Recorded Trust Documents

[hotcoffee]

I am hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges. Non-enrollees will not like that much; but it is the reality of situation. The DC program is the future. I cannot imagine them scrapping it at this point. They need to make their DC members happy. After all, the skim damaged the program before it even got started. Making sure that DC members get their desired exchanges should be one of their highest priorities. If exchanges end up not being easier through DC than through II, then the program in my view will be a failure.

 

[DanCali]

I am hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges.

That will be the day ALL weeks owners should start using request first, and only request first.

 

[taffy19]

I am hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges. Non-enrollees will not like that much; but it is the reality of situation. The DC program is the future. I cannot imagine them scrapping it at this point. They need to make their DC members happy. After all, the skim damaged the program before it even got started. Making sure that DC members get their desired exchanges should be one of their highest priorities. If exchanges end up not being easier through DC than through II, then the program in my view will be a failure.

If this is the case, what will happen to the people who join the DCEP but do not want to use points? They mainly joined to save on the fees and want to continue exchanging weeks through II. How would they feel about it? After all, their big spiel still is that nothing will change if you continue using II but this would change the program if less weeks will become available for the Legacy week owners in the new plan as well as for us who do not join the program. Do you mean this to happen to the new trust point buyers and not for the Legacy week owners who enroll in the DCEP?

I also believe that, once most Legacy weeks owners have joined the new DCEP, these old fees will return again but less expensive than they are now. They all seem to do it.

 

[windje2000]

I am hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges.

I'm not. But I can understand that you want to get something for the money you spent to enroll.

Non-enrollees will not like that much; but it is the reality of situation. The DC program is the future. I cannot imagine them scrapping it at this point. They need to make their DC members happy. After all, the skim damaged the program before it even got started. Making sure that DC members get their desired exchanges should be one of their highest priorities. If exchanges end up not being easier through DC than through II, then the program in my view will be a failure.

Exactly right

That will be the day ALL weeks owners should start using request first, and only request first.

Exactly right - - I'm sure II came to exactly the same conclusion -- it would really throw a monkey wrench into their business.

 

[hotcoffee]

That will be the day ALL weeks owners should start using request first, and only request first.

"Preference" might have been a poor choice of words. "Advantage" might have been better. The theoried request-first search on behalf of DC members offering Ko Olina or MOC weeks would give those searches a lot of clout - more than a lot of Marriott weeks owners at lesser resorts.

I don't know if your request-first searches would make much difference in that regard. I assume two request-first searches can satisfy one-another. Cascading satisfactions of request-first searches might also happen. As long as one of the searches is looking for Ko Olina or MOC, there is a pretty good likelihood of success when the week offered is at those resorts.

Offering a Hawaiian week in a Marriott II search was what I had in mind when I used the term "preference".

 

[DanCali]

I don't know if your request-first searches would make much difference in that regard.

It would matter in the sense that your proposal to give DC enrollees an advantage in II over weeks owners would create an "us" against "them" atmosphere. Why should your points be worth more than my week? And, in that atmosphere, there is no way I'd be giving up my week without me getting my exchange too. In fact, I'd be just better off rent swapping without paying the II membership fee.

 

[hotcoffee]

It would matter in the sense that your proposal to give DC enrollees an advantage in II over weeks owners would create an "us" against "them" atmosphere. Why should your points be worth more than my week? And, in that atmosphere, there is no way I'd be giving up my week without me getting my exchange too. In fact, I'd be just better off rent swapping without paying the II membership fee.

Why would it do that? The advantage is that it potentially elevates a person's regular week to a higher value trade (i.e., the trade is now a Hawaiian week rather than what the person actually owned). The II exchanger who wanted the Hawaiian week gets his exchange also. So, no one actually loses. It just gives the DC member a higher probability of a successful exchange. Successful exchanges is what this program is all about.

Also, I think that there already is a "us" vs. "them" atmosphere. You can see it here on TUG. It is almost like two countercultures exist here. Those who start threads with positive info or issues about points, and those who are clearly hostile to the program.

 

[windje2000]

Why would it do that? The advantage is that it potentially elevates a person's regular week to a higher value trade (i.e., the trade is now a Hawaiian week rather than what the person actually owned). The II exchanger who wanted the Hawaiian week gets his exchange also. So, no one actually loses. It just gives the DC member a higher probability of a successful exchange. Successful exchanges is what this program is all about.

Also, I think that there already is a "us" vs. "them" atmosphere. You can see it here on TUG. It is almost like two countercultures exist here. Those who start threads with positive info or issues about points, and those who are clearly hostile to the program.

Same as there are those who like II and those who despise II.

Opinions vary.

Always have. Always will.

But

. . . hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges.

is guaranteed to create controversy.

 

[hotcoffee]

But

". . . hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges."

is guaranteed to create controversy.

Of course, I doubt that any of us will know what really happens below the covers. A DC member goes on a waitlist for a summer Hilton Head and gets it. Where did the week come from?

 

[dioxide45]

I am hoping that the DC program will end up giving a preference in II for DC members using points for exchanges.

