Latest presentation

[ljmiii]

Buy points and a week at beach place or in Myrtle beach for effectively under 9$/point. Problem for me is that this would put me with more effective points than I actually want (by about 1500 to 2000). And thus a higher MF commit...

In my mind the real advantage of buying a hybrid package is if you think you might use the week as a week around half the time (ideally a week with a good MF/point ratio). If it's just a points generator that gets you down to $9/pt...

I’m still fairly certain that I could simply buy points resale for the exact quantity I want (2250-2500) for under 8$ easily.

At this point you can get $6 easily and $5 if you're patient. Some $2/pt contracts are passing and others are failing ROFR...most anything above $2.50 passes and anything below $2 fails.

 

[davidvel]

For someone that should know better (referring to myself here as I’ve been educated right here on TUG) is that what seems to be more and more true is that if the sales guys can’t dazzle you with diamonds, they will baffle you with its bull#%it. The math done on this website by owners with experience is real, and the reality is it doesn’t matter how many trust points you buy direct from MVC, you will have zero guarantee that the booking you want will be available to you when you go to book it.

A week is still a week and from what I’ve seen if you get into the book my week fast enough your odds are much better.

I don’t know what sort of backend is running between the hotel site, mvc, and II, but I would be shocked if every week deposited into II actually ends up available in II , as certainly there is almost always availability on the hotel site, even if week shows not available, you can’t find it in II or book using points.

Marriott does definitely have beautiful resorts and my first experience was when I booked ocean club for cash on the website back in 2010 for May 22 to the 29th for 378$ night which was a decent chunk of change back then. Almost bought two platinum weeks before I found TUG.

What I do take exception to with them however is that they don’t offer owners a dignified way out, and even more so with trust points.

I’ve been in the market for points have been rofrd once and likely against tomorrow (and yes I post in rofr.net) but it kind of irks me that they will make an owner pay next years mf to get out at zero but will exercise rofr and then collect zilch.

So on the deal they rofrd the seller gets exactly what they want which is out Marriott ends up with the points to recycle, and has to write a check to kill the deal. So by my math they are out over 8k in cash between the sale price and the foreign 750/bi fee I would have paid.

Seems like an expensive way for them to have an extra 2250 trust points that nobody is responsible for - but then I guess it’s the rest of the points owners that will get hit because of all the trust points in treasury that nobody is paying mf on.

I can afford to put in offers every week that will never pass rofr to help people get out, and after the seller, the next in line to benefit most is the broker.

I am probably the furthest from an apologist for TS developers, but I don't understand how people think they should be required to take back a TS because someone doesn't want to (or cannot afford) to pay for the insurance, taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. which are all part of the MF. No one demands this from condo developers, or auto manufacturers, or other retailers when the utility runs out. Yes, many of the TS are some of the worst declining value things you buy, but I still don't get how they should take it back, but no other business is expected to. What kind of business model is it to sell something, but then be required to take it back decades later when it lacks any value?

 

[daviator]

I am probably the furthest from an apologist for TS developers, but I don't understand how people think they should be required to take back a TS because someone doesn't want to (or cannot afford) to pay for the insurance, taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. which are all part of the MF. No one demands this from condo developers, or auto manufacturers, or other retailers when the utility runs out. Yes, many of the TS are some of the worst declining value things you buy, but I still don't get how they should take it back, but no other business is expected to. What kind of business model is it to sell something, but then be required to take it back decades later when it lacks any value?

I so agree. People view a timeshare ownership as a service that they should be able to discontinue (and stop paying) at any time, when in fact it actually is shared real estate, with an ongoing requirement to pay the costs of ownership. Like any other real estate, if you don’t want it any more, you have to find a way to transfer it to someone who does want it, otherwise you are on the hook forever to pay the upkeep.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who think it’s okay to just walk away from a no-longer-wanted timeshare, leaving their fellow owners to have to cover their obligations, are the same people who would dump an unwanted pet at the side of the road.

