Marriott points and internal exchange program - the latest info

[Latravel]

I don't believe for one minute Marriott willl intentionally and deliberately try to "destroy resale" values. They have more important things to do!!!

They will do business as they see fit in order to make the company successful. If they do something that may result, indirectly, in lower resale values, they warned you in the beginning.

If you bought resale and didn't get this information, the original owner did. This was another risk of purchasing resale.

I did find a very interesting sentence in the Quality Assurance Checklist. It is regarding Internal Exchange:

Item #10:
Occupying another season at my resort instead of the one I am purchasing or occupying at another MVCI resort is considered and internal exchange, which currently must be reserved through Internal International.

Bold is my emphasis.

I found this very interesting since it looks like they were working on the point system from 2007.

 

[PerryM]

Marriott - stop bashing owners....

If you did your due diligence then resales mean a lot to you.

This analysis can be done a number of ways but I recommend 10 years – that’s the length of time Marriott finances a unit. At the end of the 10 years you sell the timeshare to complete the transaction. Ideally, the cost to buy the timeshare, pay the mortgage expenses, MF’s and finally to add back in the resale value of the timeshare should be cheaper than renting. If not you decided to pay more in ownership than renting.

So that resale value has everything to do with due diligence. You may have decided that the resale value is too hard to calculate and made it $0 then if you bought the cost of ownership must be really really good versus just renting. In this case you should try to get every penny in resales since it’s a windfall to you.

Marriott has everything to do with that resale price – everything. It's their name on the timeshare.

During those 10 years of ownership, Marriott could go belly up. Marriott could be charged with all kinds of violations of laws, it could be sued by hundreds of thousands of its owners. It could come up with something, like a Destination Club, that is much more profitable and easier to make money than timeshares and abandoned timeshares. All of these calamities would tarnish the Marriott brand and folks would be less inclined to buy resale Marriotts from owners.

Marriott has decided to view their owners as competition to their sales and thus the rumor was started 2-3 years ago disparaging resales. Marriott has spent every second of every day bashing resales and owners and pointing out that the new resale owners are going to get screwed by the new Marriott Internal Exchange Program.

This declaration of war will harm resale values since resales will be left out of the exchange system. Marriott has decided that its bashing of owners will result in less competition and the natural reaction of falling resales is viewed as a plus:

• Marriott will have fewer sales snatched away by resales
• Marriott will exercise the ROFR at much lower prices and snap up weeks for pennies on the dollar to recycle and sell at full price

This is the natural byproduct of selling used condos at new condo prices!

This is perfectly ok for new construction but 20 year old Marriotts are being sold as NEW units to the public - at NEW prices, no discounts for 20 year old Marriotts. It would be like a new car dealer buying 20 year old wrecks, fixing them up, and selling them as NEW cars. Then to top it off the new car dealer spreads rumors of all kinds of problems with their older cars and the prices fall even further.

Marriott needs to stop bashing resales by concocting all kinds of systems that punish loyal owners – stop this insanity Marriott.

 

[SueDonJ]

For those that bought direct, did your salesperson talk about how you would be able to trade your week? If so, how did s/he describe it?

(paraphrased) "You are free to exchange your reserved week with anybody in a private deal. MVCI has a contract with Interval International to handle exchanges with other resorts in that system. They use a system in which rankings based on resort amenities, number of bedrooms, whether there is a kitchen, number of guests who can be accommodated, etc are assigned to every resort in their inventory, and they try to match you to a property that is of equal quality to yours. You are, however, free to accept from them a property of lesser or greater quality if it is offered. Within II's system, there is a limited period of time in which only other Marriott owners have access to other Marriott weeks which have been deposited." There was more about the difference between "request first" and "deposit first", the time frames in which your deposit can be exchanged, Getaway and AC possibilities and the other general II terms including the fee structure at the time.

She never used the words "like-for-like", she was clear that MVCI's contractual relationship could be terminated, and she never guaranteed that we would be able to make any certain exchange to any certain property.

Everything that she did say is supported by language in the Contract for Purchase, the worksheet we initialed and the other ownership documents.

