Marriott points and internal exchange program - the latest info

[SueDonJ]

The one's I know best that are applicable are Bluegreen, Disney and RCI points. They are all different. Disney has 1 resort coming in HI but the points are not out. BG has 1, but it is an affiliate and not a core resort. RCI points also is limited. Disney is points based entirely where a week has essentially no meaning, Bluegreen and RCI are both points based for underlying weeks (or portions of a week in limited situations), I believe Wyndham is a combination of the two types with newer being points only and older ones based on underlying weeks. Extracting from other information for other destinations and a little info about other points systems, here are a few thoughts.

Marriott has a weeks based system and thus would have to take that approach. A given resort, week and unit size would give X points. They'd have to have a way to allow you to keep your week. RCI points and BG does this by giving you a priority window to reserve your owned underlying week. The floating nature of Marriott's weeks system definitely throws a curve ball to this. Do they allow you to reserve only the week on your deed or only to the units/weeks that are included in the points system? That part could get tricky but I'm sure there's a decent way to do it that's fair to everyone. Maybe they allow you to reserve the week first then deposit to points similar to the way Hyatt does it.

They then have to decide on HOW they allow reservations. Given you'd have mostly weeks and limited points week early, reservations could be quite tricky and difficult for points more so than weeks though much later when it was mostly points, the tables would be turned. Do they allow only full weeks and only allow shorter reservation much later? Until there is wide spread participation I don't see how they could do anything other than a full week at the initial run. Both BG and I believe Wyndham, have a priority reservation system for retail owners that qualify. The benefits are really quite striking. It's a combo of qualified points (usually retail) AND the number of points you own. Marriott could do something like this or they could take the DVC or Club Intrawest approach where everyone is on the same plane and no one has a priority, or some in between options. BG has generally allowed you to buy something small directly (including resale through them) to move to the inner circle. I know fairfield did similar or a moderate conversion fee early on, not sure where they're going with fixed week owner currently or if they've written them off.

IMO, they'd need a large amount of participation early so some way to get a large portion of current owners to convert over would be imperative for a viable system. They could do so by charging a fee that was easily workable or they could allow conversions for the purchase of an additional week or just invite all comers if they wanted. The list of possibilities is almost endless. For new resorts they just start selling points but if there are only a handful of resorts on board, that doesn't get much interest because a new points owner needs access to the other resorts to be interested in this type of system. For new resorts they wouldn't even have to base them on a full week if they didn't want to.

Then there's the question of dues. DVC does it by resort per point with no adjustment for small or large contracts, not really a very fair system overall though. BG (mostly) does it as a base fee then so much per point and all members (mostly) pay the same base fee and pp costs no matter which resort they own. They also spread any assessments this way as well over the entire group. BG has some that are treated differently but this is the main portion that is applicable to this discussion IMO. For Marriott I think full fees for the resort, plus a club fee is most likely.

Then there's reservation and cancelation options. Do you charge for reservations, cancelations, banking/borrowing (if even allowed), housekeeping costs for shorter reservations like RCI points and Wyndham, etc, etc. The list of topics along this direction is almost endless.

As to trading, I think it depends on the resort and location. The difference for say Harbour Pt and Grande Ocean is likely much greater than the different from GO to any of the HI resorts. Then there's the 2 BR vs lockoff breakdown. More important might be the chance of getting a given reservation. I'll stop there.

Ugh, this sounds like it has the potential to be a nightmare if point values are applied to every aspect of ownership - home resort, dues, exchanges, etc ... I love the DVC setup but can't imagine the logistics involved in converting the overall MVCI ownership to that.

More and more I am really hoping that what's possibly being developed is only that overlay idea for exchanging. Even then, it won't be worth any fee to join if it doesn't offer the bonus weeks and getaways that we get from II now.

 

[Troopers]

Ugh, this sounds like it has the potential to be a nightmare if point values are applied to every aspect of ownership - home resort, dues, exchanges, etc ... I love the DVC setup but can't imagine the logistics involved in converting the overall MVCI ownership to that.

I doubt that...too big of an overhaul.

More and more I am really hoping that what's possibly being developed is only that overlay idea for exchanging. Even then, it won't be worth any fee to join if it doesn't offer the bonus weeks and getaways that we get from II now.

