Looking at the DC points value in reference to exchange history

[dioxide45]

Here is my analysis of other past years:

2007:
2BR Grande Vista for 2BR Grande Vista November 24th 2007 (2,500 points)

2BR Grande Vista (2175 points)

Total points required 2,500
Total points received 2,175
Shortage: 325 points

2008:
2BR Grande Vista for 2BR Cypress Harbour February 2nd 2008 (2,675 points)

2BR Grande Vista (2175 points)

Total points required 2,675
Total points received 2,175
Shortage: 500 points

2009:
1BR Grande Vista for 2BR Grande Vista October 29th 2008 (3,275 points)
Studio Grande Vista for 2BR Beach Place Towers September 5th 2009 (2,500 points)

2BR Grande Vista (2175 points)

Total points required 4,900
Total points received 2,175
Shortage: 2,725 points

2010:
1BR Grande Vista for 2BR Ocean Pointe May 22 2010 (2,950 points)
Studio Grande Vista for Studio Grande Vista November 26th 2009 (250 points, we ended up only staying one night because we had to leave early)
1BR Harbour Lake for 1BR Ko'Olina October 9th 2010 (2,675 points)
Studio Harbour Lake for Studio Ko'Olina October 9th 2011 (1,875 points)

2BR Harbour Lake (1950 points)
2BR Grande Vista (2175 points)

Total points required 7,750
Total points received 4,125
Shortage: 3,625 points

Summary of all our use years:
Total points required 34,875
Total points received 18,900
Shortage: 15,975 points

Something else that this shows is the power of TUG. As you see, I wasn't as nearly effective in my trades in my first couple of years. The more I learned on here, the better the trades that I received.

 

[dioxide45]

So, I would could have worked with a 3 bedroom at crystal shores each time, but that has so far not been possible through DC or II.

The problem with getting 3BR units in II, is that you really need to have a 3BR unit to put up for trade. Because Cyrstal Shores also has 2BR units, so you have to offer up a 3BR in order to put in a request for a 3BR unit. You can also only get what is deposited in to either exchange company.

 

[CashEddie]

The system has to evolve

My belief is that the DC system will evolve over time to hopefully address some of the shortcomings. The program introduced a great imbalance with most of the resorts having legacy week inventory on one side and such a smaller percentage with the resorts with trust inventory on the other side. Couple this with the imbalance of points being assigned to the various legacy weeks created an uneven playing field.

New people coming into the system will not be on the same playing field as the legacy owners because they don't have the option of trading in weeks. If the legacy owners don't enroll their weeks, the new owners will be locked out of much the system because there probably not enough unsold inventory in the trust in the legacy resorts to accommodate the requests.

 

[windje2000]

My belief is that the DC system will evolve over time to hopefully address some of the shortcomings. The program introduced a great imbalance with most of the resorts having legacy week inventory on one side and such a smaller percentage with the resorts with trust inventory on the other side. Couple this with the imbalance of points being assigned to the various legacy weeks created an uneven playing field.

New people coming into the system will not be on the same playing field as the legacy owners because they don't have the option of trading in weeks. If the legacy owners don't enroll their weeks, the new owners will be locked out of much the system because there probably not enough unsold inventory in the trust in the legacy resorts to accommodate the requests.

It goes beyond just enrolling, legacies have to exchange their week for points for the newbie points owners to get access to them in the exchange co.

The other way for points owners to access non trust weeks would be for VAC to exchange in II for occupancy requested by points owners.

No question there is a start-up period/learning curve for inventory management as DC matures as an exchange vehicle and achieves some critical mass.

Until they get a little higher up the curve, there will be imbalances.

Occupancy is perishable. Those imbalances may also create opportunities for those legacies who elect points.

 

[GregT]

All,

This is interesting reading -- and certainly supports (and quantifies) the value of being able to uptrade in the weeks system. We can all calculate the skim (reduced trading power when using points) that we lose when we redeem for points -- and now this thread calculates the historical value of trading up that has been enjoyed in the past and we hope will continue for the weeks owner.

And excellent point was made that it also shows the value of TUG -- and maximizing trading power. I hope a few years down the road we talk about how TUG helped us maximize points.

Thanks again!

