Summit Watch Presentation

[Steve A]

1. Very gentle. All agreed that given our usage points was not
best for us.

2. Would sell us 1000 points at 14.95 and double it with another 1000 for use within two years.

3. Vistana owners are going to have to buy DC points to access MVC.

4. Points are going to be established for each Vistana location similarly to MVC.

5. Received 35,000 MR points. Building up for our next trip to London.

6. New to me was that DC points can be used to book hotels.

7. Did purchase for 995.00 the five nights plus 90 minute package. Price can go up depending on the season.

 

[kds4]

Your point #3 is consistent with what I and others MVC owners have been told in recent owner updates/sales presentations. Was any additional detail given on this point or your point #4?

 

[Steve A]

Just that they’ll evaluate each Vistana location and decide how many points it’s worth.

 

[StevenTing]

$14.95? Is that a typo? Last I heard we were at $14.26 or there abouts.

 

[kds4]

$14.95? Is that a typo? Last I heard we were at $14.26 or there abouts.

14.26 was last price we were quoted earlier this month, but were told another price increase was coming soon.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I have a presentation there Monday, will see if any different

 

[ocdb8r]

Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another? What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points? The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.

 

[dougp26364]

Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another? What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points? The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.

Let’s start with we have no idea what MVC is really planning. Sales schmucks will tell you what they think you want to hear and trust the vast majority won’t think twice about it. At least not until after the recension period has long past. Then take into consideration how we over dissect things on TUG. TUG members are still rare at sales presentations.

One way MVC can gain access is thru unsold inventory. It doesn’t have to be high season inventory. It doesn’t have to be all inventory. It just has to be some inventory to claim DC members have access.

Also keep in mind that timeshare sales presentations are often to the uninformed mass population. They will snare their fair amount of Vistana owners with the promise of all those new MVC locations and get some amount of buy in. TUG members might be unimpressed but, we are the minority.

I think it’s going to take a few years before MVC owners see much in the way of Vistana inventory and it’s likely to be the most frequent complaint of MVC owners for the first few years. Give 5 to 10 years and cross company reservations should begin to losses up.

 

[Dean]

Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another? What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points? The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.

Not necessarily, remember it's a 2 way street. Assuming any resort or system is linked in some way to the Destination Program, they will have to have a points schedule for those who go to access the Vistana resorts from the DP. But as Doug pointed out, we don't know what they are gong to do and they have many options they could chose from.

 

[kds4]

Has anyone pointed out that 3 and 4 are in tension with one another? What purpose does assigning DC point values to Vistana weeks serve if the only way for Vistana owners to gain access to the DC will be to buy DC points? The DC cannot gain access to the Vistana resorts without somehow giving something back to Vistana owners...hence, either there will be a way for Vistana owners to access the DC with their existing ownership or the DC will not have access.

I don't see this as any different than how MVCI rolled out their DC program to Marriott owners. All weeks in the company portfolio were assigned Destination Points (DPs) values in advance by size, season, and view. Unsold (developer owned) weeks were then placed into a trust pool of x number of points, based on the total number and DP values of unsold weeks the developer (Marriott) still owned. Marriott has been (and continues) selling points out of this pool to new purchasers. On the other side are those Marriott weeks that were previously sold to individuals (by developer or resale). Every one of those weeks has an assigned Destination Point value as well, but the only way to access that points value is for the owner to choose to enroll that week (subject to developer's criteria) and then convert that week to DPs each use year (or for developer to regain ownership of that week through ROFR whereby they then convert that week to its point value permanently and deposit those points into their trust to be resold).

For Vistana, this is no different. The controlling developer (Marriott) is now assigning a DP value to every week in the Vistana company portfolio. Subject to any legal restrictions, the DP value of the unsold Vistana inventory can be added to the controlling developer's point trust for subsequent sale to existing owners of Marriott, Vistana, or the general public. Subject to any legal restrictions, they may also begin 'recovering' weeks inventory for addition to the Marriott trust through ROFR (if such a thing exists in the Vistana world). The real question is what will be the developer (Marriott) criteria for Vistana owners who want to access the assigned DP value of their owned weeks to "exchange" into non-Vistana properties. Will it be the same as it was for Marriott owners (a small fee for developer purchased, a higher fee for resale before a certain date, or the highest fee for resales after a certain date with a required 'new' developer points purchase as well).

If enough Vistana owners do not choose to 'buy-in' to MVCI's point program (and ROFR is an available tool), Marriott could exercise ROFR options more aggressively to add Vistana inventory to the trust. The upside for Vistana owners (wanting to exit timesharing), could be a higher resale value if prices are driven higher to get a resale/purchase through.

Time will tell.

 

[Steve A]

I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.

Does that sound right?

 

[JIMinNC]

I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.

Does that sound right?

That sounds like something a sales person would say - "They won't be able to do X unless they buy what I'm selling."

