Marriott Maui Preview in one hr-any questions?

[SueDonJ]

Poll time. Moderators pls help.

This is the second time that you've called out for a mod and no one is answering. It's a good thing you're not actually in distress!

DaveM is the mod assigned to this board. He's either given up on us as hopeless delinquents, or he's out on a boat in the middle of an ocean somewhere, or he's at some tennis match.

I like your idea for a poll. Maybe you could line up the questions and ask TUGBrian to post it while Dave decides if he's ever going to get his act together?

 

[taffy19]

I think everyone might be reading into #6 incorrectly. I am SURE that Marriott would not change the booking window for reserving our weeks from the current policy of the 12 or 13th month rules. What they MAY do is if resale owners trade their unit (for trading point credits?), then them may have a trading reservation window restricted vs developer purchased units that are traded (for trading point credits?). This would be similar to what Disney does with their points system for home and away resorts. Course, at this point everything is speculation but this is how I am reading what the OP wrote.

Nate

I understood it just like you so feel that a class action lawsuit, that some TUGgers recommended, would be a waste of time for everyone concerned. The internal exchange system is just one more option we will have to exchange to other Marriott resorts. You probably will have to pay an additional fee to use the internal system but people, who bought from the Marriott direct, may start exchanging earlier through their new system. Maybe that's what they mean?

 

[Troopers]

This is the second time that you've called out for a mod and no one is answering. It's a good thing you're not actually in distress!

DaveM is the mod assigned to this board. He's either given up on us as hopeless delinquents, or he's out on a boat in the middle of an ocean somewhere, or he's at some tennis match.

I like your idea for a poll. Maybe you could line up the questions and ask TUGBrian to post it while Dave decides if he's ever going to get his act together?

DeniseM, moderator of the Woodies, started one. There's a range of questions so it's not quite right but it's an indication of Woodies.

 

[roberto]

Marriott is not coming out with an Internal trade system as much as a "points" system which will allow those that buy into the point system to book direct with Marriott. Those owners who do not pay the additional to be part of the new program will still trade through II as they do today.

I have heard rumour that resale purchases outside of Marriott will not be allowed to purchase into the points program.

 

[judys19058]

People, people, people...So much anger and tension over something which is still speculation. I have also been to a presentation recently and the sales guy mentioned the coming of the internal trades and point based system. I figured, why get worked up until the facts come out? People are beating Marriott up over rumors and speculations. Wait until the new program is ready to roll.

 

[Steve]

New Poll is Open...see above

Poll time. Moderators pls help.

Bet's anyone? I'll take the under.

You have a poll. Let the voting begin!

Steve

 

[KathyPet]

OK so I am confused here. What does a poll about how you have purchased in the past and would purchase again in the future have anything to do with the rumored changes that may or may not happen to the Marriott program?? I know it's late and I am tired but I am not getting it.

 

[m61376]

Sometimes I get email that has a disclaimer on the bottom: "you can't publicly post this," "this is not a formal directive," "the contents contained herein do not represent the XYZ Corp.," "chew this thirty-seventeen times and then burn it," etc. We all have. I would guess that any email generated from an @marriott.com (or similar) address would contain such a disclaimer, considering that most every company under the sun uses one. I don't take anything as official policy unless and until the point when formal official documents have been filed wherever they need to be filed. In this "what if" situation, that point would be when the amendments stipulating MVCI's changes become part of the corresponding master contractual documents. Until then, anything is possible no matter who says what when.

Now about the rest of your post and this entire discussion, m, we've been around and around and around and over and through and upside-down at this point. I'm tired! Let's you and I agree to disagree with no concession that one of us is more or less correct than the other. Deal?

You're right about nothing being official policy until when- and if- an official announcement is made. What I was trying to say is that I don't think (although I could be wrong) any upper echelon would put something even unoffical in writing if that wasn't the intent. Which is why I believe, like posted above, the whole thing was either misconstrued from the beginning and/or, as is often the case, the salesperson either stretched the truth a bit or couched his statement in such a way as not to outright lie but to generate a misperception.