Greg

 

[Beefnot]

I suspect that for most folks who study up, they will see that buying DC is a ripoff in its totallity. However, it does appear to be highly advantageous for some (even after you factor in the inflated MFs they pay for the locations that give them higher points to play with). As long as the majority of folks who are being shorted dont realize it, don't demand changes, and/or remain satisfied for buying into an option they may rarely, if ever, excercise, then maybe he DC system will be a long run success.

 

[Quilter]

Just an opposite point of view. I'm sitting on my balcony at Frenchman's Cove watching the Norwegian Gem sail into port. I got here on DC points. An impossible trade in II at 12 months out. I used an Ocean Pointe 2b OS plat unit and I'm in a 2b OF plat unit. I came out 200 points on the upside.

Jim,

How do you book the 2bOF at Frenchman's Cove? I looked again at the points chart and all I see are 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms. Nothing about view.

Thanks,
Suzzanne

 

[BocaBum99]

In another thread I posted I'd look at the value of DC points thru the eyes of historical exchanges in the weeks program. I wanted to see how Marriott's re-seasoning, skim et.....would directly impact the economic value of our ownership. So here's the results looking at exchanges that have been made vs the number of points Marriott's DC gives/takes for the same.

These examples are based on our usage of our 3 bedroom Platinum season Grand Chateau week. There have been years when we locked-off, used the master suite for personal use and exchanged the one bedroom unit. I will acknowledge that the DC is not good for reserving at your home resort (should tell you something right there) but, thru weeks I can use and exchange so, it's still relevant to compare this type of usage for those of us who own lock-off units to use a portion of our home resort week and exchange the other portion.

I elected not to look out our Ocean Pointe usage/exchange. Since we always use the master stuite and typically exchange the studio, the number favoring weeks was so strong as to make it a moot point.

I receive 4,625 points for our MGC week. Here's what it would have taken for the same reservations in the DC.


2011:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm July 10th Mountainside (4,450 points)
2 bdrm MGC (3,675 points)

Total points required 8,125
Total points received 4,625
Shortage: 3,500 points

2010:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm Harbour Club 5/16-5/23 (1,725 points)
2 bdrm MGC for 2 bedroom Island View Waiohai (4,850)

Total points required 6,575
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 1,950

2009:
MGC 1 bdrm for Custom House 1 bedroom 5/8-5/15 (2,900 points)
MGC 2 bdrm for NCV 2 bdrm 3/6-3/13 (2,900)

Total points required 5,800
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 1,175

2008:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm Barony Beach Club OS 5/9-5/16 (3,450)
MGC 2 bdrm (3,675)

Total points required 7,125
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 2,500

In four years time I'm short nearly two full weeks (points recieved vs points required) of ownership time at MGC (9,125 points total shortages over 4 years). That's strong incentive for Marriott to get owners into the DC and convert to points as they'll gain that lost usage value (ie: skim).

Make of it what you will and argue points as much as you like. In the end, points are worth less in trade/stay value than weeks have ever been in the past. Other than flexablity, which can be very nice, DC points are a very poor value when viewed thru the eyes of history in our case. I can not validate the DC being worth the price of joining and ongoing membership fee's for the average single week owner of a lock-off unit. It's debatable the value for high value 2 bedroom non-lock-off weeks for stretching exchange value but, I can see there could easily be value for those owners.

For our situation the value comes in eliminating ala carte fee's and, for 2013 in flexability of check in days and/or short stays. Otherwise, points are a very large waste in economic value. Flexiblity can be a good thing but, I would encourage everyone to view the cost of that flexablity before jumping on any DC points bandwagon.

This is exactly why I have declared unequivocally that the Marriott points system sucks. It is an utter failure and does nothing long term for clients. But, it sucks not because you are exchange value is poor. We always knew it would be poor. It sucks because there is no "other side of the trade" scenario playing out like it should have.

Here's what I mean.

With this type of exchange value imbalance, there should be a surplus of points being made available for rental. That market simply didn't emerge. There is an attempt at it, but the volume of exchange is De minimis. It should have emerged by now. Since it hasn't, the entire Marriott system is suffering of exchange grid lock because the market cannot clear. There are people with points who can't get rid of them. And, there are people without points who cannot pay the market rate for them.

