Arriving Guest Information [merged]

[davidvel]

Some of the issues you raise are definitely a concern. The 30-day thing making it harder to change a name doesn't really make much sense and is totally outlandish. It definitely makes it hard with last-minute rentals. Whether it passes the threshold for a class action - I am not qualified to say.

We do need acknowledge however that there are commercial players out there who buy points from owners, book reservations, and rent those out. I'm not referring to owners, but literally companies such as these:

Plan-A Vacation

If you are looking to rent out your Marriott Vacation Club Points, we can help you. Contact us today at Timeshare Club.

www.tcpointsrentals.com

Coming Soon – Vacation Club Points Rentals

vacationclubpointsrentals.com

I think most of us will agree this is not helpful to most owners who want to reserve using points. And it's possible that that this raised some red flags that are now affecting everyone.

Regarding regular owners - I do see a distinction between renting home resort weeks and renting reservations made with elected points (and I'm distinguishing between elected points and trust points). As I mentioned in a prior post, I don't think weeks should be messed with - to me that's deeded property that an owner can do whatever he/she wants to. But we also know that many owners are not satisfied transferring elected points outright and will make reservations to rent those out because the price per point can be higher. And to the extent that some do it extensively, I can see why it could be seen as problematic, especially if it violates the exchange rules.

Your post specifically mentions Abound Exchange Procedures, which seems unrelated to home resort weeks. If they want to crack down on rentals of reservations made with points, I don't see how it's that dissimilar from what II does. We tend to advise people not to rent out II reservations. The outcome here may end up being the same and I'm not sure much can be done about it... I wish they went after the larger actual commercial players who are probably 90% of the problem. But in the end, owners may have to just go back to renting their unused home resort weeks as weeks, or perhaps just transfer points for whatever the going rate it. Too bad the market for that is not more vibrant.

It's not just rentals. Transferring to a family member or friend in under 30 days is forbidden by these rules. Changing the check in person in that timeframe also banned.

Maybe even more significantly, you have to waive your rights if they cancel your week, and other representations you may or may not be able to make. This violates your right as an owner to designate a Permitted User.

 

[DanCali]

It's not just rentals. Transferring to a family member or friend in under 30 days is forbidden by these rules. Changing the check in person in that timeframe also banned.

Maybe even more significantly, you have to waive your rights if they cancel your week, and other representations you may or may not be able to make. This violates your right as an owner to designate a Permitted User.

I agree it doesn’t make sense.

But has anyone been denied a name change inside 30 days? Then you can actually demonstrate you suffered a loss.

 

[davidvel]

I agree it doesn’t make sense.

But has anyone been denied a name change inside 30 days? Then you can actually demonstrate you suffered a loss.

You don't need a loss to establish that the HOA is not following the bylaws and force them to rescind the policy.*

* I have not seen that my HOA of Shadow Ridge ever gave notice of the policy, so doubt it even formally exists. Which only highlights that MVC has no regard for the CC&Rs and thinks it can make any rule it wants.

 

[NotaBene]

There is one tug member who claims in multiple forums he's been highly inconvenienced. That person joined tug in 2020 but his signature line claims he's been a member since 2000. That same person has 14 posts on tug total, all of them on this topic since late May. And that same person claims that southern states promote daily shootings with AR15s (although the post may have been edited since) Until there is more real evidence that rentals are actually being restricted, I think we can just wait and see what happens.

Thank you DanCali for linking the two Forums that both address the recent merging of all Marriott Timeshare clubs under Abound. My original post 27 May on page 6 of this forum was posted in the other forum with different responses. This is the first and only Forum discussion I have done in 20 years. I rejoined as a paid member again in 2020 as a result of COVID to try to divest our “hybrid Chairman’s portfolio”. However, postings showed me as a Guest so I added the signature line. The apology I posted to your AR15 comment was removed by others somehow but I do regret that you were and are bothered. You took my tongue-in-cheek AR15 comment out of context. It is based on the efforts of mostly southern Congresspersons to make it the National gun of record. There are more mass shootings with it than there are calendar days, in places we visit as snowbirds. I do not have a poor opinion of Americans or Southerners. My mother was American. My grandchildren and many friends are Southern Americans. We have annual membership in AHS botanical gardens and miss going to them. The point is my wife is Filipino and won’t travel to the USA in the current racist/violent environment. That is part of our health concern, why we are not using our TS personally but choosing our other option to rent. In my orig post, Marriott senior management is quoted that the rules will now be enforced with this new form. Last year Marriott said they would change rental rules because many owners could not get enough access.