I'm not so sure about this. If Starwood is an example, I'd say it would be worth joining.

 

[Dean]

The earlier post mentioned that SVN does not allow banking of points. Do any of the other systems that you know of allow any points rollover from year-to-year? If not, this is goiing to be a real bummer for a lot of people. The only people who will do well will be the owners at top-tier resorts in top locations during platinum seasons. No one else gains much beyond what they already have as far as I can see, and some will even lose. I'm trying to see some advantage to joining (even if it would be free to join).

Bluegreen allows banking and borrowing for one year. You have to prepay fees to borrow and banked points have a fair amount of limitations on them. They tend to have cancelation fees but not other fees for multiples reservations, banking, borrowing, etc and no housekeeping fees with a 2 day min reservation. DVC allows banking and borrowing for 1 year, no fees of any kind for anything other than maint fees, 1 day min reservation. RCI points allows 1 year banking and borrowing with no borrowing fee and a potential banking fee that is waived for many people based on usage. RCI points has exchange fees that vary with the length of a reservation and the resorts almost always charge a housekeeping fee for less than 7 days which is often astronomical. With DVC and BG you can reserve 11 months out. With DVC you must plan and bank 4 months before the end of the UY, with BG, they roll over automatically (but as I said, are somewhat restricted).

I also own an individual resort in MX that works on points that are based on a week. You have a priority period where only those those points are based on that type unit can reserve that is 3 months long then on 1 Jan, you can reserve anything for up until the end of the year the following year (up to 2 years out). There is a small fees to bank, borrow, multiple reservations and cancel. You also have to plan to bank and it's 6 months before the end of the calendar year.

I know I looked at Hyatt at one point and the banking and borrowing options were very limited and restrictive. The tour info I got when we stayed at the Westin on Maui suggested what you say, that Starwood is far too restrictive for me for their points system.

 

[Dean]

Ugh, this sounds like it has the potential to be a nightmare if point values are applied to every aspect of ownership - home resort, dues, exchanges, etc ... I love the DVC setup but can't imagine the logistics involved in converting the overall MVCI ownership to that.

More and more I am really hoping that what's possibly being developed is only that overlay idea for exchanging. Even then, it won't be worth any fee to join if it doesn't offer the bonus weeks and getaways that we get from II now.

Probably not so much other than for Marriott to work out the details of how THEY want it to work. Don't forget that any such option won't be a substitute for II, it will be a parallel path. You trade internally or you trade with II (or RCI if they were to change or even independents). And if they go with a points system, changing to RCI is a definite possibility I'd think. Regardless I'd think the internal trading preference would be eliminated or severely reduced for II.

I would agree it's a daunting task to think about a total change over and that in many ways, a voluntary second level system is actually more so. I vaguely remember all the discussions 12-13 years ago around the Fairfield conversion which started from a similar point and had essentially the same task being discussed here. My recollection (I'm sure many know better than I for this) is that their model was mostly to pay a fee to upgrade even for those that had bought retail. That fee was pretty high if I recall though variable. Such a system for MVCI would have to offer me a lot to get me involved because I am essentially at or near the top of the food chain now with Marriott.

Several systems have secondary points options they can use that tie to other systems. DVC has Club Intrawest and Club Cordial, Bluegreen has many of the Shell Properties, Hilton has some tie in's as well where you get the chance to reserve using points at resorts in other systems after the others in that system get first crack. I've long held that companies like Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Club Intrawest, Four Seasons and Disney should get together and trade among themselves. Disney actually has a registered exchange company, the Buena Vista Trading Company, set up already. Other's like Shell, BG, Wyndham might be able to participate but likely only their upper level resorts and not all of their resorts.

 

[thinze3]

I've long held that companies like Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Club Intrawest, Four Seasons and Disney should get together and trade among themselves.

... and Starwood and the Royals.