If this rental market emerged, is would have led to a more efficient resale and rental market for Marriott's. But, they totally blew it. In essence, they suck.

 

[GrayFal]

Jim,

How do you book the 2bOF at Frenchman's Cove? I looked again at the points chart and all I see are 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms. Nothing about view.

Thanks,
Suzzanne

Suzzanne, all units are considered oceanfront so there is no view categories.

 

[billymach4]

This is exactly why I have declared unequivocally that the Marriott points system sucks. It is an utter failure and does nothing long term for clients. But, it sucks not because you are exchange value is poor. We always knew it would be poor. It sucks because there is no "other side of the trade" scenario playing out like it should have.

Here's what I mean.

With this type of exchange value imbalance, there should be a surplus of points being made available for rental. That market simply didn't emerge. There is an attempt at it, but the volume of exchange is De minimis. It should have emerged by now. Since it hasn't, the entire Marriott system is suffering of exchange grid lock because the market cannot clear. There are people with points who can't get rid of them. And, there are people without points who cannot pay the market rate for them.

If this rental market emerged, is would have led to a more efficient resale and rental market for Marriott's. But, they totally blew it. In essence, they suck.

I love this post. This a prime example of the benefits of this forum. I am so stoked now with this proof. I have good mind to take this into my next tour and show this to the sales staff.

Look they told me flat out if I wanted out Marriott would buy back my points, but it is clear now Marriott will not make it easy for anyone to sell the points no less buy them back.

At least with the weeks there is a viable market.

Seriously what are you guys planning to do with your points when you need to cash them in? I know this is not the first thing on your mind now, but at some point in your life you may need to separate your obligation from the points you own?

I don't want to hijack Doug's thread so I started another one on this very subject.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1244303#post1244303

 

[Beefnot]

They are hopng that the point system "evolves"

 

[billymach4]

They are hopng that the point system "evolves"

I started another thread about this looking for some honest answers from the likes of those experts that have signed on. I am really looking for honest intelligent answers for for an exit strategy.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1244303#post1244303

 

[GregT]

With this type of exchange value imbalance, there should be a surplus of points being made available for rental. That market simply didn't emerge. There is an attempt at it, but the volume of exchange is De minimis. It should have emerged by now. Since it hasn't, the entire Marriott system is suffering of exchange grid lock because the market cannot clear. There are people with points who can't get rid of them. And, there are people without points who cannot pay the market rate for them.

If this rental market emerged, is would have led to a more efficient resale and rental market for Marriott's. But, they totally blew it. In essence, they suck.

Or couldn't it also be that the surplus of points are being held by owners who are using them for travel? I noted in a different thread that there is significant inventory of 3BR Lahaina Villa units in the Fall -- suggesting those owners (of sold out units) are indeed redeeming their units in droves -- and that is where the points are.

I don't follow the point that the rental market is indicative of the imbalance?

We have seen robust rental markets in Worldmark and DVC but I do not know if those were immediate, or developed over time. I believe a similar rental market will emerge over time (possibly as people realize that using points for routine travel isn't the best use of those points).

I continue to believe Marriott points are valuable -- either as a rental commodity or to secure very difficult reservations (5 nights at Summit Watch -- 3BRs at Frenchman's Cove -- Holiday weeks at Grande Ocean). But that travelers that prefer shoulder/off-season travel or who can travel at any point in a 2 month window will find legacy trading more than adequate -- with possible uptrading benefits.

It is an interesting development. My issue with the Marriott system is well known -- I think skimming your loyal customers just stinks. Reducing their trade power just stinks. But there is alot I like about the system and I never expected the point system to accomodate uptrades.

TUG trading experts are demonstrating in this thread the power of knowledgeable trading. If we delved deeper, I bought we would see our TUGgers were reserving holiday weeks 12 months ahead and depositing them right away. That's good stuff.

But I digress -- I'd love to hear more about the imbalance issue because I see the imbalance in different ways (More Hawaii -- Less Caribbean) with respect to immediately available inventory.

Best,

Greg

 

[jimf41]

Jim,

How do you book the 2bOF at Frenchman's Cove? I looked again at the points chart and all I see are 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms. Nothing about view.