I edited the AR15 comment to be more focused on the Marriott issue. I am not “highly inconvenienced”. I modified my plan going forward to be within the rules as I understand them. Marriott modified and simplified the form from my feedback and it is effective and easy to use anytime online at our convenience. But the issue is if you allow a non-owner of your unit to use your reservation you must certify that there is no commercial aspect to that use or your involvement. Marriott may approve the submitted form the same day but the reservation may be canceled after their analysis. The procedures make no mention of 30d I do not yet understand that aspect of our discussion.

Legacy weeks are not affected but the same form refers. Gifting is not affected but patterns will be monitored if they check in without you. Trust point owners may have more issues or not but they have just as much standing legally.

I only posted this issue and clarified answers in subsequent posts because of the lack of available information. I believe none of us will have any impact this year other than living with the possible lies (based on MVC interpretation of non-commercial) that we certify on the form with our signature. Marriott is in the migration/transition to Abound and won’t say when enforcement will start. My first post refers. There has been confusion at Marriott Owner Services on what is non-commercial at this time.

 

[Dean]

You don't need a loss to establish that the HOA is not following the bylaws and force them to rescind the policy.*

* I have not seen that my HOA of Shadow Ridge ever gave notice of the policy, so doubt it even formally exists. Which only highlights that MVC has no regard for the CC&Rs and thinks it can make any rule it wants.

That is what the abound agreement says. They do have a lot of flexibility to change the abound documents and even a fair amount of control in all else since no input is needed to change reservation procedures. Personally I think if they're going to require the names, they should allow it to be done online.

 

[Dean]

It seems that your main point of concern is getting overshadowed with your connection between the individual mentioned on TUG regarding AR15s and its relevance to owner timeshare rentals.

The assumption of jumping to conclusions is precisely what occurred with Wyndham owners in the past, resulting in their current situation of dissatisfaction.

In our specific case, we received a letter from MVW indicating that our "usage pattern" is being questioned. This raises the possibility of potential consequences such as the cancellation of existing or future reservations, as well as additional enforcement measures, without any prior warning. It is disconcerting to find ourselves under scrutiny and subjected to a microscope for the utilization of our points and weeks. This action is purportedly based on Section VII B of the Abound Exchange Procedures.

It is possible that you have not received an email regarding this matter due to either not renting any weeks/points or still being in the process of attempting to do so.

It is worth considering the implications: if you are unable to rent your unit within a 30-day period, what alternative options are available? Resorting to Interval is often not a desirable choice for most individuals. Several individuals who have rented my unused weeks managed to secure bookings within the 30-day timeframe, some even as close as 3-days prior to the desired date. Considering a scenario where such an update needs to be made over a weekend, the level of expectation regarding Marriott's ability to handle the matter promptly and efficiently is rather low.

Undoubtedly, the new policy presents an inconvenience. Imposing more restrictions on how we can utilize our weeks, as well as limitations on when and how we can update guest names on our own reservations, is burdensome. It is perplexing to comprehend why there is a desire for increased governance over our ownership, for which we have invested a significant amount of money. This parallels the challenges faced by Wyndham owners, many of whom failed to recognize the potential negative impact of these new policies, falsely presented as beneficial for all. This is simply unacceptable.

If we continue to accept these changes without resistance, it is likely that blackout dates will be the next hurdle we encounter, similar to Wyndham.
It is important to acknowledge that this situation is occurring at the present moment and requires our immediate attention and action.

Do you mind sharing a summary of your usage over the past few years to give us a point of reference for how MVC is looking at this since they have not published specific parameters. I know when DVC sent out such a letter, it was only to those with many rentals over several years and by all accounts, only to those who had effetely bought to use the points as a rental business.

 

[DRH90277]

I read this forum and only recently realized the correspondence was of limited distribution. MVC Communications should be calming and helpful in mellowing us out before our vacations. Who wants to be around a bunch of angry vacationers for an entire week. The kids say we need to chill.

And, the marketing geniuses at MVC should not get the entire points/weeks ownership exercised about a very isolated problem. MVC, please back off and let the good guys use what we paid for.

