I wonder what Marriott considers "low" for a joiner fee? We have two weeks, I consider $100 to be low. My bet is Marriott will consider $500 to be low but, it could be higher.
Still, it's ANOTHER year out before anything happens according to your source. Anything can happen between now and then so, everything remains purely speculation. Since there's little I can do about what Marriott may or may not do, there's little sense in taking this into consideration with our current ownership interest and, should we think we might want to add another Marriott week, there's little reason to do so until AFTER Marriott decides what it wants to do.
Doug- I think it is anyone's guess what Marriott considers "low" for a joiner fee. I think the only concrete example of what Marriott may be considering is to take a look at the Asia-Pacific points program. There their "low" fee was around $5000.
And, IF that program is a precursor to what Marriott rolls out, it seems like there will be more losers here than winners. I think a huge problem for Marriott is that all Marriott owners have gotten used to the week for week concept, as well as at least like for like wrt size. It is going to be a very hard sell if Platinum 2BR's at whatever Marriott deems as lesser properties suddenly exchange only for a studio week elsewhere (and this is a very real possibility, if you look at the Asia Pacific points program as outlined).
The other very big issues I see is an equalization of MF's and what implications that has for individual resort HOA's and independent decisions. In the Asia Pacific program MF's are based on the number of points owned and are equal across the board, so high cost areas tend to fare better because the cost/risk is spread throughout the system. If resorts are no longer setting MF's (if Marriott opts to have MF's determined by points owned rather than resort specific) what impact will this have on the ability of individual resorts to make budgetary decisions?
As for how Marriott decides to treat resale purchases- that seems to be a question, at least according to Dave's source, that's still up in the air. It will be interesting to see if Marriott takes the high road, so to speak. I still maintain that Marriott has nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose IF they do not grandfather existing resale owners. I base this on the simple fact that any prior resales have already occurred, so not including past resale purchasers in the program would only serve to be punitive. It would not garner good will, nor would it embrace those owners in the new program that Marriott wants and needs to entice owners to join into. By grandfathering existing resale owners, Marriott stands only to gain- they get the membership fee, they get the important boost in initial membership to get the program rolling, and- perhaps most importantly- they keep their customer base happy.
Although resale owners make up only a small percentage of units sold, I'd venture to guess that most resale owners also own one or more direct purchases AND all resale owners are potential buyers of future properties. IF Marriott opted to be punitive and penalize current resale owners, then a lot of ill will/bad publicity would be generated.
Simply put, it would be bad business for Marriott to antagonize any current owner, especially since there would be no benefit.
Marriott needs- and wants- people to opt into their new program and needs to preserve their customer base for future properties. That's why I think registered owners as of the date that the plan is announced will be grandfathered in- not just wishful thinking, but because it makes good business sense.
Of course, that brings us to the rest of the question- what impact will this have on inherent residual value? Even though we know that buying a timeshare is not an investment, most buyers (even knowledgeable ones) have bought Marriott properties in the past confident that when they sold they would be worth something. I think we just need to look at Starwood for the long term implications of a points program which excludes future resale purchases. Voluntary units at the same locations are worth a fraction of what the mandatory resort units are. But, at least in Starwood's case, units were so classified from the get-go, so buyer knew from the outset that they would have limited resale value. In Marriott's case, they have sold very expensive properties and if a point system doesn't include future resale buyers, the current owners will be owning relatively worthless properties. I think even the most loyal Marriott supporter would be hard pressed to shell out $40,000 or so for a Platinum Cancun week (I am using that as an example because that's the next property online for release) if they knew that it would be immediately worth pennies on the dollar on the resale market because it could not be included in any Marriott exchange program, losing the benefit of any Marriott ownership).
With respect to how future resales may or may not be included I think Marriott has a more difficult decision to make; they will have to weigh the potential impact on being able to make sales against the potential loss of revenue due to resales being made on the open market. Let's face it though, Marriott cannot absorb and resell all the units owners need/want to sell, and the resale market helps sustain the timeshare model. regardless of what spin they put on things, I think sales would be negatively impacted if people didn't think they had any recourse in the future should their needs change. People would hesitate to buy if they felt they couldn't sell.
So, not that my opinion is worth much, IF Marriott ultimately chooses to roll out a points based internal trading program, I really think current resale owners will be grandfathered in because, as I've stated above, there is no benefit to Marriott if they are not included and there is the downside to bad will and less revenue for Marirott. I think they will want to maintain the perception of fairness. I think there is a good chance they will exclude or strongly penalize future resale buyers because they will want to encourage direct purchases and the issue of ill will is less here because people would be knowing what they were buying into and any limitations of the program beforehand. While it may be good in the short term for Marriott's bottom line, encouraging developer purchases in the future, I am not sure how it will impact sales overall; the problem remains that excluding future resale purchases from any program devalues everyone's ownership immediately. Given the fact that Marriott is reportedly planning on rolling out a program presumably when they anticipate the economy starting to recover, excluding future resales from any such program might just provide the devastating blow which would prevent any price recovery from the current economic downturn and would permanently cripple Marriott resales. Common sense dictates that, over time, this would likely impact future Marriott sales since people take comfort knowing that they can sell what they buy.
Dave- we appreciate your posts even if we don't particularly like the information. But it is good to be kept informed. I sadly fear Marriott is going down a dangerous path and, especially given the current instability, I can't understand why they are bent on changing something that is already working and has been so profitable over the years. Marriott's weeks system is a good model and, while I recognize there are those that would prefer more flexibility, most owners are happy with what they bought into (or there wouldn't be so many repeat buyers) and, given the current state of affairs in general, I personally think that making major changes over the next few years as the economy hopefully recovers is a bad move on their part. Adding uncertainty especially during a period of economic instability can't be good for business. I think Doug's point is a good one- all these MAY happen rumors aren't good for any business and can be disastrous at a time when businesses are just hanging on.