Thanks,
Suzzanne

Suzzanne,

All units at MFC are considered Ocean View. I don't know why they did that as every unit, even the ones on the lowest floor, look directly out at the water. Depending on what bldg your are in that water might be Paquereau Bay or the Caribbean or a combination of both.

The trick here is not to request any particular bldg but to get to the highest floor you can get. Technically I shouldn't refer to the views here as OF but once you stay here you realize that's what they are. Compare that to Ocean Pointe. You can get an OF unit there that really is a GV unit with no view of the water at all. I think Doug got one of those one year at Kingfish.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Seriously what are you guys planning to do with your points when you need to cash them in? I know this is not the first thing on your mind now, but at some point in your life you may need to separate your obligation from the points you own?

I don't want to hijack Doug's thread so I started another one on this very subject.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1244303#post1244303

They are hopng that the point system "evolves"

I started another thread about this looking for some honest answers from the likes of those experts that have signed on. I am really looking for honest intelligent answers for for an exit strategy.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1244303#post1244303

I'm glad to see this question asked point-blank because it's obviously still confusing to a whole lot of people. Haven't been over to your other thread yet but can answer this here -

Those of us who own Weeks and enroll them in the DC have not permanently converted our Weeks to DC Points; we haven't in any way purchased DC Points which are ours forever and which we'll have to worry about unloading someday. Enrollment is simply an option which allows us to choose every year whether we want to use our Weeks in any of the traditional ways, or if we want to convert any of our Weeks for that Use Year to DC Points. For existing Weeks owners who enroll in the DC, it's really just another exchange company option.

When/if it comes time for us to sell what we own, we'll be selling Weeks that are no different from Weeks which have never been enrolled in the DC. As long as we don't purchase DC Trust Points, we don't have to worry about what we're selling (or at least, we don't have to worry any more than every other Weeks owners do.) Also, when we sell our Weeks our enrollment does not transfer with the sale to the new buyers. If we sell our Weeks on the external market, the buyers will not be able to enroll the Weeks (because post-6/20/10 external resales are not eligible for enrollment.) If we sell our Weeks through Marriott Resales Operations, the new buyers will not be able to enroll the Weeks into the DC unless they also purchase a Trust Points package from Marriott at the same time.

No doubt, the usage restrictions and various transfer fees make selling/buying resale Trust Points a skeery proposition. But selling/buying a resale Week isn't any different whether the Week is enrolled in the DC or not - it's still a transfer of a deeded Week.

 

[dioxide45]

We still really don't know for certain if any usage restrictions will be in place enforced by Marriott. We have heard reports that as long as the buyer pays the initiation fee and education fee, they would be able to access trust and exchange inventory.

Of course this is an expensive proposition. Given a potential $1 ROFR fee, a minimum $2000 initiation fee and a $300 education fee. If you were to buy 1000 DC points resale for $2500, it would end up costing you $5800. Though it seems that we could shave $900 off of that price since I think it seems in the few resale listings we have seen, the ROFR seems to be $0.10 per point. Still cheaper than direct, but not a deal by any means.

We just need a guinea pig here in TUG to give it a whirl and let us know how it turns out. I say we volunteer......

 

[SueDonJ]

... We just need a guinea pig here in TUG to give it a whirl and let us know how it turns out. I say we volunteer......

...... Bocabum! He already hates Marriott, nothing they do can disillusion him any further.

 

[lapdawg]

In another thread I posted I'd look at the value of DC points thru the eyes of historical exchanges in the weeks program. I wanted to see how Marriott's re-seasoning, skim et.....would directly impact the economic value of our ownership. So here's the results looking at exchanges that have been made vs the number of points Marriott's DC gives/takes for the same.

These examples are based on our usage of our 3 bedroom Platinum season Grand Chateau week. There have been years when we locked-off, used the master suite for personal use and exchanged the one bedroom unit. I will acknowledge that the DC is not good for reserving at your home resort (should tell you something right there) but, thru weeks I can use and exchange so, it's still relevant to compare this type of usage for those of us who own lock-off units to use a portion of our home resort week and exchange the other portion.

I elected not to look out our Ocean Pointe usage/exchange. Since we always use the master stuite and typically exchange the studio, the number favoring weeks was so strong as to make it a moot point.

