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......
They should use them to their advantage within the rules but we should all realize that every time we make a reservations, we are in competition with other members. Many find it frustrating when things they can't reserve are available for rent either direct or through a third party. Personally I don't but I understand why some do although I generally think it's a lack of understanding of how the system works in such matters.
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...
My assumption from the post was that person would meet most any definition of commercial else they would not have gotten the letter. They've already put themselves out there by posting what they did. I was hoping they would give us more details so we could establish a data point as to where the line was being drawn. DVC did this a number of years ago and there were a few owners that had dove in to the deep end and had a dramatic amount of points simply to rent. DVC has had a limit of points at a given resort and total points over the years though it has evolved over time. I understand some of these big renters had separate accounts for different family members to bypass this limitation. Several went to selling their positions fearing they'd get caught with a bunch of points and the dues to match but not be able to rent to cover those costs. I don't know that DVC ever followed through with canceling reservations but I'm pretty sure Bluegreen has.
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....
Agreed, no legal right to rent that's specified. For DVC the ability to rent is spelled out though the commercial renting limitation is more vague.
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.
Not necessarily to you but in general. Personally I'm all in favor of members being able to rent up to the point where they are running what I see as a commercial venture. When they own weeks or points with the specific intent of renting in volume year after year, I think anyone reasonable person would see that as meeting everyone's definition of commercial. I do think there is difference between weeks and points but it is minor from a philosophical standpoint.
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.
Legally I believe they have to as it's the only way to accomplish the goal. All other points systems I know of do the same.
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.
My guess is the number that are renting casually outweighs the number renting "commercially" when looked at in total numbers though it's simply a guess. I do suspect there is a shift toward commercial renters when looking at specific high demand weeks & resorts though. I do see that one who owns part to use and part to rent could easily cross over into the truly commercial arena by renting volume over several years.
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.
Although I think we come to this conclusion from different points of view, I think most of us agree with this sentiment. One problem though is what is the definition of "the big guys". Certainly the ones that are significant outliers should be easy but where is the line after that. DVC says 20 reservations (not rentals) a year and they look at it closely. Bluegreen limits to 10 reservations in a region on the books at any one time. I'm not sure about Wyndham, Diamond, HGVC, Hyatt or Worldmark.
Salespeople say many things and we all know it doesn't count for anything - or at least should know that after the first purchase.
Renting what is technically an exchange is not an advertised benefit. You can probably get away with it doing it once in a while... If you're going to turn it into the general rule as to how you use your weeks, that's probably not what even what the salespeople had in mind.
You're on much more solid ground when you rent your week as a week.
A saying I've quoted many times is "one knew or should have known" and this certainly applies to rentals but also resales. If I recall correctly it's clearly stated in the legal paperwork that one is at a competitive disadvantage when selling and renting. And it's clear one has even less protections and options for points over weeks.
To MVC, stop being so cheap, exercise the ROFR's and acquire more of the better resorts for the Trust. I'll bet there are few resorts where MVC could confirm the Trust owns say 20% of the weeks.
IMO it doesn't matter. They really have no reason to overpay for inventory, esp now that the system has reached a critical mass. To my knowledge they've made no commitment to add inventory at legacy resorts. I'd discount any sales persons statements as irrelevant.
