Marriott points and internal exchange program - the latest info

[RandR]

How does the existing Marriott point system work with regard to combining points from multiple units? I have the same question with regard to the Starwood and other systems. In other words, could you purchase two low cost weeks with low maintenance fees and combine the points to trade? If so, that might actually be a benefit of the new system? In other words, could two low value weeks equal a Hawaii plat week in the number of points for example?

Marriott does not have an existing points system for their ts it is a weeks based system. I am pretty sure that Hilton lets you combine the points you buy from multiple properties (or the same property) and then use those points as you wish. You still get priority at your own property for a window of time.

 

[PerryM]

Possibly, for the same reasons that folks who buy direct from MVCI now do, despite knowing that they face a practically guaranteed financial loss should they choose to sell in the future? It's a hedged bet, at least it was for us, against the most drastic devaluation in usage that could occur in the future.

Because regardless of whatever supplemental exchange company or system (or any other related ownership allowance) that MVCI chooses, the only thing guaranteed by the ownership documents is the usage ability to occupy, rent or trade the specific resort/season/unit type that you've purchased.

It's all speculation here though, isn't it, leading to as severely depressed a resale market as is being discussed?

Correct!

Marriott owners in mature resorts (long ago sold out by Marriott) want to exchange reservations - this is now the #1 reason to buy a timeshare - at least that's what I read from the surveys.

Marriott owners now have that ability through a 3rd party since Marriott never wanted to get into the reservation exchange business.

Now the question is will Marriott offer an inferior product for the owners to use? Preventing 20% of them from participating in this exchange of reservations is NOT in the best interest of the owners.

Each year has those same owners wanting to sell their weeks for various reasons and want to find someone to assume their ownership and to pay the MFs. Next year there will be more owners who want to sell and new owners to replace them.

Marriott can easily screw the owners by barring resale owners - the question is will they do it as they have promised?

I assume they will screw the owners - I take the rumor as it has been spread.

This is all about greed on Marriott's part - how much greed is enough?

 

[hotcoffee]

Marriott being in the resale business doesn't necessarily help you. They will help you sell your unit now but the wait can be 2+ years.

Marriott becoming more involved in resales than currently will help all owners. It would mean that Marriott would act as brokers, like current real estate brokers. There is no guarantee that any of us could sell our unit today in less than 2+ years (unless, of course, you want to sell at a can't-refuse price). It's not the length of time it takes to sell that is the issue. It is the fact that the buyer would not be severely penalized if Marriott were to act as broker. If Marriott decides not to penalize new buyers any more than they currently do resale owners, then the issue is a moot point.

I have no issue with Marriott rewarding direct buyers with as much value-added features as they want. As long as everyone can reserve good weeks, exchange into good resorts for good weeks, and sell when needed, then this whole discussion is largely a moot point.

 

[SueDonJ]

Correct!

Marriott owners in mature resorts (long ago sold out by Marriott) want to exchange reservations - this is now the #1 reason to buy a timeshare - at least that's what I read from the surveys.

Marriott owners now have that ability through a 3rd party since Marriott never wanted to get into the reservation exchange business.

Now the question is will Marriott offer an inferior product for the owners to use? Preventing 20% of them from participating in this exchange of reservations is NOT in the best interest of the owners.

Each year has those same owners wanting to sell their weeks for various reasons and want to find someone to assume their ownership and to pay the MFs. Next year there will be more owners who want to sell and new owners to replace them.

Marriott can easily screw the owners by barring resale owners - the question is will they do it as they have promised?

I assume they will screw the owners - I take the rumor as it has been spread.

This is all about greed on Marriott's part - how much greed is enough?

Well, in the business world there is no such thing as too much revenue.

You're fixating on the distinction between sold-out resorts and those that still have developer inventory available, Perry, but as I said before, ROFR allows for MVCI to pick up developer inventory at any time. That negates your distinction, at least at those resorts with ROFR.

Edit: Also, as long as owners have an option to exchange their units, by way of a private exchange or through whatever means MVCI may choose to make available to them, then the deeded usage right to exchange is not infringed. That right is deeded, but the parameters for any supplemental exchange program that MVCI chooses to offer in conjunction with the deeded resort/season/week are not. hotcoffee mentions "value added features" in a post up there, I like that terminology better than the "system" or "program" that I've been using to try to mean those features not deeded.