I receive 4,625 points for our MGC week. Here's what it would have taken for the same reservations in the DC.


2011:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm July 10th Mountainside (4,450 points)
2 bdrm MGC (3,675 points)

Total points required 8,125
Total points received 4,625
Shortage: 3,500 points

2010:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm Harbour Club 5/16-5/23 (1,725 points)
2 bdrm MGC for 2 bedroom Island View Waiohai (4,850)

Total points required 6,575
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 1,950

2009:
MGC 1 bdrm for Custom House 1 bedroom 5/8-5/15 (2,900 points)
MGC 2 bdrm for NCV 2 bdrm 3/6-3/13 (2,900)

Total points required 5,800
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 1,175

2008:
1 bdrm MGC for 2 bdrm Barony Beach Club OS 5/9-5/16 (3,450)
MGC 2 bdrm (3,675)

Total points required 7,125
Total points received 4,625
Shortage 2,500

In four years time I'm short nearly two full weeks (points recieved vs points required) of ownership time at MGC (9,125 points total shortages over 4 years). That's strong incentive for Marriott to get owners into the DC and convert to points as they'll gain that lost usage value (ie: skim).

Make of it what you will and argue points as much as you like. In the end, points are worth less in trade/stay value than weeks have ever been in the past. Other than flexablity, which can be very nice, DC points are a very poor value when viewed thru the eyes of history in our case. I can not validate the DC being worth the price of joining and ongoing membership fee's for the average single week owner of a lock-off unit. It's debatable the value for high value 2 bedroom non-lock-off weeks for stretching exchange value but, I can see there could easily be value for those owners.

For our situation the value comes in eliminating ala carte fee's and, for 2013 in flexability of check in days and/or short stays. Otherwise, points are a very large waste in economic value. Flexiblity can be a good thing but, I would encourage everyone to view the cost of that flexablity before jumping on any DC points bandwagon.

Sorry to differ, while this post is an excellent analysis of the benefits of up trading, it is otherwise irrelevant and worthless as an analysis of the effects of skim or the economic effects of the DC club on ownership. In essence, it's very misleading.

The point "shortages" are a misnomer and should be changed to "advantage gained by uptrading". The vast majority of points you gained were not lost to skim, but were taken from another owner, albeit with his/her consent. In the DC club scenario, that owner who would have downtraded via II and lost significant value (what you call "shortages") can instead exchange for points in the DC club, use them, and retain 90-94% of the value (assuming a 6-10% skim).

As far as an a more realistic economic analysis is concerned, joining the DC club doesn't prevent you from uptrading, in fact it looks like you did a great job of it this year and that was not effected in any way by joining. So there is no negative economic disadvantage in that scenario, although one could make an argument that it could make uptrading more difficult as there will presumably be fewer downtraders via II in the future.

Joining the DC club doesn't prevent you from booking at your home resort, so there is economic disadvantage in that scenario.

Joining the DC club does, however, allow you to retain most of the value difference when you downtrade, so there is a significant economic ADVANTAGE in the downtrade scenario. This is the only time the skim comes into play as a disadvantage, but in the vast majority of cases the retained value of the downtrade will far exceed the value of the actual skim.

The only real economic disadvantage to the DC club is the initiation fee (assuming exchage fees are relatively equal to or more than the club fees).

 

[dougp26364]

Sorry to differ, while this post is an excellent analysis of the benefits of up trading, it is otherwise irrelevant and worthless as an analysis of the effects of skim or the economic effects of the DC club on ownership. In essence, it's very misleading.

The point "shortages" are a misnomer and should be changed to "advantage gained by uptrading". The vast majority of points you gained were not lost to skim, but were taken from another owner, albeit with his/her consent. In the DC club scenario, that owner who would have downtraded via II and lost significant value (what you call "shortages") can instead exchange for points in the DC club, use them, and retain 90-94% of the value (assuming a 6-10% skim).

As far as an a more realistic economic analysis is concerned, joining the DC club doesn't prevent you from uptrading, in fact it looks like you did a great job of it this year and that was not effected in any way by joining. So there is no negative economic disadvantage in that scenario, although one could make an argument that it could make uptrading more difficult as there will presumably be fewer downtraders via II in the future.

