New Marriott Vacation Club Ownership levels announced

[Wanderlustgrl]

Seems like they're making the Abound program a system of "haves" versus the "have nots," which is a pretty big gamble. If the high rollers don't bite, it may be too late for MVC to win back their core demographic.

For the average person, this is all the more reason deeded weeks present a much better value proposition than points.

Right. Why not increase all levels and add benefits that would encourage everyone to add to get where they want to be.

 

[TolmiePeak]

For the average person, this is all the more reason deeded weeks present a much better value proposition than points.

Exactly. I would expect that people would get more skeptical about the value of the status levels and realize they have pay tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a status that has a few hundred dollars of benefits.

 

[igopogo]

@Dean does your contact know when our ‘earned’ new levels will be displayed in our accounts? Or perhaps people can start asking this in owner updates, but I think any direct answer will be suspect.

 

[Eric B]

Somebody posted that June 1st is the start date, so I guess it would be then.

 

[Dean]

@Dean does your contact know when our ‘earned’ new levels will be displayed in our accounts? Or perhaps people can start asking this in owner updates, but I think any direct answer will be suspect.

Yes, he said he could tell and was happy to check. But I'm pretty certain you can tell the same thing if you click on the New Opportunities with Enrollment on the home page. It'll tell you which are internal and which are external.

 

[VacationForever]

Here is mine, all bought after 2010.

 

[igopogo]

Yes, he said he could tell and was happy to check. But I'm pretty certain you can tell the same thing if you click on the New Opportunities with Enrollment on the home page. It'll tell you which are internal and which are external.
View attachment 125619

Yeah I have a good handle on which are internal and external, but there’s the question floating about whether the method of enrollment, points or weeks, makes a difference based on the vague (or perhaps overly specific) language in the disclosure.

Personally I am confident that it won’t make a difference, that external weeks are just not counted, end of story.

 

[Wanderlustgrl]

@Dean does your contact know when our ‘earned’ new levels will be displayed in our accounts? Or perhaps people can start asking this in owner updates, but I think any direct answer will be suspect.

Was told 8/1 by trusted source

 

[Dean]

Personally I am confident that it won’t make a difference, that external weeks are just not counted, end of story.

I think that's a solid assumption other than I would assume that bundles are counted as internal. PM me if you want my contact and don't have it.

ETA: I suspect the method I posted above would answer any questions about how a given week would be treated.

 

[ljmiii]

I think that's a solid assumption other than I would assume that bundles are counted as internal. PM me if you want my contact and don't have it.

The week I purchased as part of a bundle is indeed shown as internal.

 

[VacationForever]

The week I purchased as part of a bundle is indeed shown as internal.

+1

 

[craigd]

It's the product itself that's not suitable for that clientele. Whether it's the renters or the owners from the past 30+ years roaming the pools, it's still the same "ordinary" folks.

It sounds like Ritz, Four Seasons or St. Regis is a more appropriate product.

I am working with some legacy Ritz owners; there is no more Ritz product. While I have not exhausted the research on St. Regis, research to date suggests there is no longer a distinct product there either. Litigation at Four Seasons Ghiradelli Square in SF literally just tentatively settled. I don't know whether the settlement has been finalized; whatever the outcome is there will determine whether there is still a product there. In short, I believe the disaster of all those projects has warned away the demographic they are hoping to attract with the latest strategy, but only time will tell. I am watching MVW from many angles, securities litigation included. It is a fascinating case study, the end of which remains TBD.

 

[WBP]

I am working with some legacy Ritz owners; there is no more Ritz product. While I have not exhausted the research on St. Regis, research to date suggests there is no longer a distinct product there either. Litigation at Four Seasons Ghiradelli Square in SF literally just tentatively settled. I don't know whether the settlement has been finalized; whatever the outcome is there will determine whether there is still a product there. In short, I believe the disaster of all those projects has warned away the demographic they are hoping to attract with the latest strategy, but only time will tell. I am watching MVW from many angles, securities litigation included. It is a fascinating case study, the end of which remains TBD.

You would have thought that Marriott Vacations Worldwide would have learned a hard lesson at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residence, San Francisco, but they didn’t.

This failure, by MVW, cost MVW between $25 million to $40 million in the quarter ended December 28, 2012. That was in 2012 dollars. See attached.

 

[craigd]

You would have thought that Marriott Vacations Worldwide would have learned a hard lesson at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residence, San Francisco, but they didn’t.

This failure, by MVW, cost MVW between $25 million to $40 million in the quarter ended December 28, 2012. That was in 2012 dollars. See attached.

I have followed your posts, and I am inclined towards the characterization of MVW's business model as a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes can continue undetected for long periods of time. I am watching closely to see if the perfect storm is forming to bring this one down.

P.S. My research has no import for current timeshare users (myself included, and the focus of this website). While the ponzi scheme is in play, there are many benefits to be enjoyed by third parties. One can enjoy the well-run properties for a vacation here and there if the out-of-pocket makes sense for any given individual or family.

 

[Eric B]

You would have thought that Marriott Vacations Worldwide would have learned a hard lesson at The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residence, San Francisco, but they didn’t.

