirable properties available because those owners either enroll and use the week, or are not enrolled.

With HGVC and Vistana (mandatory and developer sales), every property is enrolled automatically so almost everything in the system is available to trade. With HGVC most owners use points for short stays and upgraded units instead of their deeded week so the system is highly fluid, making high-end properties available if you are diligent (e.g. Hawaii OF during summer and whale). Vistana is a bit stickier in terms of owners using their weeks (myself included), but I see many Vistana owners regularly trading into nice properties with SOs with short and long stays.

No system is perfect but I would argue that MVC looks good on paper but is not as big as it seems when you look at it from a trading perspective.
 
Last edited:

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
8,271
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
I own at Westin Kaanapali North OF. The maintenance fee is between $2700 - $2800. Higher than Marriott in Maui.

Westin MF includes annual membership in II and SOs. Adding II to MOC/towers plus the cost of enrollment and any associated fees would bring the figures closer together. Need apples to apples.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
There is also an additional fee on top of the MF for WKOVRN too. It is higher because we pay more for an EOY but I can’t remember the name of the fee. Frankly, I think the difference in a couple hundred dollars a year is inconsequential.
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
8,271
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
IMO...I believe it is about equal when you compare Westin HI to MOC Towers apples to apples with II membership etc. but may be even more $ if you allocate the cost of enrollment and the cost of having to purchase a second property to get 13 month preferential reservations so you can ensure booking during high season.

Plenty of hidden costs in the MVC system. And this gets to my point: HGVC includes RCI membership in the $1200 - $1700 MF. There is a nominal $699 mandatory "enrollment" fee for every new purchase, but you don't need to buy a second unit to get 13 month preferential reservations and don't have to pay additional for an exchange program. You can also buy HGVC resale for a lot less than MVC making your capital risk and loss much less.

You get similar quality. Fewer resort locations for sure, but HGVC is aggressively adding more with 10 upcoming locations. Many are in locations that traditional MVC doesn't have: e.g. Japan (2 properties), Portugal, Italy, Scotland;NYC - multiple properties; Mexico - multiple locations; Barbados; Chicago, Charleston.

Plus, I can use cash getaways, ACs or rent for much less than owning using II with my Vistana acct when I want to stay at an MVC where a location doesn't exist in either system.
 
Last edited:

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
IMO...I believe it is about equal when you compare apples to apples with II membership etc. but may be even more if you allocate the of enrollment and the cost of having to purchase a second property to get 13 month preferential reservations so you can ensure booking during high season. Plenty of hidden costs in the MVC system.

You can’t book a holiday week through Westin either. They block weeks 51 and 52. However it is not an issue to book a high season week through either system at 12 months or less usually. I have a 13 month booking window in MVC as a presidential member and do not usually worry about it. I tend to book closer in and rarely have a problem with either MVC or Vistana. I do not see why you keep trying to prove that Westin is lower priced and easier to book than MVC? IMO, they are one and the same. Pros and cons to each. If there is a cost differential, it is minimal when in the same comparable location. I am an owner at both and I can’t remember the exact annual MF and other fees I pay for each. All I recall is that the WKOVRN with the annual fees came close to $2900+ per year.

Okay I looked it up:

WKOVR North EOY 2 BR OF

$133.92 Master Association Assessment
$283.41 Apartment Owners Assessment
$923.12 Vacation Ownership Assessment
$1340.45 Total EOY


$151.04 VSN Membership Fee (annual)

Grand Total for 1 EOY week: $2982.98

Total for an annual week is about $2800 or so because VSN is paid yearly for an annual or EOY week and one of the association fees is higher for an EOY week.
 
Last edited:

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
Someone posted this for the Marriott MOC (I am using this posting because it is the nicer buildings of MOC and comparable as a 2 BR OF). I do not think the II trading fee is that much extra and it is optional since you do not need to pay to join II on a resale week. VSN membership fee is mandatory every year.