Joining the DC club doesn't prevent you from booking at your home resort, so there is economic disadvantage in that scenario.

Joining the DC club does, however, allow you to retain most of the value difference when you downtrade, so there is a significant economic ADVANTAGE in the downtrade scenario. This is the only time the skim comes into play as a disadvantage, but in the vast majority of cases the retained value of the downtrade will far exceed the value of the actual skim.

The only real economic disadvantage to the DC club is the initiation fee (assuming exchage fees are relatively equal to or more than the club fees).

Before passing judgement of "up trading", you might want to take note of the "down trade" from Platinum to Gold season in most cases. For the most part, I would consider these even exchanges.

In the end, it is an example of what could be accomplished in the weeks exchange system that can not be accomplished in the points based system. Also you might want to look at 2009, which shows like for like exchanges in max sleeping accomadations AND both exchanges as down trades from Platinum to Gold season. Even in that year, there remains a shortage.

Fair or not fair doesn't really matter. It still stands as an example of lost value in the DC points reservations vs historical weeks exchanges.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Fair or not fair doesn't really matter. It still stands as an example of lost value in the DC points reservations vs historical weeks exchanges.

But if you can still make those same exchanges in the Weeks system, what's the point of measuring the difference between the two systems? This is all just a new way of pointing out that skim exists, isn't it? I guess that's why I think of this particular exercise as a lesson in futility - we've known about skim almost since the minute the DC was introduced, so why is there a need to point it out in a new fashion?

And I still find it kind of ironic that all of sudden skim is the be-all and end-all of what makes a system valuable, when some of us consistently suffered it in II's system long before the DC was introduced.

 

[GregT]

I really don't think this thread is about the skim -- which is Marriott skimming the trade power (points) that a week has when it is redeemed for points.

I think this thread is about the impressive uptrades that smart TUGgers have been able to secure because they've studied the inefficiencies and imbalances of timeshare exchanges.

I certainly didn't expect Marriott to introduce a system that was designed to facilitate uptrades, but I definitely didn't expect them to introduce a system that awarded you with less than full value when depositing your week.

Shudder....twinge......positive thoughts.....positive thoughts.....

Best,

Greg

 

[Whirl]

But if you can still make those same exchanges in the Weeks system, what's the point of measuring the difference between the two systems? This is all just a new way of pointing out that skim exists, isn't it? I guess that's why I think of this particular exercise as a lesson in futility - we've known about skim almost since the minute the DC was introduced, so why is there a need to point it out in a new fashion?

And I still find it kind of ironic that all of sudden skim is the be-all and end-all of what makes a system valuable, when some of us consistently suffered it in II's system long before the DC was introduced.

I agree. The skim bugs me far less than being riddled with fees every where I turn and not being able to do anything or change anything without a fee or penalty.

 

[dougp26364]

But if you can still make those same exchanges in the Weeks system, what's the point of measuring the difference between the two systems? This is all just a new way of pointing out that skim exists, isn't it? I guess that's why I think of this particular exercise as a lesson in futility - we've known about skim almost since the minute the DC was introduced, so why is there a need to point it out in a new fashion?

And I still find it kind of ironic that all of sudden skim is the be-all and end-all of what makes a system valuable, when some of us consistently suffered it in II's system long before the DC was introduced.

Why not? What evidence do we have that you can not make still accomplish the same exchanges in the weeks system?

Unfortunately, at this time I don't have a week deposited to play. Otherwise I'd be looking. For weeks other than Marriott the answer to that question is yes. I still have one week that is not tied to an internal exchange system and over the last two years I've up-traded that week from a one bedroom summer Branson to two bedroom units in Lake Tahoe (summer) and a two bedroom unit in Breckenridge (fall). Both exchanges were from a lower rated resort into a higher rated resort (can't recall the new I.I. rating system right now).

Until I see evidence that I can't up-trade anymore, I'm going to call BS on the Marriott salesmen who tell us it can't be done. This isn't the first time I've heard this and, to date, I've not seen any proof that it's true.

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, all points systems have some sort of "skim" in play. It's either in extra fee's or extra points for various flexabilities. Marriott's is rather unique.