And - I like the idea of agreeing to disagree, It was never personal, and I hope you didn't take it that way, but just an interesting debate; as Kathy inferred, a great mental exercise and an interesting way to waste time. That's all. My guess is that we'd probably agree on more things than not.

 

[m61376]

Agreed.

However, I believe you have reached your conclusion about how owners will use their week assuming the only change is resale weeks are given a 6 month window. Except that with this 6 month window comes an internal exchange system. Spend more time on the Starwood boards (it's definitely not a perfect system)...owners of resort A are able to book prime weeks in resort B at the 8 month period even though owner of owners of resort B have an 12 to 8 month ressie window. That's impossible under your logic for a non owners of resort B.

There are several big differences between Marriott and Starwood, and the most glaring is that Starwood mandatory owners (the ones who are able to use the internal trading system) are not allowed to choose which weeks get deposited into II. They can only reserve a specific week to use or to rent, but not to trade externally. Marriott lets owners choose which week they want to deposit and even with an internal trading system II will still be in place. So owners will still be reserving more prime weeks then in the Starwood system at the 12 month window. And, if under your example, owners at other resorts were able to book at 8 months and resale owners couldn't even book at their home resort until later (at the 6 months as suggested), you could be darn sure every desirable week would be way gone.

Something interesting to note- Starwood never changed the rules along the way wrt the ability of direct or resale owners to make reservations. At their home resorts, Starwood direct and resale owners have the same booking privileges. Those who bought at mandatory resorts have the same internal trading privileges, while those who bought at voluntary resorts have to do all their trading through II. That's fine- because they knew what they were buying when they bought it (akin to grandfathering all current resale owners today by Marriott, so any rights had at time of purchase would be retained). Also interesting to note- since you mentioned the Starwood comparison- is that the resale value at voluntary properties is much less than at mandatory ones, even at locales which have sections of both. So, restricting certain owners from internal trading is not good for any owner at those properties if/when they decide to sell.

 

[m61376]

OK so I am confused here. What does a poll about how you have purchased in the past and would purchase again in the future have anything to do with the rumored changes that may or may not happen to the Marriott program?? I know it's late and I am tired but I am not getting it.

I think it was in response to someone disagreeing with my post that current resale owners are potential direct purchasers. I contend that even people that buy resale today and are happy with their purchase may be attracted to new properties and see the value in pre-construction pricing with a good up front incentive, especially at the initial offering.

It really has nothing to do with any rumored changes to the program, except in so far that, at least in my opinion, it is in Marriott's best interests to keep ALL their owners happy and not antagonize any segment of their owners.

 

[Troopers]

There are several big differences between Marriott and Starwood, and the most glaring is that Starwood mandatory owners (the ones who are able to use the internal trading system) are not allowed to choose which weeks get deposited into II. They can only reserve a specific week to use or to rent, but not to trade externally. Marriott lets owners choose which week they want to deposit and even with an internal trading system II will still be in place. So owners will still be reserving more prime weeks then in the Starwood system at the 12 month window. And, if under your example, owners at other resorts were able to book at 8 months and resale owners couldn't even book at their home resort until later (at the 6 months as suggested), you could be darn sure every desirable week would be way gone.

I know there are big differences btw the two systems. Yes, Starwood owners are unable to select the week for II but that doesn't mean they don't reserve at 12 months to secure a prime week. Still, somehow non owners are still able to reserve prime weeks. It happens because those who reserve at 12 months have to release that reserved prime week to reserve elsewhere (only one ressie allowed) which opens up that prime week for the other owners at 8 months.

Don't you think an internal exchange program will change the way owners reserve today?

I don't know if Marriott will implement a 8 month window for an internal exchange...I was simply using Starwood's 8 month as an example. What if it's at 6 months?