In the effort to keep this thread off topic.... I don't think enrollees can use points to make Marriott exchanges in II. If that were the case, it would be cheaper in many cases to exchange points in II vs DC.

 

[DanCali]

In the effort to keep this thread off topic.... I don't think enrollees can use points to make Marriott exchanges in II. If that were the case, it would be cheaper in many cases to exchange points in II vs DC.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is another case of Trust Points > Legacy Points.

But the same holds true for Trust Points, no? (Trust) points can often do better exchanging points in II than through the DC.

 

[DanCali]

So, no one actually loses. It just gives the DC member a higher probability of a successful exchange. Successful exchanges is what this program is all about.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but there seems to be a contradiction here. If a DC member would get a higher probability of a successful exchange (compared to current probability), wouldn't that come at the expense of someone (weeks owners) who now would get a lower probability due to the preference you are advocating? In fact, you yourself said that:

...Non-enrollees will not like that much; but it is the reality of situation...

So how did we now get to "no one actually loses?"

 

[hotcoffee]

In the effort to keep this thread off topic.... I don't think enrollees can use points to make Marriott exchanges in II. If that were the case, it would be cheaper in many cases to exchange points in II vs DC.

Presumably, you could combine Trust points and enrolled points for an II exchange. Also, Marriott can use II to get an exchange for a waitlisted DC member.

 

[dioxide45]

Presumably, you could combine Trust points and enrolled points for an II exchange. Also, Marriott can use II to get an exchange for a waitlisted DC member.

But trust points can only exchange for non Marriott weeks in II also. If a points owner or converter wants Marriott time, they need to pull from the points pool. Marriott may go to II for those weeks, but a points owner/converter can't use the II point chart in the II Buyers Guide to exchange for Marriott weeks through II.

 

[wof45]

this is an interesting thread, and there are some signs that Marriott is already reacting to some of the ideas to beat them.

I believe that we are seeing Marriott not dumping future weeks in II, and are now holding them -- perhaps until 60 days out.

That would mean that in the future we couldn't use II to exchange back into Marriott unless someone actually deposits their week into II.

This strategy would make a lot more inventory available to the DC, but not for deposited Marriott weeks. You could still use all of the old strategies, but would just find a lot less available in II until 60-90 days.

 

[DanCali]

That would mean that in the future we couldn't use II to exchange back into Marriott unless someone actually deposits their week into II.

Isn't this how it's supposed to work anyway? If developer inventory is what makes an exchange system successful it is bound to implode.

I don't believe II exchange success (at least not "like for like" exchanges) is dependent on developer deposits. I can't say the same for the DC given that the primary owner of the Trust is Marriott...

 

[wof45]

it might just be for us, since we only trade into MVCI using II. We list others on our requests, but it has been the MVCI that we get confirmed.

 

[SueDonJ]

Isn't this how it's supposed to work anyway? If developer inventory is what makes an exchange system successful it is bound to implode.

I don't believe II exchange success (at least not "like for like" exchanges) is dependent on developer deposits. I can't say the same for the DC given that the primary owner of the Trust is Marriott...

fwiw, I think an exchanger will meet with the most success in whichever exchange companies (whether it's II, Marriott's, RCI etc ...) get the benefit of developer bulk bankings. Success in II would certainly be diminished by any of the big boys moving their bulk bankings elsewhere.

You're correct in that in order for their new program to be a success, Marriott needs to deposit whatever Trust and developer inventory they're holding into their related Exchange Company (which they appear to be doing.) But thinking logically, if Marriott's focus is on the success of their new program why would we have any expectation that they won't do that? What purpose would it serve Marriott to not do it?

 

[dioxide45]

Marriott will have to deposit unreserved trust inventory in to II far earlier than 60 days out. The enrolled members in the trust will not be numerous enough to soak up all those unsold weeks. Marriott won't hold on to them until day 60 because then many of the units will go unfilled. Not a lot of people book at the 60 day mark compared to farther out. Empty units are not good for business. There may be a longer delay now in ulsold weeks going to II, but they won't wait until 60 days out.

 

[taffy19]

We are trying to do an exchange for our lock-off unit but there isn't a single Marriott deposited for the time we need or any time in March and April. They are not getting the Marriott deposits yet so she told me to try within the last sixty days.

I am going to call every day as I am not going to lock-off our unit for nothing. Last year, we got our exchange within 24 hours for the one and only unit we wanted and for the single week we specified. II had Marriott owned weeks available but they are now going in the Trust bucket. The Sales Manager at the Newport Coast Villas warned us that less deposits will go to II and it already is showing.

This new plan has made our purchase worthless to us because we bought for the view and locking off for a particular week so that's why we went for a fixed week and unit. We were told that we would have no problems locking off and getting that second week we needed. What a joke!

Marriott devalued our enjoyment of ownership and they did this once before with our first Marriott timeshare when we no longer could make reservations in the spring unless we tried several weeks on a row because of the 13 months reservation perk for multiple timeshare week owners that was introduced so now we have our second problem because of a change in the program.

They will keep chiseling away of the new program too and once they get the majority of the votes, all Legacy week owners will be toast. JMHO. Can't you tell I am fed up with the Marriott?

