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

[SueDonJ]

I am still waiting for them to step forward, but you may have ruined the odds, they are all in hiding now despite my open invitation .

Seriously now though, I have seen posts in the past from more than one person that claimed to have solid sources from Marriott. Maybe you have seen them too. The information provided by insiders is useful to the extend where others can evaluate the ties to the company and determine what is fact and what is wishful thinking or propaganda. I do not think that any executive would be silly to comment here, but lower ranking people may be tempted.

Lower-ranking Marriott people who post misinformation here are eventually outed by TUGgers who spot them a mile away, or, they disappear because the Marriott people who monitor social media sites recognize their foolishness. Any Marriott people who post anonymously and don't disparage the company or put the company at risk aren't hurting anybody and thus don't need to be outed - and it's their choice whether they out themselves to any participants here.

Aside from all that, this tangent reads like a roundabout way of you saying that you don't have a good answer for the question that was asked of you.

 

[dioxide45]

Those who actually know anything official not only won't be talking, but they likely can't. To a degree Covid and it's effects are still likely in play here due to staffing shortages among other variables. We're all dealing with it on a daily basis so it makes sense that MVC is as well.

No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.

 

[bizaro86]

No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.

Yeah. The problem is if they participated on social media people would ask them questions they don't want to answer (eg resale related)

 

[bnoble]

Maybe, but more generally: Most companies definitely do not want rank-and-file employees speaking for "the company." They have highly paid communications teams to do that, and those teams are especially good at saying nothing in as many words as possible. ;-)

 

[timsi]

No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.

It makes sense for the company to put a blanket ban on social media, it would be impossible to control the message otherwise. At the same time, it is virtually impossible to police thousands or tens of thousands of profiles.

 

[bizaro86]

Maybe, but more generally: Most companies definitely do not want rank-and-file employees speaking for "the company." They have highly paid communications teams to do that, and those teams are especially good at saying nothing in as many words as possible. ;-)

I don't believe MVW engages on any social media in any meaningful way do they? For example, pre Marriott takeover SPG had a designated representative on the Flyertalk forums. It was a specific trained person, but could answer questions, etc.

Similar in some ways to the way Mark from II works here, although more public.

MVC could do something similar on Facebook/elsewhere if they wanted to, and obviously having random low level employees spouting off online wouldn't be good.

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't believe MVW engages on any social media in any meaningful way do they? For example, pre Marriott takeover SPG had a designated representative on the Flyertalk forums. It was a specific trained person, but could answer questions, etc.

Similar in some ways to the way Mark from II works here, although more public.

MVC could do something similar on Facebook/elsewhere if they wanted to, and obviously having random low level employees spouting off online wouldn't be good.

Marriott used to have an identified rep who regularly participated on Flyertalk, too. Even TUG has a couple of members who are/were acknowledged to be Marriott employees speaking for the company, but they posted very rarely and haven't been seen for years now.

I'd love for Marriott to have a voice here, if only to let us know when we're so far off the mark that the whole of Orlando's corporate office is laughing at us.

 

[bizaro86]

Marriott used to have an identified rep who regularly participated on Flyertalk, too. Even TUG has a couple of members who are/were acknowledged to be Marriott employees speaking for the company, but they posted very rarely and haven't been seen for years now.

I'd love for Marriott to have a voice here, if only to let us know when we're so far off the mark that the whole of Orlando's corporate office is laughing at us.

Marriott the hotel side had a flyertalk rep. The timeshare side is much less willing to engage, because the business model requires an ethical leap that they aren't willing to defend in public.

 

[Dean]

From what I'm hearing this was largely a single owner who was reserving months of inventory. I'm also being told that this issue has also triggered MVC to reevaluate the enrollment program. Not sure what that means or where it might lead but I can think of some possibilities.

 

[dioxide45]

From what I'm hearing this was largely a single owner who was reserving months of inventory. I'm also being told that this issue has also triggered MVC to reevaluate the enrollment program. Not sure what that means or where it might lead but I can think of some possibilities.

That is kind of what I would expect, but why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?

 

[DanCali]

I am not a fan of drip-drip changes but the more I think about it, it sounds like a reasonable restriction.

There are definitely ways to profit from using points to rent weeks. My personal impression from perusing points charts was that this was possibly an issue with extremely "cheap" off-season reservations, but to the extent this is happening with high demand inventory and $1000/night reservations, then it's probably a bigger issue.

There are plenty of "heavy users" here... how many have transferred in 20,000 points just for their own travel needs (or maybe for a large family gathering)? And is anyone doing it year after year? I've had cases where I preferred to rent out my own weeks and then rent points in because it was more economical to do it that way, but I don't think it was ever more than 5000-7000 points in a single year.

They are not limiting people from renting out points and anyone needing to rent in more than 20,000 points on a regular basis (which is the equivalent to 4+ weeks of vacation even at highly desired locations like July at NCV) should probably find alternate ways to achieve that goal consistently.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.