The reality is I see no way for MVC owners to have access meaningful Vistana inventory unless they offer the option, and can get Vistana owners to choose, to elect to not use their home resort or their existing VSN exchange options in favor of exchanging their ownership into MVC (just like MVC owners must do today). Unless Vistana owners opt to exchange into MVC, their weeks can't be available to MVC owners (they will remain in the VSN system) - it's just like your MVC week can't be made available to II owners unless you elect to exchange it in II, and your week isn't available to other DC Points owners unless you convert your week to Points yourself. So, if the only way Vistana owners have to access MVC inventory is to buy into the DC Trust, the only Vistana inventory MVC owners would be able to access would be the unsold inventory that the developer controls. That doesn't sound like something that will make anyone very happy. MVC will have to find a way to allow Vistana owners to use their existing ownership to access MVC. That seems the only way to get meaningful Vistana inventory, in turn, made available for MVC owners. What you were told strikes me as typical sales spin.

As was discussed ad nauseam in the almost 900 posts in the below-linked thread, 1) something is coming, 2) we have no idea what is coming, 3) sales probably only knows a little more than we do at this point, 4) sales will spin the confusion so as to try to make the sale, and 5) we'll eventually find out, but maybe not until 2020:
https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...t-vistana-hyatt-in-the-dc-speculation.292460/

 

[kds4]

I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.

Does that sound right?

That is how it was presented to us (not at Summit Watch) earlier this month.

 

[JIMinNC]

That is how it was presented to us (not at Summit Watch) earlier this month.

IF that's what they do, MVC owners shouldn't be making any plans to sample the VSE locations. There will be little or no availability for desirable places and times as the only inventory MVC will be able to possibly make available to us will be the unsold -- unless "buy into the DC" is semantics and would also include the option to pay a fee and enroll a previously-acquired VSE week. Requiring a DC Point buy from VSE folks would likely be a kiss of death for any cross-brand exchange offering. At minimum it would seem it would take years/decades to build attractive inventory through buybacks and ROFR. Thankfully, VSE doesn't add all that many new areas for MVC owners, so it's not a huge issue if there isn't much availability.

 

[kds4]

IF that's what they do, MVC owners shouldn't be making any plans to sample the VSE locations. There will be little or no availability for desirable places and times as the only inventory MVC will be able to possibly make available to us will be the unsold -- unless "buy into the DC" is semantics and would also include the option to pay a fee and enroll a previously-acquired VSE week. Requiring a DC Point buy from VSE folks would likely be a kiss of death for any cross-brand exchange offering. At minimum it would seem it would take years/decades to build attractive inventory through buybacks and ROFR. Thankfully, VSE doesn't add all that many new areas for MVC owners, so it's not a huge issue if there isn't much availability.

Agreed. The 'value' may turn out to be MVCI's ability to tout the Vistana portfolio in attempts to further expand their sales of DC points. The actual redemption 'value' will likely take a while to emerge.

 

[dougp26364]

I’m the OP. As I understood the presentation, the point assignment would allow owners of DP in the MVC to access the Vistana inventory. Vistana owners could access their resorts as they currently do. If they want to go to MVC ts they would have to buy into the DC and use DP.

Does that sound right?

MVC owners where originally told there would be two pools. We were told we could access our resorts like we usually do, but we’d have to buy trust points to access trust inventory. Needles to say, that wasn’t exactly true.

Sound familiar?

 

[ocdb8r]

Agreed with much of the above, absent some way for existing Vistana owners to access the DC, I don't see where Marriott could get any valuable inventory to make available to the DC. Keep in mind, unlike when DC was launched, Vistana doesn't hold a stash of unsold weeks that they could easily make available to the DC. The vast majority of weeks owned by Vistana are placed in one of the Vistana Flex Program Trusts. Vistana as a developer controls that trust but then no longer owns the "weeks", but rather "points" in the trust. I don't see how they could legitimately allow access to Flex program trust inventory without allowing reciprocal access to (at the very least) existing Vistana Flex point owners.

As others have pointed out, this is likely a salesperson spinning the reality to benefit their pitch. I am sure we could find a salesperson on the Vistana side saying the same thing "Don't worry, you'll get access to the MVC DC but all those members will have to buy Vistana Flex points to access Vistana resorts."

At worst they limit interchange access to each of the respective trust programs (DC, Sheraton Flex, Westin Flex and Adventura); at best they also allow Vista weeks owners an option to "buy into" the DC program via the same method MVC weeks owners were allowed to enroll their weeks at launch (I have no doubt a salesperson could twist a week enrollment fee into a requirement to "buy in").

I know this has all been hashed out in the long thread....but we keep getting new iterations of the "truth" from each "XXXX Presentation" post.

 

[Dean]

MVC owners where originally told there would be two pools. We were told we could access our resorts like we usually do, but we’d have to buy trust points to access trust inventory. Needles to say, that wasn’t exactly true.

Sound familiar?

I think some were. Technically there are 2 pools with a large overlap. Personally I was never told we'd have to have trust points to reserve but given we were heavy in the weeks side they were likely using the enrollment angle for us.