 

[Dean]

Dean-
Did you see SueDon's post where she included a scan of the purchase agreement? The language from the checklist is there. I also looked in my purchase documents and it was there hidden the many pages. Like i've said, the checklist does not stand alone. It recaps the important points to make sure the buyer is fully aware. It does not list additional information. It is a recap.

I did, I also have copies of several from Marriott, Bluegreen and Disney. The issue I have is that OFTEN they go beyond the language in the POS. I think we're in agreement just approaching things from the opposite side. Still, the issue is what does the POS say, what do the state laws say and what case law applies. Often they are open to interpretation and sometimes even lawyers and judges interpret them differently.

The value of a timeshare is in its' usage.

While I don't disagree with anything you've said, I would suggest that there is an inherent value in many timeshares similar to the used car example. Not all resorts and weeks actually reach a point where they truly have an inherent value but many good weeks at good resort do for Marriott and others. Take HH for GO or other similar resorts. There is an inherent value to a summer OF week, another for an OS or GV week and so on. Certainly for seasonal resort areas there often reaches a point where a given unit is not worth the underlying maint fee or is very close. Take HH bronze weeks for example. Even with the unit is near break even as an ownership, it's hard to justify buying one and the risks that go with it. In addition timesharing in general suffers from a lack of mainstream acceptance and interest which further drives down prices. Disney is likely the only company that's truly been able to overcome this issue to a large degree and have more of a market forces based resale market. Even then if DVC changed their system where retail buyers got benefits that resale owners didn't, it would shift the curve.

As another TUGGER has often demonstrated in the past, any resort needs a significant number of owners paying their yearly dues to be viable. For some this means overpaying and supplementing the owners of higher demand weeks. This is one of the fundamental differences in many points systems, that a given owner pays more in line with the value of what they own and use than a fixed week system where maint fees are the same or nearly so for each week. Of course a points system often allows a developer to sell for higher total because everyone that buys is expecting to reserve when they want to go but not everyone can go during higher demand times.

There is a fundamental difference between resale values diminishing on their own and the developer deliberately destroying them. The issue is not whether a timeshare appreciates or depreciates, or even whether timeshares at a given resort have any value at all to most people (which is probably true of off-season weeks at seasonal resorts). None of the documents you later posted have any verbiage in them like "the customer understands that Marriott reserves the right at any time at their discretion to greatly diminish your ability to sell your timeshare should you ever wish to do so." I suspect if you read anything resembling that in the documents, you would not sign them. I would not. The issue is whether Marriott will engage in sleaze tactics to build their profits, or whether they will let their reputation build their profits.

Note that I try to keep my posts in the subjunctive mood when referring to what Marriott might or might not do regarding the upcoming trading system. I don't think that they will necessarily do any of the things we have talked about. I cannot think of a good reason why they would want to exclude some top-notch inventory held by resale buyers out of any new trading system.

To me I guess it depends on the actual intent rather than the actions. IF they made changes that benefited retail sales but depressed resale prices (intended or not), that's fair game in my book. If they were able to do something that ONLY reduced resale prices with NO other changes, I might agree with you. Ultimately any timeshare ownership is a bet on the company involved, one you might lose. Some have seen their resort go belly up and be left with nothing.

For those that bought direct, did your salesperson talk about how you would be able to trade your week? If so, how did s/he describe it?

To me it doesn't matter because verbal representations are not enforceable and the legal documents specifically state that no exchange option is guaranteed, at least in every one I'd seen.

 

[hotcoffee]

I don't believe for one minute Marriott willl intentionally and deliberately try to "destroy resale" values. They have more important things to do!!!

If they were to exclude resale owners (current and/or new) access to their new system, that would indeed be deliberate. The eventual result of that action over time would be to destroy the value of your timeshare on the open market. What would your consider their motive to be if they excluded resale owners (or buyers)? If you say for their own "profit", then you are in effect supporting the "destroy resale" argument. Their enhanced profit comes from eliminating their perceived competition from resales. Plus, like Perry said, they might even get to sell some of those units that current owners are trying to get rid at developer prices again.