 

[bnoble]

why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?

I'm reminded of a joke-that-isn't-a-joke: Every rule in a high school "student code of conduct" has one specific (and probably long-graduated) student behind it who is the reason the rule exists.

 

[bizaro86]

This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.

Worldmark offers point transfers between members, but limited to 2x the annual points per year.

Shell offers unlimited points transfers between members, but they must be used to make a reservation immediately.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Good to know that Worldmark and Shell offer. I am not familiar with those programs. Vistana and HGVC only allow renting home weeks.

 

[dioxide45]

I'm reminded of a joke-that-isn't-a-joke: Every rule in a high school "student code of conduct" has one specific (and probably long-graduated) student behind it who is the reason the rule exists.

For sure, so instead of just dealing with the one person and sending them some type of certified "cease & desist" type of letter, they institute a new rule that impacts the entire owner base that may also incure additional costs that we all pay for in the end.

 

[Dean]

That is kind of what I would expect, but why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?

I'm with you and said as much here previously but that is the sense my contact has gotten internally. My guess is one or 2 owners with egregious situations then they started digging and discussing further but we'll likely never know more for certain. It doesn't matter at the current rule IMO other than as it impacts owners just trying to use but not abuse the system such as large trips, retired and traveling (or similar) or family reunion type circumstances. Unfortunately it's likely to evolve and as it does, it will likely have more impact on the rank and file. I'm all for rules that prevent repetitive and large scale renting while preserving the right to rent when needed. One problem is where do you draw the line as each and every one of us would have a different definition of "commercial renting".

It was the second part that got my attention, that of looking at enrollments. If I were in a situation where I were planning to enroll with a purchase, I'd want to get it done sooner rather than later. We could speculate on whether this issue will have legs and if so, what the outcome would be, but I think any negative changes would remove flexibility for enrolling more than 7 weeks at a time and likely reduce the number of weeks that can be enrolled as a set to a lower number, maybe 5. It would also likely have an impact on enrolling fractional.

 

[timsi]

Aside from all that, this tangent reads like a roundabout way of you saying that you don't have a good answer for the question that was asked of you.

I do not have to answer but when you tell us how much the developer owns at the resorts you own, I will give you the answer.

 

[SueDonJ]

I do not have to answer but when you tell us how much the developer owns at the resorts you own, I will give you the answer.

I honestly couldn't care less how many intervals at Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch are owned by Marriotts Vacation Worldwide. I'm a little more interested in how many of those intervals have been conveyed to the Abound Trust because the machinations fascinate me, but still not interested enough to comb through the financial statements and public documents that would tell me the numbers. What does interest me is the experience that I have trying to book and use the intervals that I own, and in my experience I've had a high success rate using them as Weeks or as enrolled/elected Abound Points. Not a 100% success rate (which for me would translate to every year being successful getting first choices at the first tries) but more than high enough (translating to occasionally having to "settle" for second or third tries/choices) that I don't suspect MVW or any other owners of nefarious actions meant to sabotage my equal rights to the high-demand intervals that I routinely want.

You don't have to answer anything but voluntarily doing so, without any qualifications or stipulations, lends credibility.

 

[timsi]

I honestly couldn't care less how many intervals at Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch are owned by Marriotts Vacation Worldwide. I'm a little more interested in how many of those intervals have been conveyed to the Abound Trust because the machinations fascinate me, but still not interested enough to comb through the financial statements and public documents that would tell me the numbers. What does interest me is the experience that I have trying to book and use the intervals that I own, and in my experience I've had a high success rate using them as Weeks or as enrolled/elected Abound Points. Not a 100% success rate (which for me would translate to every year being successful getting first choices at the first tries) but more than high enough (translating to occasionally having to "settle" for second or third tries/choices) that I don't suspect MVW or any other owners of nefarious actions meant to sabotage my equal rights to the high-demand intervals that I routinely want.

You don't have to answer anything but voluntarily doing so, without any qualifications or stipulations, lends credibility.

I guess I lost a lot of credibility already when I did not agree that Abound was launched in 2010.

If you have such great success booking your weeks and you do not care about the rental revenue generated by the developer, it should not bother you either when the regular folks do it.

 

[SueDonJ]

I guess I lost a lot of credibility already when I did not agree that Abound was launched in 2010.

If you have such great success booking your weeks and you do not care about the rental revenue generated by the developer, it should not bother you either when the regular folks do it.

I'm not exactly sure but if you're saying that I should be okay with owners being mega-renters because I'm okay with Marriott doing it? No, I'm not okay with it and there's no reason I should be.

