II exchange - newbie questions

[Crusoemom]

I am an enrolled weeks owner and want to use II to exchange my Breckenridge unit for next year. I went on MVC to "use" my week, and it gave me the option to occupy, the option for II- Owner's Deposit and the option for II - Marriott Deposit. I suspect I want to do Owner's Deposit if I can get a good week to exchange (which I'm pretty sure I can - President's Week in Colorado). But to do that, I have to wait until 12 months, and I'm concerned that the units that come up at the 13-month mark will be gone by the time I get my exchange done (I'm trying to go in January or February of 2026 to the Caribbean).
Any advice? Should I go ahead a let Marriott deposit a not-so-great Platinum week (March, for example) for me, or should I hold out for the best possible trading week and do the Owner's Deposit? Will it make much of a difference? I could also do an Owner's Deposit of MLK week (available now), which would probably be a good trade. Would that be better than whatever Marriott would deposit for me?

And is Owner's Deposit the correct way to do this? Or is there a way that I should use by selecting "occupy" and then using the II website to exchange. I suspect Marriott doesn't allow that anymore now that they own II?

Sorry for the confusing post - too many choices, and absolutely no help from Marriott. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

[davidvel]

We always do occupy and manually add to our II account. You'll have to decide if you want to lock off or trade the whole 2BR. Generally 1BR Marriott pulls almost all that 2BR can see. I would think any ski weeks should trade similarly, and MLK is a high demand time. Make sure you deposit to your free II account.

 

[Dean]

I agree with davidvel, select ocupy and deposit manually into your II account. Make sure it's your corporate account if you have both. Then set up you exchange request immediately, you can always change or adjust it later.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree with davidvel, select ocupy and deposit manually into your II account. Make sure it's your corporate account if you have both. Then set up you exchange request immediately, you can always change or adjust it later.

"II Exchange - Owner Deposit" does the same thing. You still manually deposit the week yourself into your II account. I don't know if this is administratively easier for MVC on the back end. It's what we choose when making 12 month reservations for deposit.

As for the OPs concern about all the weeks being gone. Only 50% of the weeks are released for 13 month reservations. So getting a reservation at 12 months is still possible. Though trying to book a prime week like Presidents week at a ski resort will be hard.

 

[sponger76]

You'll have to decide if you want to lock off or trade the whole 2BR.

OP stated they own iat the Marriott in Breckenridge, which would be Mountain Valley Lodge. MVL only has standalone 1BRs and studios. Zero lockoffs and zero 2BRs.

 

[davidvel]

OP stated they own iat the Marriott in Breckenridge, which would be Mountain Valley Lodge. MVL only has standalone 1BRs and studios. Zero lockoffs and zero 2BRs.

That makes it easier.

 

[Crusoemom]

Thanks for the into, everyone. I now have a better idea of my choices.

 

[Dean]

"II Exchange - Owner Deposit" does the same thing. You still manually deposit the week yourself into your II account. I don't know if this is administratively easier for MVC on the back end. It's what we choose when making 12 month reservations for deposit.

As for the OPs concern about all the weeks being gone. Only 50% of the weeks are released for 13 month reservations. So getting a reservation at 12 months is still possible. Though trying to book a prime week like Presidents week at a ski resort will be hard.

In theory but I don't trust them. I'm not taking the chance of anything happening that I could potentially control on my own.

 

[dioxide45]

In theory but I don't trust them. I'm not taking the chance of anything happening that I could potentially control on my own.

I'm not sure what it is you think you don't control when using "II Exchange - Owner Deposit." The explanation is in the name. You control it on your own. You make a reservation, you deposit it. Anything could happen with anything at any time. Are you are thinking they could somehow change the underlying week you deposit. If so, the same could also happen with "Occupy".

 

[Dean]

I'm not sure what it is you think you don't control when using "II Exchange - Owner Deposit." The explanation is in the name. You control it on your own. You make a reservation, you deposit it. Anything could happen with anything at any time. Are you are thinking they could somehow change the underlying week you deposit. If so, the same could also happen with "Occupy".

I can see them screwing up and depositing instead which would remove the option of deciding later or doing request first. I'm sure the risk is extremely low but as I said, I don't trust them.

 

[dioxide45]

I can see them screwing up and depositing instead which would remove the option of deciding later or doing request first. I'm sure the risk is extremely low but as I said, I don't trust them.

It sounds like your lack of trust is based on lack of experience with the option. You do lose the option of request first with this since you are intending to deposit it. If you want the potential of request first, then you should be using Occupy.

 

[Dean]

It sounds like your lack of trust is based on lack of experience with the option. You do lose the option of request first with this since you are intending to deposit it. If you want the potential of request first, then you should be using Occupy.

Quite the contrary. I haven't had this exact circumstance go wrong but I haven't given them the chance either. I have had the wrong unit deposited, deposited units inexplicably not confirmed among other issues. But losing the ability to do request first is more than enough for me to skip it.

 

[dioxide45]

I haven't had this exact circumstance go wrong but I haven't given them the chance either.

That is what I said, your lack of experience with the option is leading to the lack of trust with the option.

 

[Dean]

That is what I said, your lack of experience with the option is leading to the lack of trust with the option.

No, my experience with them in general is what is leading to the lack of trust but you are right, I haven't tried this exact option and have no intention of doing so.

 

[dioxide45]

No, my experience with them in general is what is leading to the lack of trust but you are right, I haven't tried this exact option and have no intention of doing so.

