Point Transfer Receiving Limit - Capped at 20,000 Points Annually [MERGED]

[wuv pooh]

THese types of events are one off things (well two), but you get what I mean. It isn't every year we see F1 or the Superbowl in a location with timeshares. I would think there has to be other regular situations where it makes sense to rent and flip point bookings like this. Seems like a lot of work for little gain and a lot of risk.

You can check as much as you want. Take the points chart and x $.65, then look up the equivalent rent for the same week/view on Marriott.com. There will be a large difference. People will pay more for the points and less than direct, profit. Current Tbills are ~ 4%. You can easily make 20% ($.78 net) with effort - even more with prime weeks and views. I am sure there are people moving millions in reservations.

This is the exact same model as the DVC rentals. You can save money by booking points via a broker vs. direct from Disney. The broker keeps the difference. There are several viable businesses doing this, and back in the day some people even purchased 100,000 points to engage in the business. Think they have tightened up their rules over the last 20 years too.

 

[dioxide45]

It would be interesting to know how many accounts actually see >20K inbound point transfers. I would have to think this is impacting very few owners?

 

[wuv pooh]

"Both directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to all owners which requires them to act in the best interest of the owners." You are in a better position to interpret this article, what do you think? Remember, the developer has multiple roles because it is a property manager, it also manages the point trusts, and it also manages the reservation system. They may have individual licenses for each category.

Selecting a Property Manager | JD Supra

Property managers play a significant role in commercial real estate operations. With thousands of property managers to choose from, finding a suitable...

www.jdsupra.com

The point you are missing is that they are also an owner. In fact they are the largest owner in the system. This does provide a potential conflict of interest. That is why I am with Marriott, I believe they are an ethical company. I would argue that they deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners. That is why all the trash weeks end up as getaways or rentals. They make their money by overcharging for non occupancy exchanges offset by the net loss on renting trash weeks, plus their management fee. It is not in their best interest to screw the other owners by reserving and renting all the prime weeks. That would destroy their sales/development business, which is their other main profit center.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Mega renters should not be taking the best weeks in Abound. This is a drag on the Abound system that they are selling if Abound owners are complaining that they cannot get the weeks they want, and artificially increases the points rental cost for the rest of the owners who occasionally want to rent.

20k points seems like a reasonable amount to rent if one compares that a 2 bdrm OF in Hawaii runs about 8k - 9.5k. You can still rent weeks from owners if you need more.

The cost to rent points will decline because the Mega Renters are driving up the price. I hope I can rent points for a reasonable price to when I need more space for family.

 

[timsi]

The point you are missing is that they are also an owner. In fact they are the largest owner in the system. This does provide a potential conflict of interest. That is why I am with Marriott, I believe they are an ethical company. I would argue that they deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners. That is why all the trash weeks end up as getaways or rentals. They make their money by overcharging for non occupancy exchanges offset by the net loss on renting trash weeks, plus their management fee. It is not in their best interest to screw the other owners by reserving and renting all the prime weeks. That would destroy their sales/development business, which is their other main profit center.

I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.

 

[dioxide45]

I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.

Not sure what else you would expect them to do with the inventory they take back? THey could instead not take it back and let the owners devault which hurts other owners in the end with higher fees to cover the delinquencies.

 

[bnoble]

For those of you who are thinking Marriott is risking goodwill with its customer base, take note:

It would be interesting to know how many accounts actually see >20K inbound point transfers.

Mega renters should not be taking the best weeks in Abound.

We've already seen this play out in other systems that have been much more antagonistic towards renting than Marriott is so far. Most owners don't rent. Most owners who do rent do so only here and there. Very few do it at scale. It will not take long for most owners to see these changes and cheer Marriott on. Yes, a few people will be upset, and they might liquidate and/or stop buying more. But, most everyone else will think this is a great thing that helps them--whether or not it is actually true--and will feel even better about their ownership.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

BTW...I see it is my right as a deeded VOI owner to rent out my week when and where I want - we purchased our property knowing it is an option so they cannot take that away. So far we have used our week, but I want to know the option is there.

MVC renting points to other owners is an attractive part of the system. What they have done is reasonable for owners like me who will rent out or rent points on occasion.