The governing docs give Marriott the right to rent the inventory they own and the inventory that owners elect to allow Marriott to rent for them, as well as inventory that Marriott is entitled to take when owners are delinquent on fees or when owners don't book in accordance with the Reservation Procedures - and collectively that's a good chunk of inventory they can play with. The same docs give owners the right to rent what they own BUT also contain prohibitions on "commercial activity", with some of the docs alluding to owner rentals as commercial activity and others not, but all of the language being vague enough to give Marriott leeway as to how to interpret it. Sure, interpretation can be challenged, but why anybody would put their own money and time up against the Marriott behemoth with a 95% chance of losing is beyond me.

So for me it's rules. I like rules. I like people to follow the rules. I think if we give Marriott leeway to bend the rules in our favor, then we lose all credibility to challenge them when they bend the rules to hurt us. Marriott has the right to rent on a large scale; owners have the right to rent but the scale can be limited. In my experience booking high-demand holiday periods (Memorial Day and Labor Day at the beach) I've never felt as though Marriott was taking all the good stuff for their rental business and leaving me in the dust, never have seen any indication of it being a possibility. On the other hand, I have worried that owners or a group of owners of my same intervals could decide to become mega-renters and shut me out in the blink of an eye.

 

[timsi]

I'm not exactly sure but if you're saying that I should be okay with owners being mega-renters because I'm okay with Marriott doing it? No, I'm not okay with it and there's no reason I should be.

The governing docs give Marriott the right to rent the inventory they own and the inventory that owners elect to allow Marriott to rent for them, as well as inventory that Marriott is entitled to take when owners are delinquent on fees or when owners don't book in accordance with the Reservation Procedures - and collectively that's a good chunk of inventory they can play with. The same docs give owners the right to rent what they own BUT also contain prohibitions on "commercial activity", with some of the docs alluding to owner rentals as commercial activity and others not, but all of the language being vague enough to give Marriott leeway as to how to interpret it. Sure, interpretation can be challenged, but why anybody would put their own money and time up against the Marriott behemoth with a 95% chance of losing is beyond me.

So for me it's rules. I like rules. I like people to follow the rules. I think if we give Marriott leeway to bend the rules in our favor, then we lose all credibility to challenge them when they bend the rules to hurt us. Marriott has the right to rent on a large scale; owners have the right to rent but the scale can be limited. In my experience booking high-demand holiday periods (Memorial Day and Labor Day at the beach) I've never felt as though Marriott was taking all the good stuff for their rental business and leaving me in the dust, never have seen any indication of it being a possibility. On the other hand, I have worried that owners or a group of owners of my same intervals could decide to become mega-renters and shut me out in the blink of an eye.

On one hand you say that the rules are vague and on the other hand that you like rules. I do not see a lot of consistency here.

At the resort that shall not be named the developer does not seem to have the right to book its own weeks in a manner that is different than the one available to the regular folks, or have some super rental capabilities. It seems it may differ from resort to resort and owners should not automatically assume they are in an inferior position without checking the actual resort rules.

 

[SueDonJ]

On one hand you say that the rules are vague and on the other hand that you like rules. I do not see a lot of consistency here.

At the resort that shall not be named the developer does not seem to have the right to book its own weeks in a manner that is different than the one available to the regular folks, or have some super rental capabilities. It seems it may differ from resort to resort and owners should not automatically assume they are in an inferior position without checking the actual resort rules.

I didn't say the rules are vague; I said the language in the docs related to the "commercial activity" prohibition is vague. Even when owner rentals are expressly stated in the prohibition the language is still vague. But the rules are clear: Marriott can rent however many intervals they collect through methods specified in the governing docs, owners can rent their intervals but may be subject to the commercial activity prohibition if/when/however Marriott determines to implement it. I'm not saying it's fair! Marriott has the definitive advantage. What I am saying is that IME at least, Marriott does not appear to misuse or abuse that advantage to the owners' detriment.

Remember, I've lately dabbled in rentals these last few years, electing Abound Points for my Weeks and then using those points to book high-demand summer Hawaii intervals that I've placed with a broker. I'd guess maybe 10 or 12 over three years? Time's flying, maybe 15 or so over five years? I'm not against owners renting out intervals. I am, though, against a single owner monopolizing a majority of the highest-demand intervals for rentals, and I'd be in favor of Marriott implementing an annual cap on the number of reservations in an owner's account to which a guest's name can be attached. And I'm completely in favor of the topic of this thread, i.e. an annual cap on the number of Abound Points that can be transferred in to an owner's account. I think it's a fair solution to the complex problem of owner-brokers negatively impacting other owners.

 

[timsi]

It would be interesting to see the rate at which they should compensate the HOA for the units that are unoccupied by owners and rented by the developer. I assume you do not think the developer should get those rooms for free while the owners pay for the maintenance fees.

 

[frank808]

This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.

DVC allows you to transfer in as many points as you want into each use year ownership. Though you can only do one transfer in each use year. So if I have 5 use years, I can take in 5 different transfers.