Are elected points from ownership weeks equal to trust points? We just left a Marriott sales pitch and we were led to believe they were not!

[rickandcindy23]

Irony of ironies. Just got a text at Westin Princeville that the engineers are going to be coming into our room today to change out AC filters and do a check of other mechanical items.

 

[davidvel]

How would we know, other than reports?

Somebody posted in an MVC FB group this week that they were at WKORV and had to call maintenance for an AC problem, maintenance removed the AC filter and it was caked with dirt and completely impassable, and had a date stamped on it from 2004, so it seemed to be the original filter installed when the resort was built. Someone else reported something similar a few months back. I have no reason to think they are lying, so that tells me that neither Starwood nor MVC has done the routine changing of HVAC filters which is necessary to get the expected life out of the equipment. Filters should be changed quarterly, not every 20 years.

Is this kind of deferred maintenance common across the portfolio? Hard to know, but my point was that MVC has an incentive to increase the costs to owners until they almost reach a breaking point, then back off. They maximize their revenue when they maximize MFs. It sure seems like that has happened in the past few years.

A responsible management company maintains the assets, but an opportunistic one maximizes the expenses to boost their percentage. I have dealt with both kinds of managers in my own business, and have dismissed the latter sort. Unfortunately we are not in a position to do that.

ironically, like many owners, I bought into MVC [Starwood/Vistana in my case) because I believed the brand affiliation would ensure that the properties were kept up and maintained their high quality.

I am not sure. A couple reports of dirty filters on a FB group (photos??) doesn't remotely establish, much less even suggest, what you claimed:

"One way in which MVC seems to encourage MF increases is by not doing basic maintenance like changing HVAC filters, leading to premature failures of very expensive AC units which cost thousands to replace, all because they don't periodically change a $1 filter. We pay for those repairs and replacements, and every time we, the owners, collectively spend $5000 on a new AC unit, MVC makes another $500 in profit."

In searching it seems the consensus is that the average life of an HVAC system is 15-25. So even your subsequent post where you cite to an HVAC filter never having been changed the system was still going 20+ years later. That seems to actually refute what you claimed.

 

[MikeM132]

Another reason that MVC wants people to trade in deeded weeks is that doing so gives them more and more (and ultimately, 100%) control over each property's HOA board.

I buy this. I doubt they are sabotaging their appliances. I don't doubt they pay WAY too much for furniture. I saw the charges way back once for a soft goods refurb. I could buy a couple new cars for what they paid for a few chairs, a couch and a bed. I've seen the same thing at a golf club once---the person who designed the big overhaul also sold the furniture, which was super expensive (and no big deal as far as quality). But I also hold that Marriott needs weeks turned in so they have openings for points owners at some of the older "sold out" (or nearly sold out) resorts. Whoever posted in this thread that somebody bought DC points to turn in for Bonvoy points has found someone who can't do arithmetic.

 

[MikeM132]

I agree that deeded weeks make more sense. The sales agent, who was in her early 30’s, made a statement that the older generation likes to stay in the same place for a week at a time.

This ensures you will be there for the free wine and cheese party.

 

[daviator]

I am not sure. A couple reports of dirty filters on a FB group (photos??) doesn't remotely establish, much less even suggest, what you claimed:

"One way in which MVC seems to encourage MF increases is by not doing basic maintenance like changing HVAC filters, leading to premature failures of very expensive AC units which cost thousands to replace, all because they don't periodically change a $1 filter. We pay for those repairs and replacements, and every time we, the owners, collectively spend $5000 on a new AC unit, MVC makes another $500 in profit."

In searching it seems the consensus is that the average life of an HVAC system is 15-25. So even your subsequent post where you cite to an HVAC filter never having been changed the system was still going 20+ years later. That seems to actually refute what you claimed.

We may well have paid for the blower to be changed multiple times at $1000+ each time, it is pretty unlikely that a blower would have lasted twenty years with blocked airflow. But it’s also hard to believe any competent AC tech would do work on a system without changing the filter. So who knows.

My point, once again, is that MVC has a very clear conflict of interest built in to every one of their management relationships, one in which they make more money when expenses are higher. If you think they try hard to keep expenses down, when doing so hurts their bottom line, then you’ve got a lot more faith in their altruism than I do.

 

[davidvel]

We may well have paid for the blower to be changed multiple times at $1000+ each time, it is pretty unlikely that a blower would have lasted twenty years with blocked airflow. But it’s also hard to believe any competent AC tech would do work on a system without changing the filter. So who knows.

My point, once again, is that MVC has a very clear conflict of interest built in to every one of their management relationships, one in which they make more money when expenses are higher. If you think they try hard to keep expenses down, when doing so hurts their bottom line, then you’ve got a lot more faith in their altruism than I do.

May have, may not have. May have stolen, may not have. May have driven drunk, may not have. . . .