Remember you've got two constituencies, the buyers "and" the shareholders. Recently, some other public companies forgot about their biggest constituency - the customer.

 

[dioxide45]

Some of the issues you raise are definitely a concern. The 30-day thing making it harder to change a name doesn't really make much sense and is totally outlandish. It definitely makes it hard with last-minute rentals. Whether it passes the threshold for a class action - I am not qualified to say.

We do need acknowledge however that there are commercial players out there who buy points from owners, book reservations, and rent those out. I'm not referring to owners, but literally companies such as these:

Plan-A Vacation

If you are looking to rent out your Marriott Vacation Club Points, we can help you. Contact us today at Timeshare Club.

www.tcpointsrentals.com

Coming Soon – Vacation Club Points Rentals

vacationclubpointsrentals.com

I think most of us will agree this is not helpful to most owners who want to reserve using points. And it's possible that that this raised some red flags that are now affecting everyone.

Regarding regular owners - I do see a distinction between renting home resort weeks and renting reservations made with elected points (and I'm distinguishing between elected points and trust points). As I mentioned in a prior post, I don't think weeks should be messed with - to me that's deeded property that an owner can do whatever he/she wants to. But we also know that many owners are not satisfied transferring elected points outright and will make reservations to rent those out because the price per point can be higher. And to the extent that some do it extensively, I can see why it could be seen as problematic, especially if it violates the exchange rules.

Your post specifically mentions Abound Exchange Procedures, which seems unrelated to home resort weeks. If they want to crack down on rentals of reservations made with points, I don't see how it's that dissimilar from what II does. We tend to advise people not to rent out II reservations. The outcome here may end up being the same and I'm not sure much can be done about it... I wish they went after the larger actual commercial players who are probably 90% of the problem. But in the end, owners may have to just go back to renting their unused home resort weeks as weeks, or perhaps just transfer points for whatever the going rate it. Too bad the market for that is not more vibrant.

I think the 20,000 transfer limit will have taken care of most big operations that buy and transfer points, but they adjust and now just broker with individual owners. So they may still rent tens or hundreds of thousands of points but just have access to individual owner accounts to go in and make reservations. So to MVC it still just looks like onesie twosie type rentals from owners but it is still a single or very few entities that are facilitating it all. This can have the same effect as if all those points were transferred to a single account.

An individual owner who is looking to make a reservation for their own vacation and occupancy is now potentially competing against an operation that may have a handful of staff members or even a dozen or more. The larger operation may be using additional automated techniques for making reservations not usually available to the regular owner . Or they may just have 10 people online all at one time on inventory release day to make those reservations for peak times. This is one way these rentals can hinder the more traditional owner who bought points to use for their own travel.

 

[gln60]

100% Correct

 

[DanCali]

I think the 20,000 transfer limit will have taken care of most big operations that buy and transfer points, but they adjust and now just broker with individual owners. So they may still rent tens or hundreds of thousands of points but just have access to individual owner accounts to go in and make reservations. So to MVC it still just looks like onesie twosie type rentals from owners but it is still a single or very few entities that are facilitating it all. This can have the same effect as if all those points were transferred to a single account.

An individual owner who is looking to make a reservation for their own vacation and occupancy is now potentially competing against an operation that may have a handful of staff members or even a dozen or more. The larger operation may be using additional automated techniques for making reservations not usually available to the regular owner . Or they may just have 10 people online all at one time on inventory release day to make those reservations for peak times. This is one way these rentals can hinder the more traditional owner who bought points to use for their own travel.

I am not sure how we'd know this is happening, bit if it is that's definitely a problem. There are a couple of other things to note...

1) When someone does "verified and protected", that reservation is often times subject to subsequent modifications without the knowledge of the owners. There are numerous brokers on Redweek who will re-rent weeks and change the name on marriott.com on their own. An owner would not pick up on it unless they check the name a few weeks later. Depending on what MVC looks for, these changes made by brokers may redflag an owner's account. It's one of the main reasons I don't do "verified and protected". Subleasing is a violation of Redweek's contract, but they have little reason to enforce it if they collect multiple fees for the same rental.