This failure, by MVW, cost MVW between $25 million to $40 million in the quarter ended December 28, 2012. That was in 2012 dollars. See attached.

This piqued my interest so I read the 14-year old attachment. The filing discusses then pending lawsuits by full-time residence owners at RCC SF regarding purported inadequate disclosures by Marriott (not MVW). It’s not obvious what the final outcome was of the lawsuits. While my interest was piqued, it wasn’t enough to motivate me to read the decade old 10-Q filings to find out.

In any case, I do believe MVW learned the hard lessons that came out of the RCC and St Regis sales times by the predecessor companies. They don’t sell those products anymore. They don’t seem to want to try to develop additional ones, either. There are other entities out there doing similar products, though. IMHO, the current effort does leverage some assets MVW holds as benefits for sales incentives. I am not sure I understand the problem with that, though. It strikes me as a more rational use of corporate assets than speculative alternatives I could dream up. My view of the bottom line here is that MVW is motivated by its bottom line - as long as the outcomes align with what I want from them I will applaud the resulting actions. I just don’t really understand what some would have them do instead - I would like better IT infrastructure but don’t want them to set aside great availability for folks that can’t plan beyond 90 days.

 

[mjm1]

I have followed your posts, and I am inclined towards the characterization of MVW's business model as a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes can continue undetected for long periods of time. I am watching closely to see if the perfect storm is forming to bring this one down.

P.S. My research has no import for current timeshare users (myself included, and the focus of this website). While the ponzi scheme is in play, there are many benefits to be enjoyed by third parties. One can enjoy the well-run properties for a vacation here and there if the out-of-pocket makes sense for any given individual or family.

I am curious as to what facts lead you to characterize MVW’s business model as a Ponzi scheme?

 

[craigd]

This piqued my interest so I read the 14-year old attachment. The filing discusses then pending lawsuits by full-time residence owners at RCC SF regarding purported inadequate disclosures by Marriott (not MVW). It’s not obvious what the final outcome was of the lawsuits. While my interest was piqued, it wasn’t enough to motivate me to read the decade old 10-Q filings to find out.

In any case, I do believe MVW learned the hard lessons that came out of the RCC and St Regis sales times by the predecessor companies. They don’t sell those products anymore. They don’t seem to want to try to develop additional ones, either. There are other entities out there doing similar products, though. IMHO, the current effort does leverage some assets MVW holds as benefits for sales incentives. I am not sure I understand the problem with that, though. It strikes me as a more rational use of corporate assets than speculative alternatives I could dream up. My view of the bottom line here is that MVW is motivated by its bottom line - as long as the outcomes align with what I want from them I will applaud the resulting actions. I just don’t really understand what some would have them do instead - I would like better IT infrastructure but don’t want them to set aside great availability for folks that can’t plan beyond 90 days.

The trouble with Ponzi schemes is there is no legitimate exit. FWIW, I agree with you regarding what they are trying to do with St Regis and RCC. Re your applause, are you applauding as existing owner with sunk costs (would make sense), or as a prospective purchaser of either the product or VAC stock (harder for me to understand)?

 

[craigd]

I am curious as to what facts lead you to characterize MVW’s business model as a Ponzi scheme?

Not the right forum for me to answer that question.

 

[Eric B]

The trouble with Ponzi schemes is there is no legitimate exit. FWIW, I agree with you regarding what they are trying to do with St Regis and RCC. Re your applause, are you applauding as existing owner with sunk costs (would make sense), or as a prospective purchaser of either the product or VAC stock (harder for me to understand)?

I actually own an RCC fractional, which I bought for $1. The seller never asked for the $1, though. I’ve pretty much written off those sunk costs.

 

[Eric B]

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/ponzi-schemes

The difficulty with calling it a Ponzi scheme is that the apparent desire is to call the retail TS purchasers investors in the scheme with their desired returns being supported by proceeds from future sales. It’s never really been set up that way. There have been representations that a TS ownership is real estate that will appreciate in value over time rather than experience the rapid depreciation on the resale market. That can be a completely different issue.

TS developers have never to my knowledge taken the proceeds from sales to distribute to early customers. Those proceeds go to commissions, marketing expenses , and corporate profits instead. Some customers do benefit from the use of some proceeds as marketing expenses in the form of benefits to regular customers, but it would be a stretch to characterize this state as making it a Ponzi, particularly since those regular customers pay higher annual dues.

If you want to call it fraud, call it fraud. That’s a more apt characterization, though the developers do quite a bit to insulate themselves from actual fraud in written disclosures that often go unread. You could say it operates similar to a Ponzi for some aspects, but it strikes me as needing to exaggerate those similarities beyond reasonable limits to get a likeness. Bottom line for me is that on the sales side, the developers go a fair way to say they are selling vacations rather than investments. On the investment side, they distribute proceeds of vacation sales as dividends and other than the initial IPO or additional capital raising stock issuances they don’t really take money from investors. I don’t see how anyone skilled in the art of investment would call it a Ponzi.