In reality, it is unlikely that they would pick up a large number of new sales from people who would have otherwise bought resale. That is due to the huge price difference. Many of the people who bought resale only bought to begin with because they could pickup a quality timeshare at a relatively cheap price. Take away that option, and they, like me, would have just found other options for vacations.

 

[hotcoffee]

To me I guess it depends on the actual intent rather than the actions.

What would be the "intent" if resale owners (or future buyers) were expressly excluded from a new trading system?

IF they made changes that benefited retail sales but depressed resale prices (intended or not), that's fair game in my book. If they were able to do something that ONLY reduced resale prices with NO other changes, I might agree with you.

I noticed you used the word "intended" here in your parentheses. In the first sentence quoted above, you said it "depends on the actual intent". Obviously, by singling out resales, the differentiation would have to have been intended. I am hard-pressed to think of changes involving either reservation windows or exchanging capabilities that would unintentionally harm resales.

Ultimately any timeshare ownership is a bet on the company involved, one you might lose. Some have seen their resort go belly up and be left with nothing.

True. But this would hurt direct sales owners also.

 

[RandR]

(paraphrased) "You are free to exchange your reserved week with anybody in a private deal. MVCI has a contract with Interval International to handle exchanges with other resorts in that system. They use a system in which rankings based on resort amenities, number of bedrooms, whether there is a kitchen, number of guests who can be accommodated, etc are assigned to every resort in their inventory, and they try to match you to a property that is of equal quality to yours. You are, however, free to accept from them a property of lesser or greater quality if it is offered. Within II's system, there is a limited period of time in which only other Marriott owners have access to other Marriott weeks which have been deposited." There was more about the difference between "request first" and "deposit first", the time frames in which your deposit can be exchanged, Getaway and AC possibilities and the other general II terms including the fee structure at the time.

She never used the words "like-for-like", she was clear that MVCI's contractual relationship could be terminated, and she never guaranteed that we would be able to make any certain exchange to any certain property.

Everything that she did say is supported by language in the Contract for Purchase, the worksheet we initialed and the other ownership documents.

Sue, thanks. Part of the problem seems to be that some salespeople seem straightforward, as yours was, and some give grandiose visions. Unfortunately there seem to be more that give grandiose visions.

To me it doesn't matter because verbal representations are not enforceable and the legal documents specifically state that no exchange option is guaranteed, at least in every one I'd seen.

Dean I agree that verbal representations are not enforceable but from stories on TUG there are plenty of salespeople who fill peoples heads with all kinds of things. Marriott is aware of this and should not let it happen. Sue's rep seems to have been very straightforward about what to expect. How do you think a judge would look at things, (or perhaps the BBB) if they got to hear salespeople telling what amounts to lies over and over and over again? They then get people to sign documents that I am sure not all of them read closely. If they question the point about trading, can't you just see a saleperson telling the buyer not to worry, that it is in there just to cover Marriott's butt? Obviously a person should read the contract carefully and not fall for misrepresentaions, but not all do. If the salespeople were honest
there would be less disgruntled ts owners.

 

[Dean]

If they were to exclude resale owners (current and/or new) access to their new system, that would indeed be deliberate. The eventual result of that action over time would be to destroy the value of your timeshare on the open market. What would your consider their motive to be if they excluded resale owners (or buyers)? If you say for their own "profit", then you are in effect supporting the "destroy resale" argument. Their enhanced profit comes from eliminating their perceived competition from resales. Plus, like Perry said, they might even get to sell some of those units that current owners are trying to get rid at developer prices again.

But that speaks to the heart of my post. ANY change they make will be deliberate. Any deliberate change aimed at shifting more people to retail OR getting more money out of current or future weeks owners (resale or retail) is potentially a fair move even if the end result is that it totally tanks resale prices. YMMV.