 

[timsi]

Not sure what else you would expect them to do with the inventory they take back? THey could instead not take it back and let the owners devault which hurts other owners in the end with higher fees to cover the delinquencies.

Wait for the times they cannot sell/ rent as much as they can buy, they will do exactly that.

I was just contrasting the high pressure/high profit activity with the comment Wuh pooh made and they do not make sense together. It is a for profit organization and you would expect them to act that way in all aspects of their business.

 

[Dean]

If you are talking about Vistana weeks, our rules are pretty clear:

14.4. Rentals. Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a
Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be
responsible for coordinating any third party rentals with the Property Association."

The restriction of the commercial activity can be interpreted in the sense that you can't open a massage parlor in a timeshare unit:

"14.3. Limits On Occupants, Commercial Use and Other Vacation Plans. The
number of people allowed in any Vacation Unit is limited to the maximum number listed in the
Declaration and Resort Rules. Members and other Occupants may only use a Vacation Unit to
provide vacation lodgings for themselves and their guests. They may not use a Vacation Unit for
any commercial purpose. Also, they may not transfer, rent or otherwise contribute their
Vacation Ownership Interest, use rights, Points, or Vacation Period to any other vacation
ownership or time share program (including any non-equity use plans) or to any external
exchange program other than External Exchange Programs having agreements with Founding
Member or the Property Association. This Section does not apply to and shall not limit the
Founding Member or the Property Association."


I do not find any other rules that would give the developer those special rights you mention frequently. Maybe are only specific to the resort you own.

Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.

As we've previously noted, MVC has control. Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally. Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a hill of beans difference. I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.

I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella. MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well. I doubt this change alone will have much affect. I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue. My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental. Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done. However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.

 

[dioxide45]

Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.

As we've previously noted, MVC has control. Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally. Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a hill of beans difference. I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.

I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella. MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well. I doubt this change alone will have much affect. I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue. My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental. Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done. However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.

I suspect for things like Coachella, points reservations are better. Many don't want to rent a whole week for this type of event. They may want the two to three day weekend for the big acts. Points are better for that. During one of our sales presentations over the past couple years, we were pushed to buy more points on the premise of making 5 night Sun-Thur reservations using points and renting those out. You undercut the week based rentals on price because of fewer days and many renters are fine with that. The margins seemed to be the same or better, but again only something that can be done with points. Perhaps it was this salesperson who told us he did dozens of rentals like this that is cause for the new cap. His push though was to buy points and never mentioned anything about renting/transferring in, which he could very well have been doing.

 

[wuv pooh]

I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.

As much proof as you do for your conspiracy theories Seems pretty simple, they increase ownership to build the trust and get inventory to sell without having to engage in expensive and speculative construction projects. They make money managing properties and selling points. They limit losses by renting, selling getaways, giving less value than worth for Bonvoy points, Collette vacations, etc. Have not cared for a long time, so not sure if their financials break out the rental impact. Someone has to eat all the trash weeks that are worth less than the rental/maintenance fee, that someone is MVCI. They are the only ones who can recycle them into points and sell them again. If they don't then prices drop to zero for the majority of weeks/resorts and the COA gets stuck with the defaults/fees resulting in higher expenses for the remaining owners. You can see that in most other systems. If they wanted to be a hotel business that sells reservations they never would have gotten into timeshares in the first place.

 

[timsi]

As much proof as you do for your conspiracy theories Seems pretty simple, they increase ownership to build the trust and get inventory to sell without having to engage in expensive and speculative construction projects. They make money managing properties and selling points. They limit losses by renting, selling getaways, giving less value than worth for Bonvoy points, Collette vacations, etc. Have not cared for a long time, so not sure if their financials break out the rental impact. Someone has to eat all the trash weeks that are worth less than the rental/maintenance fee, that someone is MVCI. They are the only ones who can recycle them into points and sell them again. If they don't then prices drop to zero for the majority of weeks/resorts and the COA gets stuck with the defaults/fees resulting in higher expenses for the remaining owners. You can see that in most other systems. If they wanted to be a hotel business that sells reservations they never would have gotten into timeshares in the first place.

What proof are you providing for your propagandistic theories?

