But it doesn't have to be this way. If a hypothetical HGVC trust were structured similar to MVC, and if HGVC approached it in the fashion that MVC supposedly does where the trust only reserves any given week proportionately to the trust's ownership of that given view/unit type/season, then it would not have to be negative for the legacy owners. As I noted above, for every complaint that "MVC is booking up all the good weeks for the trust" there are other anecdotes that weeks owners can still book their weeks. I would like to think that HGVC would approach it in a similar fashion. I would have less faith that a Diamond-dominated entity would act responsibly, but if the HGVC management/model prevails, I think they would understand they should not screw over legacy owners. That has certainly not been their model to date as they are even more fair to resale owners than about anyone in the business.
JIMinNC, ski_sierra, let me deep dive into the details of what I am saying. I will use Bay Club/HGVC as an example, but I could use any HGVC resort.
I own A Penthouse weeks. There are 750 weeks available at Bay Club. (15 units @50 weeks a year. Weeks 51 and 52 are their own separate class.) For convenience, all sold out.
Of those 750 weeks, how many will book via home week preference? All of them?, some of them?, none of them? If everybody booked home week advantage, there would be a 1 to 1 booking when the window opens. So far, so good.
But say 50% decide to not to use the home week advantage, because they want to "point out" to another HGVC location.
Now you have 50% of 750 weeks competing for the same "prime weeks" for the type I own. Much better odds of getting the week(s) I want, for the place I own. Is anyone being hurt? No. I'm paying $400+ a week more, by owning at Bay Club, compared to, say, Elanra, for this preference. Any one could have this preference, if they are 1.) Willing to pay the extra fees, and 2.) Willing to plan more than 9 months in advance.
Now if one had a hypothetical HGVC trust structured like MVC, here is what would happen. (For this discussion, let's assume that Bay Club has a ROFR. In practice, it does not.)
Assume that the trust has 50% of the weeks, either by ROFR, or by deposit by those "pointing out" people. (The MVC weeks owners converting to Trust points equivalent. . .)
Whereas in the current system, those weeks are not assigned until the home week window closes. They are inventory for the current HGVC points people. Under the "MVC like" trust, those weeks get booked at the opening of the home week, as inventory for the trust!
So I go from 50% of the people competing over the weeks I own in the initial window, to 100%. Then I would not have any advantage by owning at Bay Club. It would be given to the trust. At which point, why own at Bay Club, paying the Hawaii premium? Sell and Buy in Vegas, if you can find a person to sell to.
In essence, this is what happened at MVC with the DC Trust. All the frictional inventory, (not sold, or ROFR'ed, or repo'ed), that had been part of the week owners inventory, became DC Trust inventory, leaving all the week owners with a 1 to 1 booking, at every location in the system. With cancellations along the way, the results could end up with owners not getting a week, even if they paid for it. (This is downplayed, but it is very real. personal experience.)