2) The number of point reservations listed for rent is very large and it's not surprising that they may try to end rental of exchanges at some point. It's one thing if an owner does it with some 2000 leftover elected points, but another if someone does it with 40,000 points. Here is what is available currently for Crystal Shores for 3-6 nights (obviously points reservations) just for July, and just unrented reservations. Impossible to know if it's elected point or trust points (and it does matter, since these can be "home resort" for trust points), or if it's individuals or commercial players, but the volume seems a bit out of control. This even omits 2 reservations that didn't fit on the screen... And this is not just happening at MCS but plenty of other places as well.

 

[DRH90277]

Seems owners will use their points and weeks to their best advantage - a free market.

This might be an indication that point owners are exchanging their points for dollars so they can get a better value. What if these point owners looked at the "point value in use" for resort credits, cruises, tours, insurance, etc. and said, "I can do better with cash?" What if point owners thought the available "good" points reservation inventory was too scarce and said, "I'll cash out to pay my maintenance fees?" What if a point owner got frustrated with the difficulty of getting the reservation they wanted, cashed out by renting, and then rented what they wanted on Redweek?

Is the MVC answer to restrict uses by owners; or, for MVC to provide a more enticing inventory or better alternative use. The old MVC answer that week owners just aren't depositing their weeks for points is a really bad excuse.

Only my view......

 

[NotaBene]

Seems owners will use their points and weeks to their best advantage - a free market.
The old MVC answer that week owners just aren't depositing their weeks for points is a really bad excuse.

Here-Here
Surely this becomes win-win. Since MVC created DP for flexibility and we paid for the rental option by migrating to points usage. (apparently, this option is free now, must be an MVC advantage also) Some weeks are very expensive mf and electing points gives the MVC point owners access to inventory that Marriott does not control as well as averaging our cost of usage.

The "Marriott Way" was to look for these win-win opportunities and promote them. Has this been lost? Could we define a salient question and mount a campaign to contact OwnerServices with the same question which is recorded and might get corporate attention?

 

[DanCali]

Seems owners will use their points and weeks to their best advantage - a free market.

Here-Here

You can view it that way. I mean why pay MFs of $0.35/point for your week and rent leftover points for $0.70/point, when you can make a reservation that you can rent at $1.40/point, right?

But acting like it's a given right to rent exchanges and trying to rile up a class action lawsuit when the party is over is, in my view an overkill. Anyone doing this realizes they are taking away valuable inventory from the exchange company, and the more one does it then more it affects everyone else. I noticed that there a has been no reply to Dean's post #231...

I have a capitalist point of view, and work with financial markets, so I get the incentives. I won't act like I haven't at least been tempted myself. But I find it a bit ironic that some of the folks who always emphasize tax rules when it comes to renting are now concerned/upset that MVC is potentially cracking down and insisting on some of their own rules being followed. For a weeks owner Abound is optional - anyone can stop paying annual dues and opt out at any point. If you want to bend the rules below, go ahead. But if they call you out on it, you may be pushing your luck a bit too much.

Residential Use and Prohibition on Commercial Use. Accommodations, Base Exchange Benefits, Base Plus Exchange Benefits, Special Benefits, and Use Periods may not be used for any commercial purpose. This prohibition on commercial use includes, but is not limited to, any illegal activity or a pattern of occupancy, rental, leasing, or use by a Program Member that Exchange Company, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. In the event a Program Member is determined to be reserving or using the Accommodations, Base Exchange Benefits, Base Plus Exchange Benefits, Special Benefits or Use Periods for any commercial purpose Exchange Company may immediately cancel any current reservation(s) made by such Program Member and may impose such additional penalties or restrictions as determined by Exchange Company, in its sole discretion, from time to time. The restrictions of this paragraph do not apply to Exchange Company or its affiliates or designees

I don't have a problem with owners trying to maximize the value of their ownership, even if the rules are bent once in a while. But I also don't have a problem with MVC enforcing the rules with some serial offenders. Like I said, I view renting weeks very differently from renting reservations made with elected points. The first is indeed an owner right, while the latter is less so. I also view renting 1-2 reservations made with 3000-4000 points differently from renting 10-20 reservations made with 30,000-40,000 points. If someone has 40,000 points they are not using, then just rent out those underlying weeks - odds are they have a high rental value (relative to MFs) to begin with...

Unfortunately, the more people keep doing this, the more likely we are to end in the situation below where you can substitute RCI for MVC.