So you've never used the option and used Occupy instead and still had problems? It seems because of that I shouldn't trust using the Occupy option?

 

[davidvel]

So you've never used the option and used Occupy instead and still had problems? It seems because of that I shouldn't trust using the Occupy option?

Correct. You shouldn't trust them either way but letting them deposit adds an additional layer of risk if you are more trustworthy than them.

 

[Dean]

So you've never used the option and used Occupy instead and still had problems? It seems because of that I shouldn't trust using the Occupy option?

All of my issues have been associated with depositing so in theory the two options should work the same (except maybe for request first which also carries risk). This option simply adds a potential variable that is likely not necessary and IMO, adds minimal but additional risk and if it truly doesn't, I've not added any additional risk by avoiding it. You obviously believe otherwise, that's fine.

 

[dioxide45]

Correct. You shouldn't trust them either way but letting them deposit adds an additional layer of risk if you are more trustworthy than them.

When you use "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" you aren't letting them deposit it and you may even be removing a layer of complexity behind the scenes. You don't seem to understand how the option works.

 

[dioxide45]

All of my issues have been associated with depositing so in theory the two options should work the same (except maybe for request first which also carries risk). This option simply adds a potential variable that is likely not necessary and IMO, adds minimal but additional risk and if it truly doesn't, I've not added any additional risk by avoiding it. You obviously believe otherwise, that's fine.

But it may also be removing a variable. When you choose Occupy you are choosing to use the week in a specific way. I understand, though could be wrong, that when you choose "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" there are administrative differences. I believe that when you deposit an Occupy reservation they change the confirmation number before they confirm the deposit. Thus adding potential for them to make a mistake. Perhaps your issues with depositing have been because you aren't using the intended option when making the reservation. You might be adding the risk by choosing Occupy when you aren't intending to Occupy. Why else would they have the "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" option?

 

[Dean]

But it may also be removing a variable. When you choose Occupy you are choosing to use the week in a specific way. I understand, though could be wrong, that when you choose "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" there are administrative differences. I believe that when you deposit an Occupy reservation they change the confirmation number before they confirm the deposit. Thus adding potential for them to make a mistake. Perhaps your issues with depositing have been because you aren't using the intended option when making the reservation. You might be adding the risk by choosing Occupy when you aren't intending to Occupy. Why else would they have the "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" option?

Thanks, I appreciate your point of view.

 

[davidvel]

When you use "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" you aren't letting them deposit it and you may even be removing a layer of complexity behind the scenes. You don't seem to understand how the option works.

Maybe not, but you are doing a lot of 'splaining for someone who apparently doesn't either, by your own admission:

I understand, though could be wrong, that when you choose "II Exchange - Owner Deposit". . .

 

[dioxide45]

Maybe not, but you are doing a lot of 'splaining for someone who apparently doesn't either, by your own admission:

Yes, but my take is based on past experience. Many years ago, when you would deposit a unit, you would get an email saying that the reservation was cancelled. What were they doing there?

I still ask the question though; why else would they have the "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" option?

 

[Dean]

Yes, but my take is based on past experience. Many years ago, when you would deposit a unit, you would get an email saying that the reservation was cancelled. What were they doing there?

I still ask the question though; why else would they have the "II Exchange - Owner Deposit" option?

It does seem redundant but I haven't seen anything that makes it appear functional though maybe we don't have all the info. I don't think they change the reservation number but I do know for certain that they make changes for request first that effectively places the deposit tentatively with II and takes it out of our personal list of reservations or at lest it was that way at one point though it could have changed since I last used it. Then if one canceled the request first it took a few days for the reservation to show back up on my reservations on MVC though the number was still the same. Probably the biggest problem I've seen is them depositing the right reservation to the wrong account, ie the personal II account instead of the corporate one. And then refusing to fix it in some cases. Though I suppose we could make that mistake ourselves as well. And the point of discussion would likely not improve or detract from the chances of that happening and I've seen reports where this was more of an issue with having MVC deposit along with depositing a different week than reserved at time. I guess it depends on how close the week is to being in II's hand simply by selecting the owner to deposit. I could see them linking it to II at that points which would increase the chances it ended up in the wrong account if one has both.

 

[dioxide45]

I guess it depends on how close the week is to being in II's hand simply by selecting the owner to deposit.

It doesn't seem to be any closer to II's hands than an "Occupy" reservation is. Without any action by the owner to deposit it, it wouldn't get deposited. What I don't know is, if an owner doesn't deposit the "II Exchnage - Owner Deposit" reservation and instead tries to show up, what would happen? Would they be able to still occupy?

With 13-month reservations, this isn't a choice. It seems that every 13-month reservation is just "Occupy". Which makes sense since the language in the reservation procedures seems to indicate that 13-month reservations are for occupancy. Though MVC isn't stopping anyone from deposing them.

 

[Dean]

It doesn't seem to be any closer to II's hands than an "Occupy" reservation is. Without any action by the owner to deposit it, it wouldn't get deposited. What I don't know is, if an owner doesn't deposit the "II Exchnage - Owner Deposit" reservation and instead tries to show up, what would happen? Would they be able to still occupy?

With 13-month reservations, this isn't a choice. It seems that every 13-month reservation is just "Occupy". Which makes sense since the language in the reservation procedures seems to indicate that 13-month reservations are for occupancy. Though MVC isn't stopping anyone from deposing them.

I would say it either means nothing and is exactly the same or it IS closer to II's hands, obviously which it is none of us know.