Marriott’s Maui Ocean Club (MM1) - Lahaina/Napili 2BR OF

2019 AOAO Replacement Reserve 160.87
2019 Property Tax Fee 341.32
2019 Replacement Reserve 341.95
2019 AOAO Operating Fee 794.12
2019 Operating Fee 1059.09

Total $2697.35
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
8,271
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
You need to compare apples to apples. For MOC Towers you need to compare annual to annual. Not annual to EOY. Plus for MOC add II annual dues and an annualized distribution of the cost of enrolling the property in the points system at a minimum. Also allocate an extra property to get 13 months priority for high season (this could be optional but if you are serious about getting high season weeks consistently this should be added.)
 
Last edited:

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
I am staying at both WKOVR south 1 BR OF unit as well as a Marriott MOC-Napilii/Lahaina 1 BR OF corner deluxe. I will do a direct comparison for quality and views. From what I see so far, I suspect the OF corner deluxe will be the winner due to the huge balcony. I suspect both WKOVR OF and MOC Napili/Lahaina will beat the OF at WKOVRN.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
For MOC You need to add II annual dues and the annualized cost of enrollment at a minimum; need to compare apples to apples.

II is optional and most owners of a premium OF unit in MAUI will not use II to exchange. II is under $100 per year and a lot less if you buy a 3 to 5 year plan. Much less than the VSN mandatory membership fees. I do not think you need to add in the cost of enrollment. Why would you need to do that if it is a resale week? But if you are comparing the cost of enrollment, then MVC is not apples to apples since Vistana only has a few ways to internally exchange and most would be terrible exchanges for a Maui week. The only comparable exchanges would be WKOVR south OF, WSJ and Bahamas. With MVC, there are many more exchange options once enrolled. I enrolled a Ko Olina week and got a Spain week with it. That was a great deal.
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
8,271
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
You are missing the point. Westin comes with II and enrollment in SO bundled. MVC does not. Compare apples to apples. I've got to get back to work now. :wave:
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
You are missing the point. Westin comes with II and enrollment in SO bundled. Compare apples to apples. I've got to get back to work now. :wave:

I get it. I do not think you are comparing Apple to Apples either. I think we are not communicating clearly. Enrollment in the mandatory resorts at Vistana (where applicable) is not comparable to enrollment in MVC. You would pay something like $69 or so per year for annual enrollment in II, which is also optional. I would not trade a Maui OF week in II, that’s for sure! I will not trade anything in II if I can help it. I actually hate that with Vistana and MVC DPs that I am required to pay the II fee since I do not need it with those programs.
 

Helios

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
134
Points
173
I think the VSE properties are better maintained.

We keep looking at new possible destinations for holidays, and often see MVC properties available for MB redemptions, and then we head to YouTube to check out people's videos of the place and I would say 75% of the time the first words out of my wife's mouth is something about how Marriott properties look old and run down...

will we stay at them if there's some overlay program? sure, but our expectations will be lower when staying at a Marriott vs a Westin branded property.
Totally agree.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I agree that MVC on paper has more locations, but if you factor in that only 60% of owners have enrolled after almost 10 years (leaving 40% of weeks properties unavailable to MVC owners to trade into), plus the trust which has a lot of off-season junk that no one wants, I would say that # of units available to trade is not much different but there are fewer high season, highly desirable properties available because those owners either enroll and use the week, or are not enrolled.

With HGVC and Vistana (mandatory and developer sales), every property is enrolled automatically so almost everything in the system is available to trade. With HGVC most owners use points for short stays and upgraded units instead of their deeded week so the system is highly fluid, making high-end properties available if you are diligent (e.g. Hawaii OF during summer and whale). Vistana is a bit stickier in terms of owners using their weeks (myself included), but I see many Vistana owners regularly trading into nice properties with SOs with short and long stays.

No system is perfect but I would argue that MVC looks good on paper but is not as big as it seems when you look at it from a trading perspective.