I agree with your underlying point, but the motive does not prove what you claimed. It may have occurred, or it may not have. I have not seen any evidence of what you claimed (that I quoted.) I have previously noted that I believe these types of contarcts basing pay on % of spending are conflicts of interests and the payment arrangement bears little to do with the work performed by the manger in relation to the amount being compensated. Just like a breakfast server on a $30 bill vs. a dinner server on a $100 bill. Breakfast server may actually work harder. If the insurance and utilities go up 30%, the manager doesn't have to work 30% harder to pay the bill. Similarly it is absurd to pay managers based on the amount of budget, and it naturally creates a conflict of interest.

 

[Hindsite]

My point, once again, is that MVC has a very clear conflict of interest built in to every one of their management relationships, one in which they make more money when expenses are higher. If you think they try hard to keep expenses down, when doing so hurts their bottom line, then you’ve got a lot more faith in their altruism than I do.

This isn't new, and has been the case since day 1. Many sectors and organisations operate quite normally with multiple potential and actual conflicts of interest built in. You can also say that MVW employee stock option schemes create a similar conflict of interest, there will be more.

The issue is whether there is a actual, substantive, demonstrably adverse impact on one or more stakeholders and if so how do they manage that risk or issue. So far, other than huff and puff, there hasn't been anything I've seen that indicates to me that my ownership has this as a key driver of maint fee increases, or anyone identifying alternatives that would provide a different outcome.

My view is not based on faith and altruism, but on experience in large businesses, speaking with the management team and staff, visiting the resort and reading the meeting notes and budget statements and reading the various corporate documents for MVW/MVC.

When we talk about "they" we are talking about human beings, real people, not some faceless automaton. Those people have a variety of bias, drivers and motivations, some of which may align with my or the corporate objectives, some of which may be totally adverse to any or all of them. That's why there are checks and balances to iron out the most significant influences and co-ordinate around a set of corporate aims. You don't get that with an independently run resort, which can work very well or truly terribly as you are totally dependent on the competency of the management at the time. What you get with a corporate manager is less variability based on personal competency of individuals, overlayed with brand standards to keep the overall performance within "acceptable" boundaries. You could change the funding model to another one such as fixed fee plus incentive bonus, but that too can be manipulated by those that care to.

All systems are flawed, so the choice is what flavour of flaw you are prepared to work with.

 

[bsohn]

Technically Trust and Enrolled points are different and are separated allowing Marriott 'if they choose' at some point to limit who can rent at what resort based on the type of points used. However a point is a point is a point (they dont change) only the type of point changes.

An Enrolled week owner however does take a point penalty when enrolling their resort.. I.E. if they have a platinum week it will cost them more in points to book that same week through the Abound system then they get back in the exchange to points. However, it allows an week owner to downgrade the room or stay for less than a week.

If Marriott ever did choose to separate the Exchange and Trust points then it would eliminate the availability of Enrolled Owners to book at newer (All Trust) properties and would cause Trust owners to not be able to book or have limited booking at Legacy Properties (Properties before or at the time the trust was created).

If you want to find out which properties cover what availability you can look up older Point Charts from 2012 - 2014 where they list the Point type usage next to the name of the resort in little grey boxes labeled "T" for trust and "E" for exchange.. after 2014 they stopped listing that information.

Most Legacy Weeks properties have a combination of both point types as all unsold inventory went to the trust at that time but some like the Marriott Custom House, Mountain Valley lodge, Aruba Surf Club, and a few others are actually Enrolled only (meaning they were completely sold out at the Trust change-over). Granted this could have changed a bit over the year if Marriott bought back any weeks and placed them into the trust.

 

[Hindsite]

An Enrolled week owner however does take a point penalty when enrolling their resort.. I.E. if they have a platinum week it will cost them more in points to book that same week through the Abound system then they get back in the exchange to points. However, it allows an week owner to downgrade the room or stay for less than a week.

If you want to find out which properties cover what availability you can look up older Point Charts from 2012 - 2014 where they list the Point type usage next to the name of the resort in little grey boxes labeled "T" for trust and "E" for exchange.. after 2014 they stopped listing that information.

Most Legacy Weeks properties have a combination of both point types as all unsold inventory went to the trust at that time but some like the Marriott Custom House, Mountain Valley lodge, Aruba Surf Club, and a few others are actually Enrolled only (meaning they were completely sold out at the Trust change-over). Granted this could have changed a bit over the year if Marriott bought back any weeks and placed them into the trust.

The elected value is an average across the season, less the 7-8% skim, so it is quite possible to elect for club points and then book back to your resort in that season and have club points left over. I doubt many people bother as you won't get much leftover, it only works for resorts with high points variance within a season and you can just book the week you want via the weeks reservation system. If you can utilise the Sun-Thurs discounted points rates then that is a great way to use elected points, particularly as a bolt-on to an weeks reservation.

The T and E designations are still there, and in the listing of club resorts in the MVC account:

The MVC land trust can only hold US inventory permanently, and Aruba isn't in the US so there is no inventory held by the trust. Everything outside the US is enrolled only.