Of course, the industry does a bad job of educating people on the way in, and sometimes people are even told that they can sell or give back their ownership when they are done with it. Those kind of lies lead to the outcomes we often see.

 

[Dean]

the latest here from MORi. Buy points and a week at beach place or in Myrtle beach for effectively under 9$/point. Problem for me is that this would put me with more effective points than I actually want (by about 1500 to 2000). And thus a higher MF commit. I’m still fairly certain that I could simply buy points resale for the exact quantity I want (2250-2500) for under 8$ easily. If the 9$ price point could be met for the points I want, I might just buy direct to avoid the hassle but it’s the constant push beyond that irks me a bit. Looking for 2250 points kind of means that I’m not looking for 4000+ and the fees.

You should be able to easily get it down to $7 PP or so for resale. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a package of 2250 to 2500 points. Another alternative, likely a better one if you're set on buy "points" in some way, is to buy a Gold retail week from Spain. Should be able to get it down to $7 to $8 PP as a direct purchase and have fees that are not great but somewhat lower than just points. There are weeks there that should be close to the number you need without having to overbuy. The bundle they're offering you is likely a poor week to own anyway.

 

[dougp26364]

w

I am probably the furthest from an apologist for TS developers, but I don't understand how people think they should be required to take back a TS because someone doesn't want to (or cannot afford) to pay for the insurance, taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. which are all part of the MF. No one demands this from condo developers, or auto manufacturers, or other retailers when the utility runs out. Yes, many of the TS are some of the worst declining value things you buy, but I still don't get how they should take it back, but no other business is expected to. What kind of business model is it to sell something, but then be required to take it back decades later when it lacks any value?

Probably because no other industry goes to the lengths TS developers/management companies do to devalue the purchase you just made. You want to purchase resale, you don’t get all the benefits. Even Marriott forces resale points buyers to pay them $3/point in order to get full benefits, otherwise they’re severely limited. Yet, if they take them back, they’ll resell them as if they’re brand new at the full current price.

 

[davidvel]

w


Probably because no other industry goes to the lengths TS developers/management companies do to devalue the purchase you just made. You want to purchase resale, you don’t get all the benefits. Even Marriott forces resale points buyers to pay them $3/point in order to get full benefits, otherwise they’re severely limited. Yet, if they take them back, they’ll resell them as if they’re brand new at the full current price.

That is true, but that is what you bought into. If you didn't know that, that is whole different issue aside. I am not talking about fraud, where people are induced to buy based on the lie they will take it back at 50% or whatever. More of a big picture that stuff you buy, including titled assets, just may not be worth as much later. Why should the seller take the trash back and assume the obligation you bought?

 

[dougp26364]

Don’t intentionally gut the value, making it worthless, and there will be a market for selling it to someone else. Intentionally gut the value and you’ll get the product back one way or another, either by having some sort of voluntary deed back program or by foreclosure.

I’ve been able to sell my HGVC deed because Hilton doesn’t gut the value for the next buyer. I wasn’t able to sell my DRI weeks because they gutted the value by removing all the benefits of their program to the resale buyer, thus we got rid of those deeds by deeding them back rather than selling them. If not for the deed back program, we’d have been reduced to stop paying the MF’s and forcing the foreclosure.

 

[normab]

We also are mostly traveling just the two of us and we like to have at least a one bedroom. We stayed in the New York City club in 2017 for 12 night during December. We had a fantastic time, but the room really was a challenge. We had an Empire State Building view room, which was very cool, but the room set up and the amenities were typical NYC hotel room. I’m not even sure there was a chair, I only remember a loveseat.

There was a small refrigerator but no way to heat anything in the room, which we always need to do with leftovers. (They did have a microwave down in the basement, but I think we were on the 18th floor…) We must have known this ahead of time because I brought an old-fashioned electric frying pan, which can heat up anything.

We like the city experiences but hope they only configure them with a kitchenette in the future. And the option for a 1 bedroom is really appealing.