 

[Dean]

Dean I agree that verbal representations are not enforceable but from stories on TUG there are plenty of salespeople who fill peoples heads with all kinds of things. Marriott is aware of this and should not let it happen. Sue's rep seems to have been very straightforward about what to expect. How do you think a judge would look at things, (or perhaps the BBB) if they got to hear salespeople telling what amounts to lies over and over and over again? They then get people to sign documents that I am sure not all of them read closely. If they question the point about trading, can't you just see a saleperson telling the buyer not to worry, that it is in there just to cover Marriott's butt? Obviously a person should read the contract carefully and not fall for misrepresentaions, but not all do. If the salespeople were honest
there would be less disgruntled ts owners.

I can't imagine a job trying to sell something to people that really don't need it, can't afford it and don't know what to do with it. I can't speak to what a given court would do however, my expectation is if you said it happened, the company said it didn't and the legal documents you accepted (and signed you received) specifically addressed the issues in question to the side of the company, I think you're SOL with the court and close to it with the BBB not that I really care much for them either. A large number of salespeople are honest and Marriott has far more of the good ones than most companies. Likely the only company that I'd put ahead of them in this regard is Disney but I don't know all of them enough to be certain. To me if you didn't read the documents it's hard to say much.

 

[kjd]

Hotcoffee: I don't think that my post misses any point. It's very simple. A timeshare is not an investment. It's an expense. It is not meant to return any money to anyone. Whatever you get when you sell is gravey. If a TS was sold originally as an investment to unknowning individuals the salespersons were off base. Frankly, I personally have never heard a Marriott sales person pitch that a timeshare was an investment. That's not to say it couldn't happen.

As far as not reading a contract goes that is the fault of the buyer. In any event, I don't think that Marriott's legal department will allow much latitude in changing the wording of one of their contracts. Certainly not to guarantee anyone a specific price upon resale unless Marriott was interested in buying the unit back. It would probably be that if you don't like their contract, take your business elsewhere.

 

[davidvel]

I think hotcoffee brought up a comparable analogy to think about involving the value of a car you buy. Imagine that FORD makes a new policy that they will only sell FORD parts to original purchasers of their vehicles, not to any resale purchase even if the vehicle was only 1 year old. This includes special coded keys you can only buy from them or other electronic components that cannot be purchased on the aftermarket. So if you need these parts, you are out of luck and will have to buy a new car. If you want to sell your car that was worth $20,000 on the day before they instituted the policy, your car is probably worth considerably less after.

Now, remember FORD never promised to supply anyone with parts for your car (especially resale buyers), and are not legally or contractually obligated to do so, so don't complain. I am not trying to analyze all the potential outcomes of such a policy or even of it would be good for FORD or not. I am simply stating that most people would consider this to be a bit unconscionable.

As far as not reading a contract goes that is the fault of the buyer. In any event, I don't think that Marriott's legal department will allow much latitude in changing the wording of one of their contracts. Certainly not to guarantee anyone a specific price upon resale unless Marriott was interested in buying the unit back. It would probably be that if you don't like their contract, take your business elsewhere.

This is true. Except as I indicated in an earlier post, salespeople make numerous statements that are directly contrary to what the contract says. Is this fair?

 

[RandR]

This is true. Except as I indicated in an earlier post, salespeople make numerous statements that are directly contrary to what the contract says. Is this fair?

This was more my point. I person who is not as prepared going in can be duped even if they read the contract. If a person asks about the resale value of the unit, the salesperson could very easily say, 'Don't worry, you can always have Marriott resell it for you.' Of course not mentioning that they won't if they still have inventory and that there may be a long waiting list to sell. The salesperson can also say that the language about trading is only in there in case a person doesn't get what they want one year but don't worry you almost always get what you want. Many people will believe the salesperson because they don't think there is a reason not to.

Not all salespeople on Marriott are trying to give misinformation but based on stories on TUG many are. There is no reason for this and it should be stopped.

 

[Latravel]

I disagree. The salesperson goes over each item in the Quality Assurance Checklist and then asks you to sign. There is no way someone who purchased direct from Marriott can say they were duped. They make sure you understand the important parts of the program.

"If they were to exclude resale owners (current and/or new) access to their new system, that would indeed be deliberate. The eventual result of that action over time would be to destroy the value of your timeshare on the open market.