Based on my experience over the last 5 years, the availability for points bookings in the MVC system is better than the implications above. While in theory, you are basically correct, in practice, we've always been able to find exactly what we are looking for with MVC points. The one exception might be the Caribbean resorts and the European resorts. We've never actually tried to book any of those yet, but based on some "shopping" I've done just for educational purposes, Caribbean and Europe availability seems a bit more spotty than Hawaii, Hilton Head, Florida, California, etc. In these latter locations, I've been able to get what I want, even sometimes when not booking exactly at inventory release. We successfully booked a week on Maui for next February 8 around mid-March, which was just inside 11 months out. I was surprised there was availability for that time of year at that point, so when we sorta spontaneously decided to go back to Hawaii in an even year in addition to sticking to our planned odd year trips with our owned weeks, we were able to get what we wanted a bit later than I ever thought would be possible. Granted I've never tried to book the REALLY tough weeks like Presidents Day, Christmas, New Years, etc, but those are tough all over.

I agree that HGVC is much more user-friendly and easy to book with points than MVC (I have no experience with VSE), but by my experience Marriott isn't as bad as the facts you outlined would seem to imply, even though everything you said is basically factually true. Thanks to ROFR, buybacks, etc getting some high quality weeks into the MVC trust and owners who have enrolled/elected their weeks, good, high-demand inventory is available in the MVC points system.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,925
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
THere is a misconception that the trust is full of junk. Up front there were a lot of off season weeks initially put in, but there are also some resorts that are now 100% trust and with nine years of buybacks, ROFR and foreclosures, they seem to have seeded the trust pretty good.
 

Helios

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
134
Points
173
I have stayed at multiple properties at both and I find HGVC comparable to MVC quality-wise. However HGVC treats its owners much better and the points system beats MVC hands down.
This is my experience as an owner in the 3 Systems.
 

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
517
Reaction score
327
Points
173
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Too many
THere is a misconception that the trust is full of junk. Up front there were a lot of off season weeks initially put in, but there are also some resorts that are now 100% trust and with nine years of buybacks, ROFR and foreclosures, they seem to have seeded the trust pretty good.

Interesting.. just from a profit maximizing perspective, I would have thought Marriott would buy the high demand weeks and use it for renting out on Marriott.com. Buyback the low demand weeks and put them in the trust. Is their any disclosure of how much inventory is owned at various resorts in different seasons?

Sometimes I don't understand why any hotel associated brand would sell a holiday week. I am sure they have run the numbers and priced it exhorbitantly high so that it would be hard to break even on those weeks for any owner (MVC or private).
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
Based on my experience over the last 5 years, the availability for points bookings in the MVC system is better than the implications above. While in theory, you are basically correct, in practice, we've always been able to find exactly what we are looking for with MVC points. The one exception might be the Caribbean resorts and the European resorts. We've never actually tried to book any of those yet, but based on some "shopping" I've done just for educational purposes, Caribbean and Europe availability seems a bit more spotty than Hawaii, Hilton Head, Florida, California, etc. In these latter locations, I've been able to get what I want, even sometimes when not booking exactly at inventory release. We successfully booked a week on Maui for next February 8 around mid-March, which was just inside 11 months out. I was surprised there was availability for that time of year at that point, so when we sorta spontaneously decided to go back to Hawaii in an even year in addition to sticking to our planned odd year trips with our owned weeks, we were able to get what we wanted a bit later than I ever thought would be possible. Granted I've never tried to book the REALLY tough weeks like Presidents Day, Christmas, New Years, etc, but those are tough all over.

I agree that HGVC is much more user-friendly and easy to book with points than MVC (I have no experience with VSE), but by my experience Marriott isn't as bad as the facts you outlined would seem to imply, even though everything you said is basically factually true. Thanks to ROFR, buybacks, etc getting some high quality weeks into the MVC trust and owners who have enrolled/elected their weeks, good, high-demand inventory is available in the MVC points system.