 

[RandR]

Marriott becoming more involved in resales than currently will help all owners. It would mean that Marriott would act as brokers, like current real estate brokers. There is no guarantee that any of us could sell our unit today in less than 2+ years (unless, of course, you want to sell at a can't-refuse price). It's not the length of time it takes to sell that is the issue. It is the fact that the buyer would not be severely penalized if Marriott were to act as broker. If Marriott decides not to penalize new buyers any more than they currently do resale owners, then the issue is a moot point.

I have no issue with Marriott rewarding direct buyers with as much value-added features as they want. As long as everyone can reserve good weeks, exchange into good resorts for good weeks, and sell when needed, then this whole discussion is largely a moot point.

I agree that if Marriott treats everyone the same it is a moot point. Unfortunately the speculation is that they will not. I guess only time will tell.

 

[hotcoffee]

hotcoffee mentions "value added features" in a post up there, I like that terminology better than the "system" or "program" that I've been using to try to mean those features not deeded.

Keep in mind that a new points-based internal trading system is not quite the same as a value-added feature. Let's suppose that the new system becomes a big hit, and sucks up many of the available Marriott weeks. And, let's assume that Marriott takes the most radical course and excludes resale owners (either new or current or both), then resale owners plus those direct owners who elect not to join the new system will have a diminished number of Marriott weeks to exchanged with. That's fine if they are happy always going to their home resort or are satisfied with whatever II has to offer, but it is a significant loss of what owning a Marriott timeshare should have been.

What Marriott could do to enhance the direct buy program is, first-of-all, stop devaluing the point values, and then add some new advantages like exchanging a TS week for perhaps two weeks directly into one of their non-resort hotels anywhere in the world (or something like that). That type of thing would be value-added. Robbing resale owners of exchange weeks is not value-added to direct buyers.

 

[SueDonJ]

Keep in mind that a new points-based internal trading system is not quite the same as a value-added feature. Let's suppose that the new system becomes a big hit, and sucks up many of the available Marriott weeks. And, let's assume that Marriott takes the most radical course and excludes resale owners (either new or current or both), then resale owners plus those direct owners who elect not to join the new system will have a diminished number of Marriott weeks to exchanged with. That's fine if they are happy always going to their home resort or are satisfied with whatever II has to offer, but it is a significant loss of what owning a Marriott timeshare should have been.

What Marriott could do to enhance the direct buy program is, first-of-all, stop devaluing the point values, and then add some new advantages like exchanging a TS week for perhaps two weeks directly into one of their non-resort hotels anywhere in the world (or something like that). That type of thing would be value-added. Robbing resale owners of exchange weeks is not value-added to direct buyers.

Ah, there I go adding confusion to the mix again. I meant that I liked using "value added features" to specify the terms of ownership usage that are not specifically deeded although the usage right is. In other words, exchanging is a deeded right, exchanging through the current system with II is the value added to that right. Does that make sense? In any event, it confused even you so maybe it's best to go back to the drawing board.

As far as the speculation in this thread about what would be the specific terms/features to the deeded exchange right, I'm not assuming anything. I still can't figure out if folks are talking here about a points-based system being applied for every aspect of ownership or just the exchange aspect!

 

[icydog]

I have a question. Will the points be Marriott Reward points or will there be yet another point system on top of their already popular Marriott Rewards?

 

[PerryM]

Well, in the business world there is no such thing as too much revenue.

You're fixating on the distinction between sold-out resorts and those that still have developer inventory available, Perry, but as I said before, ROFR allows for MVCI to pick up developer inventory at any time. That negates your distinction, at least at those resorts with ROFR.

Edit: Also, as long as owners have an option to exchange their units, by way of a private exchange or through whatever means MVCI may choose to make available to them, then the deeded usage right to exchange is not infringed. That right is deeded, but the parameters for any supplemental exchange program that MVCI chooses to offer in conjunction with the deeded resort/season/week are not. hotcoffee mentions "value added features" in a post up there, I like that terminology better than the "system" or "program" that I've been using to try to mean those features not deeded.

I see no difference between a resale to another person and a resale to Marriott.

Just where is there a difference?

Marriott flips the unit just like any mortal person can.

Show me, in any documents, where Marriott gets a special advantage on a resale concerning exchange abilities?

Once Marriott has sold out a resort they made their profit and if they want to act as the closing agent for the new buyer or flip the unit they are NO different than any other owner at the sold out resort.

The HOA controls everything at the resort and can kick Marriott out as the management company. I'm sure the clever lawyers put a sentence in that allows Marriott to hawk resales from the premises.