 

[kds4]

Agreed with much of the above, absent some way for existing Vistana owners to access the DC, I don't see where Marriott could get any valuable inventory to make available to the DC. Keep in mind, unlike when DC was launched, Vistana doesn't hold a stash of unsold weeks that they could easily make available to the DC. The vast majority of weeks owned by Vistana are placed in one of the Vistana Flex Program Trusts. Vistana as a developer controls that trust but then no longer owns the "weeks", but rather "points" in the trust. I don't see how they could legitimately allow access to Flex program trust inventory without allowing reciprocal access to (at the very least) existing Vistana Flex point owners.

As others have pointed out, this is likely a salesperson spinning the reality to benefit their pitch. I am sure we could find a salesperson on the Vistana side saying the same thing "Don't worry, you'll get access to the MVC DC but all those members will have to buy Vistana Flex points to access Vistana resorts."

At worst they limit interchange access to each of the respective trust programs (DC, Sheraton Flex, Westin Flex and Adventura); at best they also allow Vista weeks owners an option to "buy into" the DC program via the same method MVC weeks owners were allowed to enroll their weeks at launch (I have no doubt a salesperson could twist a week enrollment fee into a requirement to "buy in").

I know this has all been hashed out in the long thread....but we keep getting new iterations of the "truth" from each "XXXX Presentation" post.

If both trusts were equal (as they were before the acquisition of Vistana by Marriott), I would agree that Marriott and Vistana would have to negotiate out any form of exchange between the trusts. However, Marriott is now the overall owner of both trusts. I believe that may give them additional flexibilities in what/how they choose to manage those trusts inventories since the Flex Trust owner of record, Vistana, is now really MVCI. I am only interpreting 'legitimately' as being what is legal for MVCI to do and not whether it would be perceived as fair or not to one group of owners or another.

 

[ocdb8r]

If both trusts were equal (as they were before the acquisition of Vistana by Marriott), I would agree that Marriott and Vistana would have to negotiate out any form of exchange between the trusts. However, Marriott is now the overall owner of both trusts. I believe that may give them additional flexibilities in what/how they choose to manage those trusts inventories since the Flex Trust owner of record, Vistana, is now really MVCI. I am only interpreting 'legitimately' as being what is legal for MVCI to do and not whether it would be perceived as fair or not to one group of owners or another.

Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts). However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold. The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them. While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.

 

[DannyTS]

3. Vistana owners are going to have to buy DC points to access MVC.

4. Points are going to be established for each Vistana location similarly to MVC.

I know it sounds good at an MVC meeting. DC owners are getting something FOR FREE, the other side gets nothing in exchange. Fantastic, but I want to see they implement it. Seriously.
What actually happens with the developer inventory? Vistana takes (allegedly) the best weeks of the year and rents them for $$$. This would be a major blow to the MVW balance sheet so I give it a next to nothing chance for it to happen. But if it does happen, given than the availability at the Vistana resorts will go down significantly, it will be great for the Vistana owners that rent out.

 

[kds4]

Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts). However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold. The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them. While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.

Fair enough, Marriott and Vistana established legal trusts based on unsold inventory they respectively owned and established their right to manage what they placed in those trusts in perpetuity (or whatever other legalese accomplishes the same purpose). However they did it was for their respective ultimate benefit. No one (intentionally) creates a trust that is adverse to their own interests, and with the acquisition of Vistana it is now Marriott that effectively sits in the place of Vistana regarding what can and cannot be done under both sets of trust documents is all I was getting at. If there were trust restrictions that may have prevented Vistana from entering into a relationship with Marriott and the DC trust (prior to the acquisition), they may be moot since the same owning/managing party is really sitting on both sides of the trust negotiating table now - Marriott.

Do I know that to be fact, Nope. I'm only raising the possibility (but I fully expect MVCI's legal beagles to be digging their paws into both sets of trust documents for just that purpose). We'll have to wait and see what they sniff out.

 

[Dean]

Let's be clear - MVC does not OWN the trusts; MVC manages the trusts (and you are correct, they manage both the DC points trust(s) and the Vistana trusts). However, the owners are those who have bought points from the trusts and MVC who owns those points the trust has not yet sold. The trusts are their own separate legal entities governed by rules that established them. While the management company maintains a great deal of influence and flexibility, I do not think they have the ability to legitimately prejudice one set of owners over another.

I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components. Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over. The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.

 

[kds4]

I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components. Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over. The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.

Agreed. MVCI didn't make this acquisition to maintain the Vistana status-quo. I think any belief that there won't be visible changes in the operation of the Vistana program (other than maintaining any existing usage rights) is unrealistic. Even the MVCI program has evolved drastically for MVCI owners just in the 10 years I have been a part of it. While no developer should be able to directly diminish anyone existing ownerships, they can definitely control criteria/access to any future evolution/enhancements and some of those 'enhancements' could appear to indirectly diminish ownerships (such as when weeks owners balked at having to compete with points owners when trying to make floating week reservations within their owned season).

 

[DannyTS]

I think they do have a LOT of control, probably 100% unilaterally on the reservation system for all components. Since they will likely not just give other systems access to the DC itself, I think the inherent nature of most any likely options will give DC owners (at least higher levels) access to the other system for the components that are handed over to the DC and require some type of financial commitment for the non MVC options to cross over. The only real issues are the impact and changes on the internal system for each portion and what that financial commitment is going to be.

A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.

But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?