I find this comment interesting. All resale buyers are currently excluded from the Marriott program. Your unit has an "R" next to it in the system. Why do you think you should be treated any differently in the future? Why do you think Marriott will automatically INCLUDE you for free in the new system when they didn't do that in the past? I don't understand.

 

[dioxide45]

I find this comment interesting. All resale buyers are currently excluded from the Marriott program. Your unit has an "R" next to it in the system. Why do you think you should be treated any differently in the future? Why do you think Marriott will automatically INCLUDE you for free in the new system when they didn't do that in the past? I don't understand.

It is unlikely that anyone will be "free" in the new system. Marriott will charge people who purchased full frieght to buy in also.

 

[Latravel]

Totally agree, but my comment wasn't necessarily meant in monetary terms. It was addressed to resale purchasers who expect to have the same rights in the new Marriott Vacation Club as direct purchasers when that is something they don't have now.

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen as none of us knows what the new system will look like but if I was a resale purchaser, I wouldn't expect it based on current practice and language in purchase documents.

My feeling is Marriott will be very generous in order to get everyone to sign up for the new program and to get support among owners.

 

[davidvel]

Totally agree, but my comment wasn't necessarily meant in monetary terms. It was addressed to resale purchasers who expect to have the same rights in the new Marriott Vacation Club as direct purchasers when that is something they don't have now.

If by "expect" you mean that resale purchasers here believe they are entitled to the same benefits, I disagree. In the almost 650 posts on this thread I don't think anyone has said that they think that resale owners have the same "rights" as direct purchasers. Most of the commentary has been directed to the presumption that Marriott CAN and MAY treat the two classes of ownership differently in their new program (so long as the deeded ownership rights are not altered).

At the same time, it should be noted that it IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT that both direct purchasers and resale purchasers currently have the exact same rights in the "new system": ABSOLUTELY NONE. So at least on that issue there is no debate.

No one has any right to be part of the system or to pay any amount to join or anything. IT IS A NEW SYSTEM with which MARRIOTT can do whatever it wants. (Marriott could give resale purchasers double points as compared to direct purchasers , if it wants.)

My feeling is Marriott will be very generous in order to get everyone to sign up for the new program and to get support among owners.

I agree.

 

[RandR]

I disagree. The salesperson goes over each item in the Quality Assurance Checklist and then asks you to sign. There is no way someone who purchased direct from Marriott can say they were duped. They make sure you understand the important parts of the program.

Your salesperson went over it in detail but not everyone's does. How many people post here after buying on impulse saying they didn't fully undersstand. You went in with your eyes open but many do not.


I find this comment interesting. All resale buyers are currently excluded from the Marriott program. Your unit has an "R" next to it in the system. Why do you think you should be treated any differently in the future? Why do you think Marriott will automatically INCLUDE you for free in the new system when they didn't do that in the past? I don't understand.

Big difference being excluded from Marriott points, which I don't care about and knew about upfront and being excluded from the ability to trade my unit. While I am sure you will get joy out of seeing resale buyers get the short end of the stick, it diminishes everyones trading ability if some are left out.

 

[PerryM]

New exchange system punishes resale owners AND developer owners

Why does Marriott care about resales?

When a Marriott owner decides that their unit must be sold they go out and find a person who simply replaces them. The new owner pays the same MFs, and up until this new system was treated exactly the same at the resort.

Marriott wants the new owner, the one the original owner found, to not have the same privileges at the same resort. Why?

If the unit sold is a Platinum week, for instance, and the new owner wants to vacation at the resort in Gold season they must use an exchange company. Since the new owner is not part of the new exchange system he has a much more difficult time in finding a Gold reservation in II - the Gold reservation he wants is in the new system. Additionally that Platinum week he deposited is in II and not in the new system so developer bought weeks can't get it either.

This is exactly what the new system will do - it will punish BOTH resale owners and developer owners. This makes no sense unless Marriott now views ALL owners as evil competitors that might snatch a sale from them at any time.