 

[windje2000]

Marriott will have to deposit unreserved trust inventory in to II far earlier than 60 days out. The enrolled members in the trust will not be numerous enough to soak up all those unsold weeks. Marriott won't hold on to them until day 60 because then many of the units will go unfilled. Not a lot of people book at the 60 day mark compared to farther out. Empty units are not good for business. There may be a longer delay now in ulsold weeks going to II, but they won't wait until 60 days out.

DClub stats

For the period 6/20/2010 thru 9/17/2010

* 24,739 enrollments
* 53,975 enrolled owner weeks
* 1,730 point banking transactions
* 2,544 point borrowing transaction
* 4,167 point based reservations - for more than 11,000 nights
* more than 5,500 families have purchased more than 9,000,000 points



There are more than 370,000 legacy owners who on average own 1.3 weeks = nearly 500,000 weeks.

That represents about 10,000 owner owned occupancies/week or 70,000 nights per calendar week


DClub stats

11,000 nights/12 weeks = just over 900 nights per week

900/70,000 = 1.3%

That's a pretty small percentage of the pie, but keep in mind that DClub is still starting up. OTOH, I would guess that the summer is probably the best time to sell timeshare, and that the holidays are not a great time to sell timeshare.

I think a lot of those occupancies are pluspoints. The average stay is short.

11,000 / 4,167 = 2.6 days per stay

 

[timtax]

Help me with the math

DClub stats

For the period 6/20/2010 thru 9/17/2010

* 24,739 enrollments
* 53,975 enrolled owner weeks
* 1,730 point banking transactions
* 2,544 point borrowing transaction
* 4,167 point based reservations - for more than 11,000 nights
* more than 5,500 families have purchased more than 9,000,000 points



There are more than 370,000 legacy owners who on average own 1.3 weeks = nearly 500,000 weeks.

That represents about 10,000 owner owned occupancies/week or 70,000 nights per calendar week


DClub stats

11,000 nights/12 weeks = just over 900 nights per week

900/70,000 = 1.3%

That's a pretty small percentage of the pie, but keep in mind that DClub is still starting up. OTOH, I would guess that the summer is probably the best time to sell timeshare, and that the holidays are not a great time to sell timeshare.

I think a lot of those occupancies are pluspoints. The average stay is short.

11,000 / 4,167 = 2.6 days per stay

If there are 53975 enrolled owner weeks, Isn't that a little over 10% of all weeks? That sounds like progress towards the 20% expected conversion.

 

[wof45]

I also agree that 10% of owner weeks signed up in the first three months is a good start. We signed in October, with our 5 weeks, so I expect that the next quarterly numbers will be higher -- once people do the math and think through the alternatives.

I believe Marriott gave little value to the off-season weeks, so there will be little sign-up from those weeks since they would not have enough points to select a week.

I don't expect to see a lot of inventory made available before 60 days with some still held back. It is wrong to think of an unrented week as bad business since these are not hotel nights and lost revenue -- Marriott gets no revenue for making developer weeks available.

The only potential revenue to Marriott for these weeks is to rent them at reduced price to people who might become buyers. I would think there would be a higher benefit to Marriott's new business model in making them available to DC points to make points purchases work well, and to rent to perspective DC buyers. I don't see current II owners as particularly good prospects for new sales.

 

[windje2000]

If there are 53975 enrolled owner weeks, Isn't that a little over 10% of all weeks? That sounds like progress towards the 20% expected conversion.

When one speaks of conversion, I'm assuming one means election of points and participation in the points based occupancy plan, which is not disclosed in these data.

Enrollment, however, is an entirely different metric.

EDITED to ADD

Divide the number of points reservations (4,167) by enrolled weeks (54,000+) as one measure of participation to date. This participation figure should increase as next year's vacation plans are made.

Participation also will be affected by the 24,000 legacy members each of whom have 800 pluspoints, for a total of more than 19 million. They may be the reason Marriott is not bulk banking inventory with II. That's more than twice the number of Trust points sold.

Note also that one would expect points electors (on average) to reserve a greater number of shorter stays.

 

[dioxide45]

DClub stats

For the period 6/20/2010 thru 9/17/2010

* 24,739 enrollments
* 53,975 enrolled owner weeks
* 1,730 point banking transactions
* 2,544 point borrowing transaction
* 4,167 point based reservations - for more than 11,000 nights
* more than 5,500 families have purchased more than 9,000,000 points



There are more than 370,000 legacy owners who on average own 1.3 weeks = nearly 500,000 weeks.

That represents about 10,000 owner owned occupancies/week or 70,000 nights per calendar week


DClub stats

11,000 nights/12 weeks = just over 900 nights per week

900/70,000 = 1.3%

That's a pretty small percentage of the pie, but keep in mind that DClub is still starting up. OTOH, I would guess that the summer is probably the best time to sell timeshare, and that the holidays are not a great time to sell timeshare.

I think a lot of those occupancies are pluspoints. The average stay is short.

11,000 / 4,167 = 2.6 days per stay

At our Orlando presentation they had a big screen TV showing some updates stats as of 11/15. It showed 38,000 enrolled owners.