(https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/q...-am-renting-from-an-owner.266383/post-2082493)

 

[DanCali]

Surely this becomes win-win. Since MVC created DP for flexibility and we paid for the rental option by migrating to points usage. (apparently, this option is free now, must be an MVC advantage also) Some weeks are very expensive mf and electing points gives the MVC point owners access to inventory that Marriott does not control as well as averaging our cost of usage.

You can rent your home resort weeks. You can transfer points from one member to another (although that is a gray area too, as "transfers" are allowed but "rentals" are not).

I don't think you ever paid for the option to rent exchanges made with elected points and certainly not in an unfettered manner....

 

[DRH90277]

A hypothetical - what if a normal week owner (not a commercial interest) just elected to use or rent his week rather than exchange for points. Perhaps, that individual needs money to pay maintenance fees or has experienced difficulty getting a good points reservation. Should this party be held in contempt? Incidentally, there are lots of owners like this.

 

[dioxide45]

Impossible to know if it's elected point or trust points (and it does matter, since these can be "home resort" for trust points),

The only thing with this is that MVC currently pumps all point reservations through the exchange company. So even if you own Trust Points you are still making exchanges through the MVC Exchange Company.

 

[dioxide45]

A hypothetical - what if a normal week owner (not a commercial interest) just elected to use or rent his week rather than exchange for points. Perhaps, that individual needs money to pay maintenance fees or has experienced difficulty getting a good points reservation. Should this party be held in contempt? Incidentally, there are lots of owners like this.

I suspect the number of rentals that are out there for this reason is probably a smaller percentage compared to people just renting because they can. Many people probably rent a weeks based reservation to earn a profit. Perhaps they use that profit to offset other maintenance fees in their timeshare portfolio. Perhaps they bought the timeshare and can't use it and now just rent it for profit instead of selling it. I agree with Dan that renting weeks is different than renting points. The odd rental here and there isn't an issue and I doubt MVC is concerned.

 

[DRH90277]

I suspect the number of rentals that are out there for this reason is probably a smaller percentage compared to people just renting because they can. Many people probably rent a weeks based reservation to earn a profit. Perhaps they use that profit to offset other maintenance fees in their timeshare portfolio. Perhaps they bought the timeshare and can't use it and now just rent it for profit instead of selling it. I agree with Dan that renting weeks is different than renting points. The odd rental here and there isn't an issue and I doubt MVC is concerned.

Control the big guys and leave the rest of us alone. Even MVC rents out reservations....... Remember the motto - a profit for every MVC action.

 

[dioxide45]

Control the big guys and leave the rest of us alone. Even MVC rents out reservations....... Remember the motto - a profit for every MVC action.

But what if "the rest of us" is half the total volume? WHich it probably is, if not more. They also can't really control the big guys because the big guys are just making transactions under hundreds of individual owner accounts.

 

[sponger76]

Is the MVC answer to restrict uses by owners; or, for MVC to provide a more enticing inventory or better alternative use.

How would you propose that MVC provide more enticing inventory? They could build more resorts, but it will still have the same problem, because there will almost always be weeks that lots of people want to stay there, and weeks that a lot less people want to stay there. You can't magically create a resort where every week is Christmas/4th of July/etc. So some of the sales, whether weeks or points, are going to be backed by those less desirable weeks, and you will always end up with not enough of the high demand weeks to satisfy everyone who owns at the property or in the trust.

ETA: The only way to resolve the issue of more demand for desirable weeks from owners than actual weeks sold is to go back to a fixed week ownership model, and not a whole lot of people want that these days. But that flexibility from points or floating weeks is a double-edged sword. With points or floating weeks (seasons), you will always have most people chasing the best within the trust/season and not wanting to use the "worse" weeks that actually underlie much of their ownership.

 

[DRH90277]

How would you propose that MVC provide more enticing inventory? They could build more resorts, but it will still have the same problem, because there will almost always be weeks that lots of people want to stay there, and weeks that a lot less people want to stay there. You can't magically create a resort where every week is Christmas/4th of July/etc. So some of the sales, whether weeks or points, are going to be backed by those less desirable weeks, and you will always end up with not enough of the high demand weeks to satisfy everyone who owns at the property or in the trust.

ETA: The only way to resolve the issue of more demand for desirable weeks from owners than actual weeks sold is to go back to a fixed week ownership model, and not a whole lot of people want that these days. But that flexibility is a double-edged sword. With points or even floating weeks (seasons), you will always have most people chasing the best within the trust/season and not wanting to use the "worse" weeks that actually underlie much of their ownership.