 

[IuLiKa]

Can someone provide an update with the points of the last 250 posts. I've lost this! I can't keep up.
Thx
IuLiKa

 

[Quimby4]

Can someone provide an update with the points of the last 250 posts. I've lost this! I can't keep up.
Thx
IuLiKa

The points are that nobody really knows anything!!
Dave has posted all he knows.
Just lots of speculating, worries and concerns.
Sit back and relax and we'll see what and when Marriott rolls out the program, then we can react accordingly

But I do appreciate everyone thoughts and insights of course

 

[Dean]

... and Starwood and the Royals.

Certainly, but only a subset of Starwood might be acceptable as well. Royals are interesting in that they have a parallel system for external exchanging that is not very workable for the situation we're discussing but is similar to what has been mentioned by some as a possibility.

 

[PerryM]

Marriott Internal Exchange to date

Can someone provide an update with the points of the last 250 posts. I've lost this! I can't keep up.
Thx
IuLiKa

Summary of Marriott's Internal Exchange system so far:
1) Marriott has amply demonstrated it intends to pit owner against owner to further profits

2) Marriott has amply demonstrated it will introduce a caste system to make further profits

3) Marriott has amply demonstrated it is at war with its owners to make further profits

4) Marriott has amply demonstrated it intends to hurt every Marriott owner’s resale values to make further profits

Beyond that its simply speculation on our part…

P.S.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that Marriott does not want us to buy Marriott timeshares right now either direct from Marriott or resale until they release the Marriott Internal Exchange system.

Folks, Marriott has given us 2-3 years of warning - don't bellyache to Marriott when they introduce the new system and you get screwed royally because you bought too early. They have given us fair warning on this matter.

Thanks, Marriott, for the heads-up.

 

[hotcoffee]

I appreciate all of the posts about how point systems work at the other TS companies. Gaining insight in how other systems work will make it easier to determine how good or bad the Marriott system will be (if they ever actually implement it), and, in my case, whether there would be any advantage to joining or not (assuming I can).

 

[IngridN]

I appreciate all of the posts about how point systems work at the other TS companies. Gaining insight in how other systems work will make it easier to determine how good or bad the Marriott system will be (if they ever actually implement it), and, in my case, whether there would be any advantage to joining or not (assuming I can).

This is our concern as well. While I appreciate the debate about resale value and the new program's impact on that, our concern is will we continue to get a week at another resort. When we purchased our Shadow Ridge units we purchased strictly to trade, right, wrong or indifferent. They were sold to us as "pre-paid vacations." We were not concerned with resale value. So when I lock off my week, I expect one studio and one 1 bedroom week at another resort during the gold season as well as low season in areas like Hawaii that have platinum designation for the entire year. If this new program does not deliver on that, you can bet I will be very upset and I don't expect to have to pay for this either. I also like the weeks system for the ability to upgrade when that is available, but don't see that as a "right."

The Aruba and Grand Chateau weeks are for personal use, so Marriott will not see those in it's new points program.

Just my 2 cents.

Ingrid

 

[Latravel]

"They were sold to us as "pre-paid vacations." We were not concerned with resale value."


This is the best post i've seen on this subject. It looks like you purchased direct from Marriott, because Marriott outright states you are purchasing a prepaid vacation, not an investment. All this talk about resale value is irrelevant! When you purchase a timeshare, this is part of the agreement. If you come back later and complain about your resale value, they can point to the original contract.

As Ingrid stated, we have to focus on what options this program offers for trading. Not resale value!

 

[davidvel]

As Ingrid stated, we have to focus on what options this program offers for trading. Not resale value!

I don't see any problem with people doing both.

It looks like you purchased direct from Marriott, because Marriott outright states you are purchasing a prepaid vacation, not an investment. All this talk about resale value is irrelevant! When you purchase a timeshare, this is part of the agreement. If you come back later and complain about your resale value, they can point to the original contract.

As to resale value, the fact that original purchasers were told that they were buying pre-paid vacations in their disclosures is accurate, but does not tell the whole story.

In every presentation I have been on Marriott has highlighted the "deeded" nature of the interest, and that it has inherent value as such, and is more than just a timeshare because it is real property.

I don't think anyone here can argue with a straight face that Marriott has any contractual obligation to maintain your TS value, any more than I can go back to the developer who sold my house almost a decade ago and complain that he is seleing houses down the street cheaply and my home value has plummeted in the past few years. Most posts I have seen have been that it is "morally wrong" or against the values that Marriott one espoused. As a resale buyer you have no direct contractual relationship with Marriott anyway.