Yes I agree. I have gotten everything I want through the MVC points system. I am also with Vistana and the exchanges into St John and theBahamas are a lot harder to get then exchanging into a Marriott or Ritz Carlton Caribbean resort. You really do need to be on Vistana right at the 8 month mark to have a good shot at getting one of their Caribbean resorts in almost any season.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,925
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
Interesting.. just from a profit maximizing perspective, I would have thought Marriott would buy the high demand weeks and use it for renting out on Marriott.com. Buyback the low demand weeks and put them in the trust. Is their any disclosure of how much inventory is owned at various resorts in different seasons?

Sometimes I don't understand why any hotel associated brand would sell a holiday week. I am sure they have run the numbers and priced it exhorbitantly high so that it would be hard to break even on those weeks for any owner (MVC or private).
All of the deeds and conveyances to the trust are recorded in Orange County Florida and are public record. For a while I kept track of all the weeks that were conveyed to the trust, but I stopped several years ago.

While a chunk of Marriott Vacation Club's profit comes from renting out timeshare units on Marriott.com, that simply isn't their core business and it carries an inherent risk. If the economy tanks they have a lot of inventory on their hands that they may need to start renting out at a loss. Marriott Vacation Club really isn't in the rental business, their core product is vacation club sales and management. They have a reliable revenue stream in maintenance fees and make the bulk of their income off of sales.

They sell the holiday weeks because it means a huge proffic up front that they can then use to reinvest back in to the company to generate more sales.
 

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
517
Reaction score
327
Points
173
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Too many
All of the deeds and conveyances to the trust are recorded in Orange County Florida and are public record. For a while I kept track of all the weeks that were conveyed to the trust, but I stopped several years ago.
Nice. I wonder if someone has created a readable summary of this data.

While a chunk of Marriott Vacation Club's profit comes from renting out timeshare units on Marriott.com, that simply isn't their core business and it carries an inherent risk. If the economy tanks they have a lot of inventory on their hands that they may need to start renting out at a loss. Marriott Vacation Club really isn't in the rental business, their core product is vacation club sales and management. They have a reliable revenue stream in maintenance fees and make the bulk of their income off of sales.
They sell the holiday weeks because it means a huge proffic up front that they can then use to reinvest back in to the company to generate more sales.

I see. Selling new timeshares is so profitable that they probably look at rentals as a distraction. By necessity, they have a rental business for their unsold inventory. I would think holiday weeks would have the lowest risk.
 

GregT

TUG Member
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,128
Reaction score
1,886
Points
599
Location
Carlsbad, CA
Resorts Owned
Marriott: Maui Ocean Club Lahaina Villas (3BRx5), Ko Olina, Shadow Ridge II, Willow Ridge, Aruba Ocean Club, DC Points HGVC: Flamingo, Sea World, I-Drive, Starwood Bella (x4), SDO, TradeWinds, Worldmark
All of the deeds and conveyances to the trust are recorded in Orange County Florida and are public record. For a while I kept track of all the weeks that were conveyed to the trust, but I stopped several years ago.

Dioxide is being very modest here -- it was a monumental effort and here is the last post of the points in the Trust -- circa 2016.

This tells you how many points Marriott has generated from depositing weeks into the Trust -- so there is Massive inventory for Grand Chateau. The low point totals (Summit Watch -- a ski property?) mean Marriott is dependent on owners redeeming their weeks for points (or that week being available via an II trade -- which Marriott can pick off).