Is the answer to rely entirely on my owned weeks? What do they have in mind?

 

[sponger76]

Is the answer to rely entirely on my owned weeks? What do they have in mind?

So what magic wand do you propose they use to create more desirable inventory?

 

[DanCali]

The only thing with this is that MVC currently pumps all point reservations through the exchange company. So even if you own Trust Points you are still making exchanges through the MVC Exchange Company.

That did occur to me. Although I don't know that we can say 100% where a Trust point reservation came from, certainlt the person making the reservation doesn't know if it's an exchange or not.

 

[DanCali]

A hypothetical - what if a normal week owner (not a commercial interest) just elected to use or rent his week rather than exchange for points. Perhaps, that individual needs money to pay maintenance fees or has experienced difficulty getting a good points reservation. Should this party be held in contempt? Incidentally, there are lots of owners like this.

The letter referred to by Oceans8 was specific that it was referring to potential violations of Abound Exchange Procedures, not deeded weeks

In our specific case, we received a letter from MVW indicating that our "usage pattern" is being questioned. This raises the possibility of potential consequences such as the cancellation of existing or future reservations, as well as additional enforcement measures, without any prior warning. It is disconcerting to find ourselves under scrutiny and subjected to a microscope for the utilization of our points and weeks. This action is purportedly based on Section VII B of the Abound Exchange Procedures.

As to your specific question - I tried to be clear in each of my prior posts that I feel totally different about renting a deeded ownership versus an exchange in a voluntary exchange program.

<snip>
To the extent they limit rentals of home resort weeks, that is a problem and highly questionable. Some owners may use their weeks in a given year and rent them all the following year if they take a cruise, or overseas trip. Some may use weeks in destination A and rent destination B, and vice versa next year. Some may have bought weeks because they thought they are retiring, and went back to work after the market dropped 30%. Either way, people can rent for a variety of reasons and weeks home resort usage should be almost untouchable, in my view. To the extent they limit rentals of point reservations (from elected points) they may have more justification to limit that, although it will also starve abound of inventory in the long run, since people won't elect points, so it's a double-edged sword.
<snip>

<snip>
Regarding regular owners - I do see a distinction between renting home resort weeks and renting reservations made with elected points (and I'm distinguishing between elected points and trust points). As I mentioned in a prior post, I don't think weeks should be messed with - to me that's deeded property that an owner can do whatever he/she wants to. But we also know that many owners are not satisfied transferring elected points outright and will make reservations to rent those out because the price per point can be higher. And to the extent that some do it extensively, I can see why it could be seen as problematic, especially if it violates the exchange rules.
<snip>

<snip>
I don't have a problem with owners trying to maximize the value of their ownership, even if the rules are bent once in a while. But I also don't have a problem with MVC enforcing the rules with some serial offenders. Like I said, I view renting weeks very differently from renting reservations made with elected points. The first is indeed an owner right, while the latter is less so. I also view renting 1-2 reservations made with 3000-4000 points differently from renting 10-20 reservations made with 30,000-40,000 points. If someone has 40,000 points they are not using, then just rent out those underlying weeks - odds are they have a high rental value (relative to MFs) to begin with...
<snip>

 

[NotaBene]

I don't think you ever paid for the option to rent exchanges made with elected points and certainly not in an unfettered manner....

Last night I took the time to review this Forum's April posting and I came to appreciate the cadre of friends with vast experience such as your financial acumen. You are right in June 2010 I did not contract for rental benefits but for many other benefits that expanded with time after 2012. But now that I have them I do not like to have them taken away. The value of my portfolio is subjective and the cost-benefit analysis is different with points than the original analysis with weeks. For example, we own 2 weeks in Boston, our first purchase but right-to-use so not in Trust. Our mf started in today's terms at $0.25/pt and goes as high as $1.00/pt today but it is our favorite and is more popular as elected points than what we reserve for rent. We have spent thousands with MVC including Encore packages to keep our contract options. Marriott has been a good vacation investment for us but Marriott sales were the ones telling us to use the rental options the way we finally used them this year. So subjectively we paid for my current benefits more than some others but I may not be able to keep them and regret that my wife does not want to use the four weeks we have reserved for MCU this year and may forfeit them. You make the distinction between elected and trust points but Marriott does not after 2012.