 

[klkaylor]

There are several groups consolidating points and booking prime weeks. Probably using bots at MVC. Perfect example is the Marriott Grand Chateau for F1 week in 2023. I tried to get a points reservation at 13 month mark at point I thought units were being released. Nothing. Again at 12 month mark, nothing available. I am getting emails from the people that have the unit reservations. The group has anything I want available to rent at high rates. They didn't just stumble into these reservations. They groups sought out high value reservation and sucked the pool dry. My guess and HO is the action at Grand Chateau may have triggered this points cap.

After going through exactly what you did for the F1 race I opened a thread to see what folks thing and I agree that this was prob. the precipitating event although if there are reservation bots then this style of point consolidation and bot reservations could effect Maui/Park City/Wiaohai/Aruba - maybe instead restricting point transfers they should examine if bots are making reservations and eliminate that.
One other way to deal with high demand location and the rush to get to the computer at 0659 MT on tues would be to set up a sign up waiting room and then randomize out the order in which you get to reserve - maybe by status as well. This worked well with ski reservations during covid.

 

[dioxide45]

After going through exactly what you did for the F1 race I opened a thread to see what folks thing and I agree that this was prob. the precipitating event although if there are reservation bots then this style of point consolidation and bot reservations could effect Maui/Park City/Wiaohai/Aruba - maybe instead restricting point transfers they should examine if bots are making reservations and eliminate that.
One other way to deal with high demand location and the rush to get to the computer at 0659 MT on tues would be to set up a sign up waiting room and then randomize out the order in which you get to reserve - maybe by status as well. This worked well with ski reservations during covid.

They could also simply implement something like reCAPTCHA.

 

[timsi]

Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.

As we've previously noted, MVC has control. Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally. Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a hill of beans difference. I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.

I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella. MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well. I doubt this change alone will have much affect. I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue. My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental. Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done. However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.

I find it normal to prevent use of independent exchange companies because that requires a certain legal and procedural coordination with such exchange, and you cannot ask them to bear that costs every time an owner wants to deposit a week into a new exchange.

About legal challenges, companies cannot rely just on the idea they would never be sued, people sue occasionally for all kind of reasons, good or bad.

 

[vacationtime1]

They could also simply implement something like reCAPTCHA.

This would be brilliant if it works. Yes, it would be frustrating for those who legitimately need multiple units (family reunions, etc,), but if Grand Chateau is unavailable at 12:00:01, something is very wrong with the current arrangement.

 

[dioxide45]

This would be brilliant if it works.

This is the key. So far, MVC's track record for implementing anything IT related is pretty grim...

 

[Fasttr]

I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch. ;-)

 

[dioxide45]

I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch. ;-)

I wonder if we will see an updated Abound Exchange Procedures on 1/1/2023 or will it take them months to release a new version.

 

[emeryjre]

Regarding Grand Chateau. I have probably underestimated the value of a reservation including the dates of the November 16 to 18. The Grand Chateau and the HGVC at Planet Hollywood are at Ground Zero for the Pits, Paddock, Garages. I am not an F! fan, but have an enthusiastic nephew that was pushing for a reservation. These places will rent for Thousands a night to wealthy from around the world wanting to be at the epicenter of the activity. The Wynn, Venetian, Ceasars Palace, etc, will be OK, but Grand Chateau and HGVC will be highly sought after locations.

 

[emeryjre]

Do we really think another project for the Marriott IT department is a good idea?

 

[timsi]

I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch. ;-)

We can walk and chew gum at the same time!

 

[Dean]

About legal challenges, companies cannot rely just on the idea they would never be sued, people sue occasionally for all kind of reasons, good or bad.

Let us know how it works out for you.

 

[bnoble]

I don't think most timeshare developers rely on not being sued. I think they rely on (a) the fact that they have the upper hand as the authors of the contract language and (b) even if they are vulnerable, they can pretty much bury any individual in a legal war of attrition.

That leaves class actions that some hungry law firm is willing to foot the bill for on the promise of a payout, and most of those go absolutely nowhere. In the time I've owned timeshares, I can think of maybe one class action that actually resulted in something for the plaintiffs--the RCI lawsuit. And, at the end of the day, even that was a failure, because RCI made a few changes that mostly rendered the concessions moot.