Now Marriott wants to control how owners at the sold out resort exchange their reservations among other Marriott owners in other sold out resorts. I don't see where they have any right to do this. But I'm not a lawyer.

Just because Marriott says they can do this does not mean its so.

Hopefully an HOA will decide that Marriott doesn't have that right to interfere with their owner's ability to exchange reservations. But time will tell.

If Marriott had me sign a document that stated I could be barred from exchanging reservations with other Marriott owners when I bought resale and direct that would be a different thing. But they never said that.

 

[Pit]

You're fixating on the distinction between sold-out resorts and those that still have developer inventory available, Perry, but as I said before, ROFR allows for MVCI to pick up developer inventory at any time. That negates your distinction, at least at those resorts with ROFR.

Rofr is irrelevant here. Any developer can pick up inventory at any time simply by bidding on ebay (at least one developer does so). Rofr is not necessary for developers to buy back resale inventory.

And, let's assume that Marriott takes the most radical course and excludes resale owners (either new or current or both), then resale owners plus those direct owners who elect not to join the new system will have a diminished number of Marriott weeks to exchanged with.

It should be noted that by splitting the inventory pool, those who elect the internal system will also have a diminished number of Marriott weeks to exchange with. So, which pool will be better, IIs or Marriotts?

 

[SueDonJ]

I see no difference between a resale to another person and a resale to Marriott.

Just where is there a difference?

Marriott flips the unit just like any mortal person can.

Show me, in any documents, where Marriott gets a special advantage on a resale concerning exchange abilities?

Once Marriott has sold out a resort they made their profit and if they want to act as the closing agent for the new buyer or flip the unit they are NO different than any other owner at the sold out resort.

The HOA controls everything at the resort and can kick Marriott out as the management company. I'm sure the clever lawyers put a sentence in that allows Marriott to hawk resales from the premises.

Now Marriott wants to control how owners at the sold out resort exchange their reservations among other Marriott owners in other sold out resorts. I don't see where they have any right to do this. But I'm not a lawyer.

Just because Marriott says they can do this does not mean its so.

Hopefully an HOA will decide that Marriott doesn't have that right to interfere with their owner's ability to exchange reservations. But time will tell.

If Marriott had me sign a document that stated I could be barred from exchanging reservations with other Marriott owners when I bought resale and direct that would be a different thing. But they never said that.

My point is, ROFR negates the distinction between a sold out resort and one which has developer inventory available. That's why I don't understand why you make the distinction such as when you say this:

Now Marriott wants to control how owners at the sold out resort exchange their reservations among other Marriott owners in other sold out resorts.

IF these rumored changes or any others are made to the current exchange system, even if there are differences between the terms applied to developer and resale units, then won't Marriott/MVCI be controlling how owners at ALL of the resorts are able to exchange among other MVCI owners?

I'm just not getting the distinction, that's all. Sold-out or not, MVCI is still the developer as well as the management company.

 

[sdtugger]

Marriott does not have an existing points system for their ts it is a weeks based system. I am pretty sure that Hilton lets you combine the points you buy from multiple properties (or the same property) and then use those points as you wish. You still get priority at your own property for a window of time.

I was referring to the Marriott point system for the Asian properties and some others such as Las Vegas. I would expect that Marriott's new points system would be modeled after their existing system at some level. How do points work in that existing system?

 

[hotcoffee]

It should be noted that by splitting the inventory pool, those who elect the internal system will also have a diminished number of Marriott weeks to exchange with. So, which pool will be better, IIs or Marriotts?

That makes any decision to convert weeks to a new system a bit of a gamble. If only two owners ended up converting, they sure would get tired exchanging with each other every year.

 

[davidvel]

Now Marriott wants to control how owners at the sold out resort exchange their reservations among other Marriott owners in other sold out resorts. I don't see where they have any right to do this. But I'm not a lawyer.

I am a lawyer. In the Imagined MAR Trading System (MTS), Marriott is not controlling how owners exchange their reservations, except within their voluntary system. You have a right to join or not, but can't argue with their terms.
. . .

Hopefully an HOA will decide that Marriott doesn't have that right to interfere with their owner's ability to exchange reservations. But time will tell.

The HOA doens't have to do anything, as the IMTS doesn't affect anyone's trading rights unless they choose to join, which is optional and voluntary. The HOA is only on the hook if Marriott (as its manager) doesn't allow you to reserve your week, in season, 12/13 months out, or allows anyone else to do otherwise.