dioxide45 said:
Breakdown by Property

Resort.....................................Points
Grand Chateau..........................52,703,750
Ko'Olina...............................30,045,750
Newport Coast..........................29,394,500
Oceana Palms...........................23,391,250
Grande Vista...........................19,272,750
Kalanipu'u.............................18,293,500
Timber Lodge...........................17,677,250
Shadow Ridge II........................13,429,500
Maui Ocean Club........................11,981,250
Ritz Carlton Club - Vail...............11,813,500
The Mayflower..........................10,748,750
Crystal Shores..........................9,598,250
Cypress Harbour.........................9,156,000
Maui Ocean Club Sequel..................8,773,500
Ocean Pointe............................8,588,000
Harbour Lake............................8,506,500
Shadow Ridge............................8,053,750
Desert Springs II.......................7,686,750
Canyon Villas...........................5,820,500
Kauai Beach Club........................5,204,250
Ocean Watch.............................4,656,250
Willow Ridge Lodge......................4,552,000
Waiohai.................................4,446,000
Grand Residence Lake Tahoe..............4,322,250
Desert Springs I........................4,299,000
BeachPlace Towers.......................3,734,000
Barony Beach Club.......................3,339,750
Grande Ocean............................3,159,250
Fairway Villas..........................2,827,750
Ritz Carlton Club - San Francisco.......2,678,000
Frenchman's Cove........................2,553,750
Surfwatch...............................2,532,500
Villas at Doral.........................2,423,750
Mountain Side...........................2,249,250
Royal Palms.............................2,134,750
Lakeshore Reserve.......................2,021,000
Summit Watch............................1,996,000
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas...........1,841,250
Legends Edge............................1,588,500
Manor Club..............................1,558,500
Sabal Palms.............................1,545,500
Ritz Carlton Club - Lake Tahoe..........1,462,750
Mountain Valley Lodge...................1,248,750
Manor Club Sequel.......................1,083,000
Streamside..............................1,007,500
Monarch at Sea Pines......................995,750
Imperial Palms............................714,500
Harbour Pointe............................665,000
Harbour Club..............................303,750
Heritage Club.............................267,500
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas Suites......243,250
Sunset Pointe.............................159,500
Grand Total...........................378,749,500
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
Interesting.. just from a profit maximizing perspective, I would have thought Marriott would buy the high demand weeks and use it for renting out on Marriott.com. Buyback the low demand weeks and put them in the trust. Is their any disclosure of how much inventory is owned at various resorts in different seasons?

Sometimes I don't understand why any hotel associated brand would sell a holiday week. I am sure they have run the numbers and priced it exhorbitantly high so that it would be hard to break even on those weeks for any owner (MVC or private).

I'll add the following to dioxide45's spot-on comments about why they wouldn't be incentivized to do what you suggest...

While profits are the top priority for Marriott Vacations Worldwide, as dioxide 45 said, Sales is their primary driver - in 2018 $990 million versus only $352 million for rentals. Right now, somewhere around 60% of new sales are from existing owners (according to their investor conference calls). While they have a long-term goal to increase sales to new owners to about 50%, thus reducing sales to existing owners to 50%, they need very happy owners to get those levels of repeat buyers. If the Trust/DC Exchange pool was devoid of high-demand weeks, they would have many fewer happy owners. This is one area where the goals of MVC do align fairly well with our goals as owners. Since happy owners often buy more, they actually do want us to be happy.

Another reason they would have a disincentive to buy a low demand week to put in the Trust, is the Trust has to pay the maintenance fees on any unsold points in the Trust. For example, buying back a Bronze season Oceanside week at Hilton Head Grand Ocean would only add 775 points to the Trust for future sale, but the Trust would still be responsible for paying the $1491 maintenance fee for 2019. That's $1.92/point versus the average $0.58/point fee for the entire Trust. Granted, that's a somewhat edge case extreme example, but it gives you a flavor of the problems that would be created, even for MVC, if the Trust only held low demand weeks.
 

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
517
Reaction score
327
Points
173
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Too many
I'll add the following to dioxide45's spot-on comments about why they wouldn't be incentivized to do what you suggest...

While profits are the top priority for Marriott Vacations Worldwide, as dioxide 45 said, Sales is their primary driver - in 2018 $990 million versus only $352 million for rentals. Right now, somewhere around 60% of new sales are from existing owners (according to their investor conference calls). While they have a long-term goal to increase sales to new owners to about 50%, thus reducing sales to existing owners to 50%, they need very happy owners to get those levels of repeat buyers. If the Trust/DC Exchange pool was devoid of high-demand weeks, they would have many fewer happy owners. This is one area where the goals of MVC do align fairly well with our goals as owners. Since happy owners often buy more, they actually do want us to be happy.