Btw, all developer weeks and resale weeks at mandatory resorts have access to the internal exchange program.

Something interesting to note- Starwood never changed the rules along the way wrt the ability of direct or resale owners to make reservations. At their home resorts, Starwood direct and resale owners have the same booking privileges. Those who bought at mandatory resorts have the same internal trading privileges, while those who bought at voluntary resorts have to do all their trading through II. That's fine- because they knew what they were buying when they bought it (akin to grandfathering all current resale owners today by Marriott, so any rights had at time of purchase would be retained). Also interesting to note- since you mentioned the Starwood comparison- is that the resale value at voluntary properties is much less than at mandatory ones, even at locales which have sections of both. So, restricting certain owners from internal trading is not good for any owner at those properties if/when they decide to sell.

Starwood hasn't changed the rules wrt to reservations for resale or developer weeks (not yet at least). However, they have changed many rules without notice. Yup, mandatory resorts have higher resale values than voluntary resorts (why? because one can reserve a prime week in a given season which supports my opinion).

Also, Starwood provides more value in developer purchases compared to Marriott because of 1. internal trading system and 2. ability to retro and/or upgrade. Although there are situations to buy direct, most Woodies would advise one to buy resale.

 

[Troopers]

You have a poll. Let the voting begin!

Steve

Thanks. I suggest separating this poll from this thread and making it a sticky. I think it's helpful for Marriott newbies. If you do that, remove "who cares". Who cares may be a choice as it relates to this thread but it wouldn't make sense if the poll stood alone.

 

[rsackett]

Marriott is not coming out with an Internal trade system as much as a "points" system which will allow those that buy into the point system to book direct with Marriott. Those owners who do not pay the additional to be part of the new program will still trade through II as they do today.

I have heard rumour that resale purchases outside of Marriott will not be allowed to purchase into the points program.

As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.

Marriott's goal is to make money. All actions they take are to make money. Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.

So IF Marriott is worried about resale buyers cutting into their profits here is what I predict:

Marriott will enact a points system for internal trading. ALL current (direct and resale) owners will need to buy in if you want to use this new system (Marriott makes money). New direct purchasers will be included in the points system for free (Marriott adds value to buying from them). Trading in the points system costs money each time it is used (Marriott makes money). After the point system starts resale buyers can buy in (Marriott makes money).

In the end Marriott makes money.

Ray

 

[Troopers]

As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.

Marriott's goal is to make money. All actions they take are to make money. Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.

So IF Marriott is worried about resale buyers cutting into their profits here is what I predict:

Marriott will enact a points system for internal trading. ALL current (direct and resale) owners will need to buy in if you want to use this new system (Marriott makes money). New direct purchasers will be included in the points system for free (Marriott adds value to buying from them). Trading in the points system costs money each time it is used (Marriott makes money). After the point system starts resale buyers can buy in (Marriott makes money).

In the end Marriott makes money.

Ray

I agree. Marriott may follow Starwood and require an annual fee regardless if it's used or not (Marriott makes more money). Starwood's annual fee is $109 which also includes II membership.

 

[SueDonJ]

I voted 1 in the poll, because we would definitely buy direct again. The thing is, that's IF we were to buy again, but we have no plans to buy at all. I could have voted 3, maybe, but wouldn't that mean we might buy resale? Again, IF ... Hmmmmmmmm. Please don't comment about how this really doesn't matter in the great grand scheme of things, okay? I know that already. It's just a comment.

And one last thing (promise!):

I just finished reading an email from someone who prefers to not be involved in the thread, and he has a contact who has far greater knowledge than I think any of us do - a law professor. You'll find me on the roof, waiting for another more knowledgeable somebody to come along with the rebuttal. :rofl:

>>Current resale owners would be on the stronger legal ground because an ongoing conduct incorporates "the course of performance" into the contract's written words.