Perry, you can set up the Perry Trading System (PTS), and allow resale and direct purchasers (or charge direct purchasers more), I suppose. Will you be able to market as well? No. Will you be as big and funded as Marriot (maybe ). But this is why some trading systmes work and others don't. Obviously Marriott would have a huge advantage, but has yet to dive into this area, possibly for anti-trust concerns as you allude to.

The point being (as has been made countless times but forgotten as many), the IMTS is nothing more than another trading option ala II, redweek, RCI, ownertrades, PTS... none of which were guranteed or contractually promised to purchasers, direct or not.

 

[dougp26364]

Why would anyone buy a timeshare from Marriott if they are told there is little opportunity to sell it on the resale market?

If Marriott markets this new plan and uses it as a way to promote developer sales, it will make it difficult to sell anything resale. So Marriott has a new internal trading system, but you can't use it if you don't purchase from Marriott?

What happens if I buy from Marriott and then at a later date this timeshare doesn't meet my needs? No one will want it because a resale unit can't utilize the Marriott internal trading system.

Marriott can't be this dumb! Why would anyone ever buy a timeshare from them once this new program is introduced? It makes no sense to me, everyone (or their heirs) needs to sell their timeshare units at some point in the future.

I can answer this question in two words: IMPULSE BUYER. People who buy from the developer aren't thinking about all the angles. They're not thinking about selling, they're thinking about buying and using. They're invited to "preview" a resort for a gift and get blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch. Those that bite aren't looking at the alternatives down the road and the salesman certainly isn't going to clue them in that resale values are 25 to 50% (or less) than developer pricing.

 

[dougp26364]

I have a question. Will the points be Marriott Reward points or will there be yet another point system on top of their already popular Marriott Rewards?

The only program I can compare to would be Hilton and, I'd suspect Marriott would be the same. HGVC points and HHonors points are two different programs. HGVC points exchange on a ratio of something like 1:25 when converted to HHonors points (I don't know the exact number, I've never converted my points to HHonors points). HGVC has made it so a member can use their HGVC points to book hotel rooms directly rather than convert to HHonors and then book hotel rooms.

It's anyone's guess what/if Marriott will do the same. Right now, it's all speculation and guessing about something the does not exist.

 

[SueDonJ]

I can answer this question in two words: IMPULSE BUYER. People who buy from the developer aren't thinking about all the angles. They're not thinking about selling, they're thinking about buying and using. They're invited to "preview" a resort for a gift and get blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch. Those that bite aren't looking at the alternatives down the road and the salesman certainly isn't going to clue them in that resale values are 25 to 50% (or less) than developer pricing.

All developer purchasers are not impulse buyers. Neither are we all clueless, as has been insinuated in a few of these posts. Some developer purchasers think the MRP exchange option works for them, some like the ease of processing that's practically guaranteed, some have other reasons. My "hedged bet" reason, as I said above, was the catalyst.

My point is, developer purchasers can't be pigeon-holed by their reasons for buying direct. You can disagree with any reasons you've heard, sure, but you can't say that the only reason which makes sense to you is the only legitimate reason, especially when your reason happens to call into question whether or not developer purchasers are also informed purchasers. Believe me, some of us are.

 

[davidvel]

All developer purchasers are not impulse buyers. Neither are we all clueless, as has been insinuated in a few of these posts.

This is certainly true, and there would be no general rule without exceptions.

But, I have to agree with Icydog that MOST, first-time direct purchasers do not have the wisdom of TUG, nor understand 10% of what those who study here do; and I also agree that MOST (a super majority at least) are impulse purchases who buy the lies, promises and pitch that cannot be found in the purchase contract (side benefits) or governing documents (rights); and that MOST, first-time direct purchasers are invited to "preview" a resort for a gift and get blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch.

I have been to the preview office in Tahoe, Newport Beach and Palm Desert and asked for the "white report" which is a DRE disclosure document that CA state law requires the seller provide upon request to any potential purchaser, wihtout obligation or a sales tour. Never have I received one. If I can't get the state required disclosures upon request, I am sure the lay-person seeking a $75 gift card won't either (maybe in the huge stack they are supposed to read to determine if they want to rescind.)

For all these reasons, I don't think that the new points system or what any salesperson says about it has any material affect upon direct-sales. I firmly believe that the primary purpose of this system isn't to create any distinction between re-sale and direct purchase, but simply to make more $$ for Marriott. Of course, any benefit the saleseople perceive to pushing this they will use.