Another reason they would have a disincentive to buy a low demand week to put in the Trust, is the Trust has to pay the maintenance fees on any unsold points in the Trust. For example, buying back a Bronze season Oceanside week at Hilton Head Grand Ocean would only add 775 points to the Trust for future sale, but the Trust would still be responsible for paying the $1491 maintenance fee for 2019. That's $1.92/point versus the average $0.58/point fee for the entire Trust. Granted, that's a somewhat edge case extreme example, but it gives you a flavor of the problems that would be created, even for MVC, if the Trust only held low demand weeks.

This is very insightful. I think when MVC owns some inventory in the trust they also have an incentive to keep a lid on the MFs. I've wondered why a developer wouldn't increase the MFs as much as possible. Your explanation is one such reason for why they wouldn't want to do that.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
This is very insightful. I think when MVC owns some inventory in the trust they also have an incentive to keep a lid on the MFs. I've wondered why a developer wouldn't increase the MFs as much as possible. Your explanation is one such reason for why they wouldn't want to do that.

Also, remember the maintenance fee itself does not go to the developer, it goes to the resort HOA, which is a separate legal entity with a separate income statement. The monies we pay show up as revenue for the HOA, offset by the operating expenses, reserve expenses, and property taxes paid by the HOA to run to the resort. The only money that actually goes to a developer like Marriott Vacations Worldwide, and into their reportable revenue, is the management fee they charge each HOA, and which shows up as an expense to the HOA.

The expenses of operating the resort are disclosed every year to all owners, so the maintenance fee can't be increased without a corresponding demonstration of a rise in operating expenses. And at least for Marriott, the management fee they charge the HOA is set at a defined % of expenses. Their fee gets to go up as expenses go up, so there is really no strong incentive to keep fees low, but the requirements to disclose a budget and justify increases to the owners does serve to make it hard for them to arbitrarily increase fees to whatever the market might bear. It still has to be based on the costs of operating the resort.
 
Last edited:

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
They have a reliable revenue stream in maintenance fees...

I think we would all be well served to try to avoid implying that a developer like Marriott Vacations Worldwide has a "revenue stream in maintenance fees." As I know you are well aware, the maintenance fees themselves actually go to the HOA, and show up on the HOA income statement. The reliable revenue stream to MVW actually comes from the management fee that shows up as an expense item on that HOA income statement. I realize this is a nuance that is sort of nit-picky for folks like us who understand how all this stuff actually works - and I've made similar comments myself in the past - but I've seen many discussions over the years where it's been a source of confusion for some people. So, when we are talking about the developer themselves, I would suggest that it's more technically accurate to state our point like this:

They have a reliable revenue stream in management fees...
 
Last edited:

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
517
Reaction score
327
Points
173
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Too many
Also, remember the maintenance fee itself does not go to the developer, it goes to the resort HOA, which is a separate legal entity with a separate income statement. The monies we pay show up as revenue for the HOA, offset by the operating expenses, reserve expenses, and property taxes paid by the HOA to run to the resort. The only money that actually goes to a developer like Marriott Vacations Worldwide, and into their reportable revenue, is the management fee they charge each HOA, and which shows up as an expense to the HOA.

The expenses of operating the resort are disclosed every year to all owners, so the maintenance fee can't be increased without a corresponding demonstration of a rise in operating expenses. And at least for Marriott, the management fee they charge the HOA is set at a defined % of expenses. Their fee gets to go up as expenses go up, so there is really no strong incentive to keep fees low, but the requirements to disclose a budget and justify increases to the owners does serve to make it hard for them to arbitrarily increase fees to whatever the market might bear. It still has to be based on the costs of operating the resort.

yes. I made the short form claim for maintenance fees going to the developer. They do end up going to them indirectly through the HOA. Since they make a % off the total, I don't see any incentive for them to keep fees low. But since they also own units until they are sold as points/weeks, they have some incentive to keep the fees low. Otherwise why wouldn't they increase the MF as much as possible so they can get get a bigger revenue?
 
Top