 

[chinh9]

I think the resale of deeded weeks is a must for Marriott vacation club bc there are many locations where you can book those weeks for dirt cheap and any time of year even platinum season. Orlando is a good example. There are so many choices they have to use them as bait in sales to sell abound club points and in doing so they off the maintenance fees on weeks/resorts that they can’t sell on the normal booking site at a profit (due to the many choices).

This is why resale is a MUST for their business model to work. They’d be swimming in maintenance fees and taxes if they kept all of those weeks. I don’t think (and someone correct me if wrong) it would be legal to pass on the cost of maintenance fees to the club points owners or the other owners of that resort to pay their fees on weeks they exercised RoFR on. I’d imagine that’s a major lawsuit they couldn’t win. Am I off base here?

 

[ljmiii]

I think the resale of deeded weeks is a must for Marriott vacation club....Am I off base here?

For the most part yes. MVC just dumps the bad weeks that they acquire into the Abound Trust (getting them off their books) and trust owners pay the MFs on them. It isn't as if a few more bad weeks would be noticed.

I would guess that they do keep a few bad weeks for the initial offer on a Hybrid purchase...but since (to my knowledge) they still only offer Hybrids to those who already own MVC they probably need more good weeks than bad to make those sales.

 

[Hindsite]

This is why resale is a MUST for their business model to work. They’d be swimming in maintenance fees and taxes if they kept all of those weeks. I don’t think (and someone correct me if wrong) it would be legal to pass on the cost of maintenance fees to the club points owners or the other owners of that resort to pay their fees on weeks they exercised RoFR on. I’d imagine that’s a major lawsuit they couldn’t win. Am I off base here?

Outside of the US, where the re-acquired weeks can't be dumped into the Trust, then yes they do pay the maint fees on what they own, it can be 10-20% of total resort inventory depending on where the resort is. They also retain a portfolio of ownership, points and weeks for their rental business, which has proved to be a problem in the last few months, as well as inventory for sales purposes. All that can make it difficult to work out what they really own vs what is in the Trust.

Its a really good thing for MVC owners that MVC will take the weeks back from the HoA to rent or sell on, as if they didn't the HoA, and hence other owners, would carry that cost and maint fees would go up a lot more. As it is, there is already a line for default in the maint fees, so people can see the effect of people abandoning their ownership rather than giving it back.

 

[Dean]

I think the resale of deeded weeks is a must for Marriott vacation club bc there are many locations where you can book those weeks for dirt cheap and any time of year even platinum season. Orlando is a good example. There are so many choices they have to use them as bait in sales to sell abound club points and in doing so they off the maintenance fees on weeks/resorts that they can’t sell on the normal booking site at a profit (due to the many choices).

This is why resale is a MUST for their business model to work. They’d be swimming in maintenance fees and taxes if they kept all of those weeks. I don’t think (and someone correct me if wrong) it would be legal to pass on the cost of maintenance fees to the club points owners or the other owners of that resort to pay their fees on weeks they exercised RoFR on. I’d imagine that’s a major lawsuit they couldn’t win. Am I off base here?

They won't take back all weeks either directly or ROFR. I'm sure the decisions is based on some type of break even on the usage, points and internal value. They can move those to points if they choose and then the trust pays the fees. I was thinking the bundles were more resale weeks listed with them rather than weeks they owned, if so, the owners would pay the fees. I believe if they own the weeks they're responsible for the fees. Owners would cover any defaults though.

 

[goodbadugly]

the latest here from MORi. Buy points and a week at beach place or in Myrtle beach for effectively under 9$/point. Problem for me is that this would put me with more effective points than I actually want (by about 1500 to 2000). And thus a higher MF commit. I’m still fairly certain that I could simply buy points resale for the exact quantity I want (2250-2500) for under 8$ easily. If the 9$ price point could be met for the points I want, I might just buy direct to avoid the hassle but it’s the constant push beyond that irks me a bit. Looking for 2250 points kind of means that I’m not looking for 4000+ and the fees.

Is the Myrtle Beach property Oceanwatch? Is it Platinum or Gold?