In any event, regardless of what the contract says, Marriott TSs (at least so far) do have value, and are considered an interest in property. There is nothing wrong with people being upset that the company that sold that to them may do something that they believe will devalue that interest.

 

[Dean]

As Ingrid stated, we have to focus on what options this program offers for trading. Not resale value!

I would disagree somewhat as I think both are important though I would agree they are different issues to a degree. IF a new system doesn't work for a given members they may indeed look to move on and in that case, resale prices and value become very important. I'm not convinced this is gloom and doom but there are considerations.

 

[SueDonJ]

"They were sold to us as "pre-paid vacations." We were not concerned with resale value."


This is the best post i've seen on this subject. It looks like you purchased direct from Marriott, because Marriott outright states you are purchasing a prepaid vacation, not an investment. All this talk about resale value is irrelevant! When you purchase a timeshare, this is part of the agreement. If you come back later and complain about your resale value, they can point to the original contract.

As Ingrid stated, we have to focus on what options this program offers for trading. Not resale value!

I agree, and my focus is that if any new exchange system or rules result in us getting less than what we get now from II, especially less Getaway or AC options, then it might not be worth joining.

You know, even if it's stated only upon developer sales that your purchase does not guarantee a financial investment value, doesn't it stand to reason that a resale purchaser should recognize that fact just by virtue of the depreciation between what s/he paying for a week and what the developer originally sold it for? Or, if s/he's unaware of that discrepancy, can't the premise be assumed by the resale purchaser knowing that s/he can get the exact same week for less than if s/he purchases from the developer? I think it's a little convenient for resale purchasers to use the argument that MVCI never had an opportunity to offer them the same "no guaranteed resale value" information that is offered to developer purchasers. It's widespread knowledge, isn't it, for folks who are savvy about resales? If not, why are there so many who champion resale purchases to save thousands?

 

[bogey21]

Folks, Marriott has given us 2-3 years of warning - don't bellyache to Marriott when they introduce the new system and you get screwed royally because you bought too early.

I agree with this 100%. Marriott will do what is best for Marriott. What is best for its owners is immaterial.

George

 

[davidvel]

I think it's a little convenient for resale purchasers to use the argument that MVCI never had an opportunity to offer them the same "no guaranteed resale value" information that is offered to developer purchasers.

Sue-

Did someone actually make this argument? I must have missed it.

David

 

[Latravel]

So I go to a Marriott timeshare presentation and once I decide to buy, they tell me my timeshare is a prepaid vacation, not an investment, and I should not expect any return on this purchase, and any promises made by the salesperson is incorrect, etc... They even make me and my spouse initial next to this paragraph to make VERY sure I understand.

So how can I now complain about resale value? Is this a reasonable expectation? Do you really think Marriott executives care too much about the resale value of prepaid vacations or do they care about developing new products to generate income so the company stays afloat so they can be around to provide high quality vacations to owners? Why are people being so short sighted?

 

[Dean]

Folks, Marriott has given us 2-3 years of warning - don't bellyache to Marriott when they introduce the new system and you get screwed royally because you bought too early. They have given us fair warning on this matter.

No argument from me on that one but same could be said for almost any issue including reservations issues and salesperson smoke that isn't backed up in the legal paperwork. Timesharing is a high risk/reward business, IMO.

 

[FlyerBobcat]

"They were sold to us as "pre-paid vacations." We were not concerned with resale value."


This is the best post i've seen on this subject. It looks like you purchased direct from Marriott, because Marriott outright states you are purchasing a prepaid vacation, not an investment. All this talk about resale value is irrelevant! When you purchase a timeshare, this is part of the agreement. If you come back later and complain about your resale value, they can point to the original contract.

As Ingrid stated, we have to focus on what options this program offers for trading. Not resale value!

Heidi,
I have a feeling I will get blasted for asking this... but when you quote someone's post, could you use the "quote" feature/icon.