So you developer bought owners don't think this new system is going to improve your exchange odds - it will decrease them. Then throw in the fee to convert your weeks to the new system.

P.S.
Like I asked - why does Marriott care about resales at all? No new owners are added to the roles just the owner running ads to find someone to take their place. Marriott spent no time nor money - the owner did all the work.

If Marriott had their head on straight they would want to become more competitive and run an auction at sold out resorts where the market determines what an old Marriott resort is worth - you know the ones with the 400 pound TVs taking up half the living room. Marriott would charge a percentage and do the closing.

But no, Marriott wants to fool new owners into thinking that the resort is brand new and gouge them for new prices. Wake up Marriott.

 

[hotcoffee]

I find this comment interesting. All resale buyers are currently excluded from the Marriott program. Your unit has an "R" next to it in the system. Why do you think you should be treated any differently in the future? Why do you think Marriott will automatically INCLUDE you for free in the new system when they didn't do that in the past? I don't understand.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Any value-added benefits given to direct purchasers were never part of the resold timeshare. Having the "R" next to a resold timeshare does not at this time affect one's ability to reserve or exchange weeks. Those are the two fundamental features of owning a timeshare. I personally don't care about the points. The issue is that if Marriott were to exclude resale owners (or new purchasers) from a program that might eventually become the primary vehicle for exchanging weeks, they would be taking away one of the fundamental features of owning a timeshare. Put into the situation of not being able to make good exchanges, one might reasonably conclude that he will have to sell. Trouble is, will anyone want to buy given that he can only reserve weeks but not do exchanges (except perhaps for inferior timeshares through II)? So, the current owner has to continue to pay MFs for a timeshare he doesn't want but can't get rid of? That scenerio might well cause some direct purchasers to snicker - until for whatever reason they themselves one day have to sell. Then it ceases to be funny.

 

[davidvel]

So, the current owner has to continue to pay MFs for a timeshare he doesn't want but can't get rid of? That scenerio might well cause some direct purchasers to snicker - until for whatever reason they themselves one day have to sell. Then it ceases to be funny.

B I N G O!

 

[Dean]

If by "expect" you mean that resale purchasers here believe they are entitled to the same benefits, I disagree. In the almost 650 posts on this thread I don't think anyone has said that they think that resale owners have the same "rights" as direct purchasers. Most of the commentary has been directed to the presumption that Marriott CAN and MAY treat the two classes of ownership differently in their new program (so long as the deeded ownership rights are not altered).

As noted and as you acknowledge, there is currently a difference between resale and retail buyers. I think much of rhetoric has been around the idea of whether they can widen that gap in such a way that gives current owners less options going forward and also in a way that may reduce the resale values. I think everyone acknowledges they can, the question seems to be whether it'd be appropriate/reasonable or not. It seems that is where you can draw the line, between those that feel it's reasonable and appropriate for them to broaden the gap and those that do not. I'm hoping they don't but the answer remains to be seen. In addition, myself and others have pointed out, the gap between existing owners that bought retail and any new system is likely to be larger than the gap between resale buyers and current retail owners.

 

[Dean]

That scenerio might well cause some direct purchasers to snicker - until for whatever reason they themselves one day have to sell. Then it ceases to be funny.

Not snicker but shake their heads. The truth is that the Majority of timeshare owners (all not just MVCI) who look to sell already find themselves in that situation. If you buy an off season week that really isn't even worth the underlying fees and don't read the documents, you have set yourself up for trouble, no reason to look for a scapegoat. As I said earlier, timesharing is a gamble, sometimes that gamble doesn't work out as well as others.

 

[PerryM]

Asset is better than expense...

Not snicker but shake their heads. The truth is that the Majority of timeshare owners (all not just MVCI) who look to sell already find themselves in that situation. If you buy an off season week that really isn't even worth the underlying fees and don't read the documents, you have set yourself up for trouble, no reason to look for a scapegoat. As I said earlier, timesharing is a gamble, sometimes that gamble doesn't work out as well as others.

I did not buy our 6 Marriotts as a gamble. I sold 5 of them for break even or a slight profit after 5 years and got 5 years of vacations, rental income, and enjoyment. I made a net profit from my units.