 

[craigd]

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/ponzi-schemes

The difficulty with calling it a Ponzi scheme is that the apparent desire is to call the retail TS purchasers investors in the scheme with their desired returns being supported by proceeds from future sales. It’s never really been set up that way. There have been representations that a TS ownership is real estate that will appreciate in value over time rather than experience the rapid depreciation on the resale market. That can be a completely different issue.

TS developers have never to my knowledge taken the proceeds from sales to distribute to early customers. Those proceeds go to commissions, marketing expenses , and corporate profits instead. Some customers do benefit from the use of some proceeds as marketing expenses in the form of benefits to regular customers, but it would be a stretch to characterize this state as making it a Ponzi, particularly since those regular customers pay higher annual dues.

If you want to call it fraud, call it fraud. That’s a more apt characterization, though the developers do quite a bit to insulate themselves from actual fraud in written disclosures that often go unread. You could say it operates similar to a Ponzi for some aspects, but it strikes me as needing to exaggerate those similarities beyond reasonable limits to get a likeness. Bottom line for me is that on the sales side, the developers go a fair way to say they are selling vacations rather than investments. On the investment side, they distribute proceeds of vacation sales as dividends and other than the initial IPO or additional capital raising stock issuances they don’t really take money from investors. I don’t see how anyone skilled in the art of investment would call it a Ponzi.

I see your points and agree. In terms of what the should do differently then: Lose the equity/investment talk tracks and just try selling it for what it actually is. Charge an up front "initiation fee" that grants you access to the restricted properties for as long as the annual fees make work for you with easy exit when they no longer do. I believe that is what Europe has moved to, and it does appear that the European owners are enjoying their properties (as are all those who bought resales for pennies) without any bitterness or feeling that someone lied to them.

 

[HankW]

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/ponzi-schemes

The difficulty with calling it a Ponzi scheme is that the apparent desire is to call the retail TS purchasers investors in the scheme with their desired returns being supported by proceeds from future sales. It’s never really been set up that way. There have been representations that a TS ownership is real estate that will appreciate in value over time rather than experience the rapid depreciation on the resale market. That can be a completely different issue.

TS developers have never to my knowledge taken the proceeds from sales to distribute to early customers. Those proceeds go to commissions, marketing expenses , and corporate profits instead. Some customers do benefit from the use of some proceeds as marketing expenses in the form of benefits to regular customers, but it would be a stretch to characterize this state as making it a Ponzi, particularly since those regular customers pay higher annual dues.

If you want to call it fraud, call it fraud. That’s a more apt characterization, though the developers do quite a bit to insulate themselves from actual fraud in written disclosures that often go unread. You could say it operates similar to a Ponzi for some aspects, but it strikes me as needing to exaggerate those similarities beyond reasonable limits to get a likeness. Bottom line for me is that on the sales side, the developers go a fair way to say they are selling vacations rather than investments. On the investment side, they distribute proceeds of vacation sales as dividends and other than the initial IPO or additional capital raising stock issuances they don’t really take money from investors. I don’t see how anyone skilled in the art of investment would call it a Ponzi.

What dollar amount would we put on all those unforgettable family and friends vacations? To a point, I am in the camp of "Die with Zero." It is hard to see my TS use as a financial investment verus a Family and Friends memories investment. I do understand both sides of the equations and We do take advantages of all options yearly use of the resorts, hotels, and attractive events. All personal choices, views, and decisions. By the way, always planning ahead at least two years on using all SO and CP conversions.

 

[DanCali]

What dollar amount would we put on all those unforgettable family and friends vacations? To a point, I am in the camp of "Die with Zero." It is hard to see my TS use as a financial investment verus a Family and Friends memories investment. I do understand both sides of the equations and We do take advantages of all options yearly use of the resorts, hotels, and attractive events. All personal choices, views, and decisions. By the way, always planning ahead at least two years on using all SO and CP conversions.

Die with Zero is one way to think of life. But it doesn’t mean knowingly buying something worth $2 for $18. Especially when you can get the same thing for $5, and maybe forego a meaningless “status” that doesn’t get you much and can be taken away at any time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dean]

The value of timesharing is in the usage, I just don't want to pay a lot more than I could get the same or similar for otherwise. I enjoy the feel of timesharing but it's not for everyone. I can and do plan ahead, I desire/need a kitchen, I like the activities often provided, we generally stay for a week, the locations where timeshares tend to sit fit our plans and it's a financial option I can easily swing if I plan ahead.

 

[HankW]

Agree, nothing like a "solid initial TS" purchase. May be not so solid purchase . Found TUGG and then came the next four weeks stratregic resale acquisitions. So mostly weeks (1 developer and 4 retros) with the required minimum SO points. So far the family and friends are having fun with us making more and more lovely memories that we keep talking about. But again, back to the original topic, seeing TS as an financial investment, IMHO is very difficult for me. It is all relative, situational, and individual/family goals-based. Learn with TUGG, stay informed, do the numbers, set a plan, and execute on your goals and dreams. Forndure, this approach is NOT for all people. I am accused of being very pragmatic, so IMHO, I can play this game and get the most out if it.