By doing this, the quoted box contains a link (the arrow) to that entire posting from which you quoted -- to quickly allow one to go back and get the entire context of the post. TIA

 

[davidvel]

So I go to a Marriott timeshare presentation and once I decide to buy, they tell me my timeshare is a prepaid vacation, not an investment, and I should not expect any return on this purchase, and any promises made by the salesperson is incorrect, etc... They even make me and my spouse initial next to this paragraph to make VERY sure I understand.

So how can I now complain about resale value? Is this a reasonable expectation? Do you really think Marriott executives care too much about the resale value of prepaid vacations or do they care about developing new products to generate income so the company stays afloat so they can be around to provide high quality vacations to owners? Why are people being so short sighted?

I think it is not a question of whether you can complain at all (into the air, at the circumstances, at Marriott's marketing department) vs. complaining that Marriott has some obligation to maintain resale value. As to the latter I wholeheartedly agree, as I think most people (except Perry) do.

I think most of the complaints have been as to the former, but those who blame Marriott as though they have some continuing obligation as to your resale value are certainly missing the mark.

Marriott makes me initial a paragraph that says any promises made by the salesperson are incorrect, etc...

That being said, I always love reading a contract that says "Despite the last 3-300 hours of negotiations, promises, representations, slide shows, graphs, charts, books, exchange scenarios that have your head spinning in euphoria and excitement about what we are selling you, you should ignore all of them." (This is called a "zipper clause")

It should actually read:

WARNING: The last 2 hours and everything we told you have been complete BullS&^t, a waste of your time, may even be complete lies and you only get what's in the small legal print and governing documents that most lawyers can't even understand. Spend the next three days hiring a lawyer to decipher what we are really selling you. Good Luck!!"

 

[RandR]

While I didn't figure much of a resale value for the resale I bought, I think that despite what Marriott has direct buyers initial, some still think there will be a resale value. The reason for them having you initial that and all the other things is to completely cover their a$$. If a reasonable person did their research on buying a timeshare and saw that Marriott timeshares seemed to maintain some value they could then reasonably assume that would continue. When they then sat down and bought direct because they got bonus points and the ability to trade for MRP and were told it was a pre-paid vacation with no guaranteed value it would still be reasonable for them to assume there would be some resale value based on their research.

 

[sdtugger]

Loss of Value?

I've been wondering whether there will be a significant devaluation of any weeks that don't join the new system. It really depends on how many people join the new system, doesn't it? If a majority stick with the old system, then there would be no or little impact to resale value, right? My only hope is that all owners won't be like sheep and follow the Marriott shepherd regardless of the cost and value. If owners make Marriott earn our internal trades with low cost and high value, then the new system might be great for all.

I'm not counting on the masses here, but I do think we need to recognize that this may not be a huge problem and we won't know until we see it.

 

[Dean]

vs. complaining that Marriott has some obligation to maintain resale value. As to the latter I wholeheartedly agree, as I think most people (except Perry) do.

I think most of the complaints have been as to the former, but those who blame Marriott as though they have some continuing obligation as to your resale value are certainly missing the mark.

I agree. I think it ludicrous to suggest that Marriott has an obligation to maintain resale value for the owners that have purchased. I do think that it's smart business to do so up to a point and poor business to institute actions that would severely reduce them beyond the usual levels we've seen historically.

 

[dioxide45]

I don't see any problem with people doing both.



As to resale value, the fact that original purchasers were told that they were buying pre-paid vacations in their disclosures is accurate, but does not tell the whole story.

In every presentation I have been on Marriott has highlighted the "deeded" nature of the interest, and that it has inherent value as such, and is more than just a timeshare because it is real property.

I don't think anyone here can argue with a straight face that Marriott has any contractual obligation to maintain your TS value, any more than I can go back to the developer who sold my house almost a decade ago and complain that he is seleing houses down the street cheaply and my home value has plummeted in the past few years. Most posts I have seen have been that it is "morally wrong" or against the values that Marriott one espoused. As a resale buyer you have no direct contractual relationship with Marriott anyway.

In any event, regardless of what the contract says, Marriott TSs (at least so far) do have value, and are considered an interest in property. There is nothing wrong with people being upset that the company that sold that to them may do something that they believe will devalue that interest.

I have to agree. While the written information may say otherwise, all of our sale reps have told us that these are a great investment and would only go up in value.