The 6th unit, our Gold Summit Watch, I bought resale for $5,500 and we have gone to the Maui Ocean Club for 3 years as studio and 1 BR units. If I add the difference between renting the MOC and what we pay in MF I have already made back the $5,500 and all the MFs.

Folks, the idea is to NOT look at timeshare ownership as pre-paid vacations or expenses but to look at it as an investment where you expect to make out handsomely for the risk of exposing your money to the real estate and timeshare markets.

Everything I did you can do if you demand a profit from your asset.

I will wait and see what the new Marriott Internal Exchange System is and then make plans. Marriott's agents, the salesreps, have given us fair warning that there will be MAJOR changes to the ability to exchange Marriott weeks - my guess it will be a disaster - that's what I read from the Official Marriott Rumor on this topic.

 

[Dean]

I did not buy our 6 Marriotts as a gamble. I sold 5 of them for break even or a slight profit after 5 years and got 5 years of vacations, rental income, and enjoyment. I made a net profit from my units.

The 6th unit, our Gold Summit Watch, I bought resale for $5,500 and we have gone to the Maui Ocean Club for 3 years as studio and 1 BR units. If I add the difference between renting the MOC and what we pay in MF I have already made back the $5,500 and all the MFs.

Folks, the idea is to NOT look at timeshare ownership as pre-paid vacations or expenses but to look at it as an investment where you expect to make out handsomely for the risk of exposing your money to the real estate and timeshare markets.

Everything I did you can do if you demand a profit from your asset.

I will wait and see what the new Marriott Internal Exchange System is and then make plans. Marriott's agents, the salesreps, have given us fair warning that there will be MAJOR changes to the ability to exchange Marriott weeks - my guess it will be a disaster - that's what I read from the Official Marriott Rumor on this topic.

You gambled and broke even, given the risks involved, I hope you got some good trips and enjoyment out of them. Most people gamble and lose, esp if they buy retail but some lose more than others. I've owned over 50 timeshare weeks/contracts at various resorts, sold most of them over the years. In every case except one, I made money. The one that I didn't make money, I broke even including the extra expenses. Interesting it was a Marriott week I'd bought resale directly from Marriott with the purpose of trading and I did trade it for several years. WHEN that resort drops from the Marriott fold, I'll be even more glad I got rid of it. In some of those cases, I specifically bought with the idea of flipping the week and did so successfully.

 

[PerryM]

Can't wait...

You gambled and broke even, given the risks involved, I hope you got some good trips and enjoyment out of them. Most people gamble and lose, esp if they buy retail but some lose more than others. I've owned over 50 timeshare weeks/contracts at various resorts, sold most of them over the years. In every case except one, I made money. The one that I didn't make money, I broke even including the extra expenses. Interesting it was a Marriott week I'd bought resale directly from Marriott with the purpose of trading and I did trade it for several years. WHEN that resort drops from the Marriott fold, I'll be even more glad I got rid of it. In some of those cases, I specifically bought with the idea of flipping the week and did so successfully.

This is great!

Too many folks here are scared out of their whits by the economy, government, and real estate. I humbly suggest we give them a pep talk to keep them from dumping their weeks on the resale market and make things even worse.

I fully expect the new Marriott Internal Exchange System to be a colossal failure for the following reasons:

• Poor timing - bottom of the real estate market is a stupid place to introduce this system - Forrest Gump stupid
• Gouge owners - I expect the fee to be 10% of the current sales price to join
• Screw owners - resale owners will NOT be allowed in - forget grandfathering
• Poor selection - Most exchanges will still be done on II since most won't convert

I fully expect Marriott to do the bull through the china shop introduction and when the word gets out that spending all that money results in fewer exchanges the system will languish as a disaster.

Can't wait....

P.S.

Note to Marriott: Offer a 1 year return policy - if after 1 year the owner finds out that your new great system is a turkey they can get ALL their money back - just a suggestion.

That would be a sign of confidence on your part - no confidence; well how about a 15 day return policy like most electronic stores offer?