What that means is that if the two parties to a contract act like something is part of a contract, over time courts view it as part of the contract.

And that because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners.

He said Marriott would be free to change the rules for all resale purchasers going forward.<<

 

[SueDonJ]

[the law professor said,] "Marriott would be free to change the rules for all resale purchasers going forward."

Does this make anyone think twice about voting "I bought resale and will only buy resale in the future."?

 

[m61376]

Susan-
I actually was looking for a bowing down smilie, 'cause I think you deserved one, but I didn't see it.

It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased. I guess that's why I was so vehement about it. Even if they don't have a legal obligation (which apparently past performance does convey) they have a moral obligation, and acting righteously is always a big issue with me.

Even though you perhaps didn't agree with it, it is uplifting that you are open to other's interpretations.

And, to answer your question- although I didn't maintain that I would definitely buy resale in the future, and in fact could envision that direct purchases would make sense under the right set of circumstances, I think how people will vote will depend largely upon what changes Marriott makes to the resale program. If they follow Starwood's example, as it stands, then I think you will see the same trend as with Starwood owners. There, all owners get to reserve their home resort at 12 months, direct or resale. At 8 months, direct owners can book another resort in the system, releasing their initial reservation if they made one at their home resort. If they want to trade outside of Starwood, they can deposit into II at 12 months, but Starwood selects the week (and even the resort) that is deposited. They can own a premium week and get an off-season week elsewhere as their trader, so their trade value may not be what they actually bought. Resale buyers at some of the resorts (mandatory resorts) reserve and trade the same way. Resale buyers at voluntary resorts can reserve their home resort the same way, but can deposit whatever week they reserve into II. So, although Trooper is right in his contention that some weeks would be released at 8 months by direct owners (as well as resale owners at mandatory resorts), generally the prime weeks are long gone before 6 months.

Thus, if Marriott was to restrict future resale purchasers from reserving at their home resort until 6 months beforehand, I think the value of future resale weeks will be next to nill, because assuredly all the prime weeks would be gone. If resale purchasers could reserve at the same time at their home resort (akin to the Starwood system), but are just limited to how they exchange, then I think you will see many people still interested in resales if they primarily want to use their home resort, and be more interested in developer purchases if they want increased trade ability. Again like Starwood, I think prices would decline for resales that don't enjoy the same flexibility into trading into other Marriotts (like prices at their voluntary resorts).

But- IF Marriott was to exclude future resale purchasers from an internal trading system and/or restrict their reservation ability, I personally think that the resale prices would plummet more than with Starwood, because of Starwood's other policies. Of course, that's my opinion.

So whether people would rethink their stance as whether to buy resale or not I think depends on large part what Marirott decides to do, what the future costs and cost differentials are and what purchase incentives Marriott offers.

And, while Starwood was used as an example, while I can see benefits to the Starwood reservation system, I can see a lot of drawbacks too. I think a very major one is that Marriott owners are used to being able to deposit what they reserve, and would be crazed if they wanted to trade in II and was assigned an off season week when they reserved a 4th of July week originally, for example. But that hopefully won't be a topic that we will be discussing down the road; hopefully whatever internal trading program that Marriott might adopt (if they actually do adopt) will take the best parts from all programs, as well as include the ability for people to firm up their plans a year in advance so that they can avail themselves of FF tickets, etc.

 

[thinze3]

DING! DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner!

I agree 100% with this speculation.

As long as we are all speculating, I'll through my guess into the ring.

Marriott's goal is to make money. All actions they take are to make money. Any actions they take in "Rewarding" direct purchasers are to make money.

So IF Marriott is worried about resale buyers cutting into their profits here is what I predict:

Marriott will enact a points system for internal trading. ALL current (direct and resale) owners will need to buy in if you want to use this new system (Marriott makes money). New direct purchasers will be included in the points system for free (Marriott adds value to buying from them). Trading in the points system costs money each time it is used (Marriott makes money). After the point system starts resale buyers can buy in (Marriott makes money).