The point is that it's important to know the cost of doing business. Is converting a legacy weeks to points worth the cost? If you don't know the cost of doing business then how can you make a rational decision on which world is right for your situation, points or weeks?

There is nothing wrong with points and points offers some unique opportunities as pointed out by Puck and Jim. Especially if you need a 3 bedroom unit, which is a virtually impossible exchange using weeks. For us, points offered us the opportunity to book a Thursday check in vs a Fri/Sat/Sun check in when that's what works for us. In our case, because we needed the Thurs. check in, converting our legacy week to points was well worth any cost. In the future that might not be the case. Every time I want to make and exchange I need to look at the value each system offers, then decide which system works best for my situation at that time. I firmly believe that all owners should take cost into consideration so that they can determine how to get the most out of their timeshare ownership.

What I find difficult to understand is the resistance to this simple fact I've posted on historical exchanges vs what it would take to do the same under the new system (past vs future). Why try to prove something one way or another. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply showing historical data that may.....or may not.....be important to you. If you've decided that the flexablity of points is worth that flexablity at any cost, then thats fine. I enjoy my other two points based reservations systems and participate in them to the full extent. Based on how we tend to vacation, Marriott's points based system may not provide me with the value in my vacation ownership that I'm looking for and, for me that's to bad. I really prefer playing in points vs weeks but, not to the extent I'm willing to give up two weeks vacation time every 4 or 5 years.

 

[Beefnot]

For us, points offered us the opportunity to book a Thursday check in vs a Fri/Sat/Sun check in when that's what works for us. In our case, because we needed the Thurs. check in, converting our legacy week to points was well worth any cost.

For most people, there is a point above which the flexibility provided is still not worth the expense required to produce that flexibility.

 

[dougp26364]

Why not? What evidence do we have that you can not make still accomplish the same exchanges in the weeks system?

Unfortunately, at this time I don't have a week deposited to play. Otherwise I'd be looking. For weeks other than Marriott the answer to that question is yes. I still have one week that is not tied to an internal exchange system and over the last two years I've up-traded that week from a one bedroom summer Branson to two bedroom units in Lake Tahoe (summer) and a two bedroom unit in Breckenridge (fall). Both exchanges were from a lower rated resort into a higher rated resort (can't recall the new I.I. rating system right now).

Until I see evidence that I can't up-trade anymore, I'm going to call BS on the Marriott salesmen who tell us it can't be done. This isn't the first time I've heard this and, to date, I've not seen any proof that it's true.

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, all points systems have some sort of "skim" in play. It's either in extra fee's or extra points for various flexabilities. Marriott's is rather unique.

The point is that it's important to know the cost of doing business. Is converting a legacy weeks to points worth the cost? If you don't know the cost of doing business then how can you make a rational decision on which world is right for your situation, points or weeks?

There is nothing wrong with points and points offers some unique opportunities as pointed out by Puck and Jim. Especially if you need a 3 bedroom unit, which is a virtually impossible exchange using weeks. For us, points offered us the opportunity to book a Thursday check in vs a Fri/Sat/Sun check in when that's what works for us. In our case, because we needed the Thurs. check in, converting our legacy week to points was well worth any cost. In the future that might not be the case. Every time I want to make and exchange I need to look at the value each system offers, then decide which system works best for my situation at that time. I firmly believe that all owners should take cost into consideration so that they can determine how to get the most out of their timeshare ownership.

What I find difficult to understand is the resistance to this simple fact I've posted on historical exchanges vs what it would take to do the same under the new system (past vs future). Why try to prove something one way or another. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply showing historical data that may.....or may not.....be important to you. If you've decided that the flexablity of points is worth that flexablity at any cost, then thats fine. I enjoy my other two points based reservations systems and participate in them to the full extent. Based on how we tend to vacation, Marriott's points based system may not provide me with the value in my vacation ownership that I'm looking for and, for me that's to bad. I really prefer playing in points vs weeks but, not to the extent I'm willing to give up two weeks vacation time every 4 or 5 years.

Sue, I actually read your post wrong. I thought, for some reason, you were saying weeks owners may not be able to make the same trades.

Why measure it? To determine value in different situations. The more experiences that are posted here, the better Tuggers are able to come to their own conclusions about joining, not joining, converting or not converting legacy weeks.

Knowledge is power.