 

[daviator]

They won't take back all weeks either directly or ROFR. I'm sure the decisions is based on some type of break even on the usage, points and internal value. They can move those to points if they choose and then the trust pays the fees. I was thinking the bundles were more resale weeks listed with them rather than weeks they owned, if so, the owners would pay the fees. I believe if they own the weeks they're responsible for the fees. Owners would cover any defaults though.

"The trust pays the fees" is not the 'out' that is implied, since MVC has to pay the trust maintenance fees on all the unsold trust points.

I suppose this gives them an incentive to try to align additions to the trust with sales, so that the trust always has just enough unsold points so that sufficient points are available to sell, but ideally not adding so much to the trust that it will take a long time to sell and MVC will be on the hook for those MFs. That undoubtedly is one of the reasons for inconsistent exercise of ROFR; when their inventory is getting low and they need to add points, they are more likely to be more aggressive on reacquiring deeds.

When they open a new property, that adds quite a bit of inventory to the trust and probably reduces the need for ROFR for a while. But I imagine they will always try to reacquire high demand deeds (beach resorts in Hawaii, et al) when they can. I'm sure they recognize the risk of adding only low-demand weeks to the trust and the longer-term impact on owner satisfaction.

 

[dioxide45]

"The trust pays the fees" is not the 'out' that is implied, since MVC has to pay the trust maintenance fees on all the unsold trust points.

I suppose this gives them an incentive to try to align additions to the trust with sales, so that the trust always has just enough unsold points so that sufficient points are available to sell, but ideally not adding so much to the trust that it will take a long time to sell and MVC will be on the hook for those MFs. That undoubtedly is one of the reasons for inconsistent exercise of ROFR; when their inventory is getting low and they need to add points, they are more likely to be more aggressive on reacquiring deeds.

When they open a new property, that adds quite a bit of inventory to the trust and probably reduces the need for ROFR for a while. But I imagine they will always try to reacquire high demand deeds (beach resorts in Hawaii, et al) when they can. I'm sure they recognize the risk of adding only low-demand weeks to the trust and the longer-term impact on owner satisfaction.

I seem to recall prior investor call comments that they preferred to have about a year and a half to two years of unsold inventory in the trust. This would allow them time to reacquire additional inventory to feed the trust while at the same time looking for ways to bolster inventory to sell through new properties.

As for low value vs high value inventory. For about a 5-7 year period they didn't seem to care. They were taking back deeds on just about anything and the deeds most likely to be given back were low value/high maintenance fees. Most of the people wanting out owned gold season or lower. As far as I know they still take back almost everything, they just charge $400 to do it.

 

[Dean]

"The trust pays the fees" is not the 'out' that is implied, since MVC has to pay the trust maintenance fees on all the unsold trust points.

I suppose this gives them an incentive to try to align additions to the trust with sales, so that the trust always has just enough unsold points so that sufficient points are available to sell, but ideally not adding so much to the trust that it will take a long time to sell and MVC will be on the hook for those MFs. That undoubtedly is one of the reasons for inconsistent exercise of ROFR; when their inventory is getting low and they need to add points, they are more likely to be more aggressive on reacquiring deeds.

When they open a new property, that adds quite a bit of inventory to the trust and probably reduces the need for ROFR for a while. But I imagine they will always try to reacquire high demand deeds (beach resorts in Hawaii, et al) when they can. I'm sure they recognize the risk of adding only low-demand weeks to the trust and the longer-term impact on owner satisfaction.

Absolutely they are responsible for the fees on the owned trust points no matter how they are obtained. But they manage that volume of inventory accordingly as Jeremy alluded to. As they sell points those costs are transferred to the new owners for all points inventory. As I tried to suggest, they make the decision up front on any inventory they take whether it be ROFR or direct agreement.

 

[Eric B]

The developer owned points in the trust are probably also necessary for the Sales department to be able to offer Club Points as an inducement for a sales presentation. While it's a cost to the corporation as a whole it is no doubt allocated to the budget for sales. The stuff not used by sales would support rentals outside of 60 days as well. There might also be some coverage of Encore presentations from that ownership/control.