In the end Marriott makes money.

Ray

 

[m61376]

DING! DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner!

I agree 100% with this speculation.

While I agree with rsackett's post, which is the "winner" you are referring to- rsackett (for his post) or Marriott?

 

[Troopers]

Susan-
I actually was looking for a bowing down smilie, 'cause I think you deserved one, but I didn't see it.

It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased. I guess that's why I was so vehement about it. Even if they don't have a legal obligation (which apparently past performance does convey) they have a moral obligation, and acting righteously is always a big issue with me.

Even though you perhaps didn't agree with it, it is uplifting that you are open to other's interpretations.

And, to answer your question- although I didn't maintain that I would definitely buy resale in the future, and in fact could envision that direct purchases would make sense under the right set of circumstances, I think how people will vote will depend largely upon what changes Marriott makes to the resale program. If they follow Starwood's example, as it stands, then I think you will see the same trend as with Starwood owners. There, all owners get to reserve their home resort at 12 months, direct or resale. At 8 months, direct owners can book another resort in the system, releasing their initial reservation if they made one at their home resort. If they want to trade outside of Starwood, they can deposit into II at 12 months, but Starwood selects the week (and even the resort) that is deposited. They can own a premium week and get an off-season week elsewhere as their trader, so their trade value may not be what they actually bought. Resale buyers at some of the resorts (mandatory resorts) reserve and trade the same way. Resale buyers at voluntary resorts can reserve their home resort the same way, but can deposit whatever week they reserve into II. So, although Trooper is right in his contention that some weeks would be released at 8 months by direct owners (as well as resale owners at mandatory resorts), generally the prime weeks are long gone before 6 months.

Thus, if Marriott was to restrict future resale purchasers from reserving at their home resort until 6 months beforehand, I think the value of future resale weeks will be next to nill, because assuredly all the prime weeks would be gone. If resale purchasers could reserve at the same time at their home resort (akin to the Starwood system), but are just limited to how they exchange, then I think you will see many people still interested in resales if they primarily want to use their home resort, and be more interested in developer purchases if they want increased trade ability. Again like Starwood, I think prices would decline for resales that don't enjoy the same flexibility into trading into other Marriotts (like prices at their voluntary resorts).

But- IF Marriott was to exclude future resale purchasers from an internal trading system and/or restrict their reservation ability, I personally think that the resale prices would plummet more than with Starwood, because of Starwood's other policies. Of course, that's my opinion.

So whether people would rethink their stance as whether to buy resale or not I think depends on large part what Marirott decides to do, what the future costs and cost differentials are and what purchase incentives Marriott offers.

And, while Starwood was used as an example, while I can see benefits to the Starwood reservation system, I can see a lot of drawbacks too. I think a very major one is that Marriott owners are used to being able to deposit what they reserve, and would be crazed if they wanted to trade in II and was assigned an off season week when they reserved a 4th of July week originally, for example. But that hopefully won't be a topic that we will be discussing down the road; hopefully whatever internal trading program that Marriott might adopt (if they actually do adopt) will take the best parts from all programs, as well as include the ability for people to firm up their plans a year in advance so that they can avail themselves of FF tickets, etc.

Completely agree.

Sorry…it wasn’t my intent to turn this thread into a Starwood vs Marriott thread. My intent was to illustrate reservation opportunities for prime weeks do exist for non owners (within Starwood).

 

[SueDonJ]

It was my contention all along that Marriott had an obligation to current owners to continue the privileges under which they purchased.

The ONLY thing which gave me pause about that obligation is that MVCI has in the past amended the reservation policy (13/12-month rule) without grandfathering current owners at the time. Maybe the lawyers came up with the 50% inventory control to satisfy "the course of performance" factor? If so, couldn't they conceivably* do it again? (i.e. release X% at 13-mo to multi-week owners / X% at 12-mo to single week direct owners / remaining inventory at 6-mo to resale owners) More logistical nightmare stuff.