 

[lovearuba]

decisions are personal

I can answer this question in two words: IMPULSE BUYER. People who buy from the developer aren't thinking about all the angles. They're not thinking about selling, they're thinking about buying and using. They're invited to "preview" a resort for a gift and get blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch. Those that bite aren't looking at the alternatives down the road and the salesman certainly isn't going to clue them in that resale values are 25 to 50% (or less) than developer pricing.

I bought from the developer and did go in with my eyes open. I was not thinking of selling because I had visited Aruba at least 7 times and knew I would use the resort. I also liked the presentation which showed me how I could trade for points, rent or exchange. Most of the sales pitch was a pack of lies. People like to blame it on sales people. Marriott salespeople represent Marriott. What isnt said is more important than what is said. I didnt go there on a preview and I did look at alternative timeshares in Aruba. I did not know about resale and would never have bought through the developer if it wasnt for the fact that the salesperson told me you couldnt buy resale. He told me to look at the newspapers there were no resales for the Marriott ocean in aruba. Imagine that. Imagine that I trusted Marriott. I should not have and learned a very expensive lesson. This points system is extremely disturbing. Its another money generating product from a company that lost my respect. I still love their resorts though. Have to admit, they have beautiful resorts.

 

[SueDonJ]

This is certainly true, and there would be no general rule without exceptions.

But, I have to agree with Icydog that MOST, first-time direct purchasers do not have the wisdom of TUG, nor understand 10% of what those who study here do; and I also agree that MOST (a super majority at least) are impulse purchases who buy the lies, promises and pitch that cannot be found in the purchase contract (side benefits) or governing documents (rights); and that MOST, first-time direct purchasers are invited to "preview" a resort for a gift and get blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch.

I have been to the preview office in Tahoe, Newport Beach and Palm Desert and asked for the "white report" which is a DRE disclosure document that CA state law requires the seller provide upon request to any potential purchaser, wihtout obligation or a sales tour. Never have I received one. If I can't get the state required disclosures upon request, I am sure the lay-person seeking a $75 gift card won't either (maybe in the huge stack they are supposed to read to determine if they want to rescind.)

For all these reasons, I don't think that the new points system or what any salesperson says about it has any material affect upon direct-sales. I firmly believe that the primary purpose of this system isn't to create any distinction between re-sale and direct purchase, but simply to make more $$ for Marriott. Of course, any benefit the saleseople perceive to pushing this they will use.

I completely agree with everything you say, but I will also continue to counter every developer v. resale discussion that does not make any allowance at all for the admittedly few exceptions to the "developer buyers don't know enough to buy resale instead" mindset that prevails here.

 

[Dean]

IMO, there are very limited appropriate reasons for the truly informed to buy retail. Things like getting something you can't get resale like a fixed week on Maui or that hot new resort at good pre-construction prices might do it. Just to get points is likely not a good choice. To have financing options is also not a good choice. However, I realize that there needs to be many that do buy for the system to stay afloat and for those of us "in the know" to take advantage of the benefits of resale.

 

[RandR]

Thought I would post this link to the points chart for Hilton so people can get a look at the distribution that Hilton uses. It is a little more detailed than the one TUG has. Newer resorts have higher point values but the vast majority of Hilton ts use this chart. Plus and Premier are upgrades generally based on location, size or view.

http://www.alltimeshare.com/HiltonPointsPerSeason.html

If something like this is put in, the people bought Silver or Bronze will be extremely unhappy with the new system. (Of course they can just stay with the old system.) A 2BR Silver week would only get a 1BR Gold or a Studio Plus (if available at the resort they want) during Platinum time.

 

[Latravel]

I think it's really interesting to read people who actually put in writing they know so much more than others. It's amazing!

It doesn't matter that 93% of Marriott owners bought developer, which equates to hundreds of thousands of people. ALL these people were blindsighted and uninformed? What do you know that these people didn't?

Could it be these people were looking more long term than the short term savings of money? Could it be they WANTED to be a complete member of the Marriott vacation club to protect themselves from exactly what is happening now? You may have to rethink your comments when changes come around. Then how will you feel?

 

[DaveHenry]

Will Marriott computer grab all the good weeks?

Or will Marriott's computer grab all the good weeks at 8:00:00 using the points units and leave the crumbs for the nonconverting owner who calls at 8:00:01?

 

[Latravel]

sorry - double post