*I know, I know, we might have gotten the original premise incorrect, but there's no harm in continuing the discussion.

 

[Latravel]

The first thing that comes to mind is when we purchased Timber Lodge, we decided to finance for 6 months just to get the points. If you remember, they had a program that if you financed for 6 months, you get some amount of points. It's even in a contract! Well, mid way, they stopped that program so we paid the timeshare off but I wasn't happy! I'm not sure we got any points at all.

So, bottom line, they can change a program at their will and there's nothing you can do about it. People talk so confidently about a lawsuit, but that's difficult, time consuming and just not practical.

 

[tlwmkw]

I can see both sides of this argument but bottom line will be whatever Marriott does then if you challenge them in court you will win or lose based on who has the most convincing lawyers. Marriott has deep pockets to pay those lawyers and all that tiny writing in the contracts allows for all sorts of future changes which we may or may not like. I think Heidi is right that this can be interpreted in either way.

 

[m61376]

The ONLY thing which gave me pause about that obligation is that MVCI has in the past amended the reservation policy (13/12-month rule) without grandfathering current owners at the time. Maybe the lawyers came up with the 50% inventory control to satisfy "the course of performance" factor? If so, couldn't they conceivably* do it again? (i.e. release X% at 13-mo to multi-week owners / X% at 12-mo to single week direct owners / remaining inventory at 6-mo to resale owners) More logistical nightmare stuff.

*I know, I know, we might have gotten the original premise incorrect, but there's no harm in continuing the discussion.

I hope you're kidding ...somehow I think we've rehashed this to death.

And, yes, they could come up with some nightmare percentage of each week arrangement. Of course, that would likely tick the direct purchasers who would have access to less inventory of each week and increase the complexity of the reservation system. Increased complexity = increased cost, and guess who'd land up paying for it? I think the one thing we would all agree upon, even without a poll, is that the MF's are high enough and no one wants a system that will result in increased costs. Trust me, I am sure Marriott would find a way to make the owners underwrite any costs.

Heidi- I think the reason Marriott was able to do that is because the financing falls under different regulations then the usage rights of the property. Lending institutions (and loans generated) have specific regulations and my guess is that if you read over your mortgage or financing paperwork carefully there would be a clause in there akin to "subject to availability" or the like which allowed them to stop offering the points. And- not meaning to be disrespectful or start an argument here- we'd better all hope you are very wrong and that they can't simply change a program at their will. That would be very scary!

Past precedent as to how they handled the 13/12 month rule, coupled with Susan's earlier post (which adds further credibility to that), makes me confident that all the talk about a court challenge is simply rhetorical. I'd like to think Marriott is a good company and will do right by all its owners.

 

[sdtugger]

I voted 1 in the poll, because we would definitely buy direct again. The thing is, that's IF we were to buy again, but we have no plans to buy at all. I could have voted 3, maybe, but wouldn't that mean we might buy resale? Again, IF ... Hmmmmmmmm. Please don't comment about how this really doesn't matter in the great grand scheme of things, okay? I know that already. It's just a comment.

And one last thing (promise!):

I just finished reading an email from someone who prefers to not be involved in the thread, and he has a contact who has far greater knowledge than I think any of us do - a law professor. You'll find me on the roof, waiting for another more knowledgeable somebody to come along with the rebuttal. :rofl:

>>Current resale owners would be on the stronger legal ground because an ongoing conduct incorporates "the course of performance" into the contract's written words.

What that means is that if the two parties to a contract act like something is part of a contract, over time courts view it as part of the contract.

And that because Marriott has set up this system, and owners have relied on it, it is likely contractually enforceable in its exact current form for current owners.

He said Marriott would be free to change the rules for all resale purchasers going forward.<<

I tried to tell you . . . . If I would have told you that I also teach law school would that have made you believe earlier?