Request First vs. Deposit First - Trading Power

[GBsTS]

I'm not sure if there is anything here that would be specific to Marriott, but thought it would be best to ask in this forum just in case.

I know that to retain "normal" ability to trade (not limited to flex period, etc.) that you would need to deposit your week outside the 60 day window of your reserved check-in date.

If you are using request first, with a specific week reserved that has the highest TDI for that region, but don't get the match you want and then end up depositing the reservation (just outside of the 60 days for example), do you retain any of the "trading power" that the week's TDI may have provided as you continue your OGS for the trade you want in the deposit first environment?

Thanks for the help! I'm trying to understand the trading power implications if an OGS doesn't match (from the request first option) and I have to move to deposit the week due to timing (if I get close to the 60 day window) and continue with the OGS (or maybe you have to setup a new OGS in this scenario?).

 

[Saintsfanfl]

No. You do not retain any trading power from the point you placed a request first. The deposit will gradually decrease in trading power as time moves on until you decide to switch to a deposit first. Since the exchange company cannot utilize the deposit until the actual deposit occurs they are losing value while the request first is ongoing.

Request firsts are best done with highly sought after deposits where the time passing is immaterial compared to the valuable week. The reps will manually try and get a match the best they can. For other deposits where the request is a decent to large up-trade there is very little value in request first.

 

[bazzap]

A fascinating subject!
"Back in the day" as they say, we always used Request First.
Subsequently, we have always used Deposit First (as advised by the best of our MVC Sales Advisors, on the basis that we retain greater leverage with the week we are offering for exchange)
I have since heard every possible argument both for and against this approach, but as yet seen no firm evidence to confirm either option as the best.

 

[SueDonJ]

If II offers an AC for your deposit (which AC's are typically the highest-value AC's with less restrictive grids) you can only get the AC with a Deposit First exchange. That's one reason I favor Deposit First over Request First.

 

[BocaBoy]

I know that to retain "normal" ability to trade (not limited to flex period, etc.) that you would need to deposit your week outside the 60 day window of your reserved check-in date.

If you are using request first, with a specific week reserved that has the highest TDI for that region, but don't get the match you want and then end up depositing the reservation (just outside of the 60 days for example), do you retain any of the "trading power" that the week's TDI may have provided as you continue your OGS for the trade you want in the deposit first environment?).

It sounds like you plan to deposit if you don't get a Request First match. If that is true (and I may have misunderstood), then you should just deposit now for maximum trade power. The advantage to Request First is only if you plan to use the week yourself (or rent it out) if you don't get a trade match.

 

[cowboy]

I would like to ask an additional question regarding the request first or deposit first question. If a week is deposited does it give the person depositing it a better chance to obtain a requested week than if the week to be deposited was used as a request first week?

 

[Saintsfanfl]

I would like to ask an additional question regarding the request first or deposit first question. If a week is deposited does it give the person depositing it a better chance to obtain a requested week than if the week to be deposited was used as a request first week?

Nobody can definitively answer that question but a reasonable theory would be the opposite because Interval may try harder to satisfy the request since they do not yet own the deposit. However, in practice this is probably not the case. For example Interval calls me several times a week trying to get me to take alternative accommodations to satisfy my request that is a deposit first. It seems they hunt for any revenue they can get.

I would say with fair certainty they if the deposit is rare and sought after they will try harder than usual to get the request first fulfilled. A skilled rep can daisy chain one request with another and then another and another. They seem to work hard at it so they must be getting some type of commission on fulfilling requests.

 

[SueDonJ]

Nobody can definitively answer that question but a reasonable theory would be the opposite because Interval may try harder to satisfy the request since they do not yet own the deposit. However, in practice this is probably not the case. For example Interval calls me several times a week trying to get me to take alternative accommodations to satisfy my request that is a deposit first. It seems they hunt for any revenue they can get.

I would say with fair certainty they if the deposit is rare and sought after they will try harder than usual to get the request first fulfilled. A skilled rep can daisy chain one request with another and then another and another. They seem to work hard at it so they must be getting some type of commission on fulfilling requests.

I don't know if one way returns more value than the other but it seems to me that anybody who calls in and manages to connect with one of the more-helpful reps will get some extra attention with their exchange request. On the Sightings board it's fairly common to see intervals that should have been matched to ongoing searches, but not matched unless a call is made.

 

[bazzap]

Yes, I am convinced that establishing a rapport with your Interval rep(s) has a far greater influence over your Exchange success rate than whether you Deposit or Request First.
Thankfully, my wife has mastered this technique, so I am only too happy to leave this to her.

 

[MALC9990]

I don't know if one way returns more value than the other but it seems to me that anybody who calls in and manages to connect with one of the more-helpful reps will get some extra attention with their exchange request. On the Sightings board it's fairly common to see intervals that should have been matched to ongoing searches, but not matched unless a call is made.

There is of course no excuse for this to happen. An OGS should never miss a matching deposit in an overnight search process. However these are done in an overnight process and so a matching deposit made during the day can disappear before that overnight process is actioned. To ensure this does not happen, what II should do is hold all deposits aside until this overnight process is actioned. After that any new deposits not matched should be made available for online searches.

Since enrolling my weeks into the DC, I have ceased using II for my European weeks, exchanges are now done with DC points. Only my Phuket Beach Club Weeks are outside the DC system but are inside the AP Points system so when my personal II account expires, I doubt that I will renew it. However if II were to improve the OGS process to be fairer then I would consder returning to usng II.

 

[MALC9990]

Yes, I am convinced that establishing a rapport with your Interval rep(s) has a far greater influence over your Exchange success rate than whether you Deposit or Request First.
Thankfully, my wife has mastered this technique, so I am only too happy to leave this to her.

This really should not be necessary since a computer based process should be much more efficient and accurate than any manual process. As my post above states, simple improvements to the way new deposits are handled by the II computer systems would ensure that the OGS process was fairer to those that use it. When I place an OGS I pay the exchange fee upfront and so I should get the service I pay for.

 

[bazzap]

This really should not be necessary since a computer based process should be much more efficient and accurate than any manual process. As my post above states, simple improvements to the way new deposits are handled by the II computer systems would ensure that the OGS process was fairer to those that use it. When I place an OGS I pay the exchange fee upfront and so I should get the service I pay for.

Indeed so.
If and when the Interval system ever does work the way it should, we will certainly welcome benefiting from it without our manual intervention.

 

[GBsTS]

Thanks everyone for sharing!

 

[Marathoner]

Thanks everyone for sharing!

I do think there are a couple additional difference between deposit first vs request first which is worth mentioning.

I think it is quite material to point out that request first ongoing searches can only be initiated a maximum of 12 months in advance whereas deposit first ongoing searches can be done 24 months in advance. Given that fixed week deposits and multi-week owned reservations can be deposited more than 12 months in advance, I believe that this a strong reason to do a deposit first of your week.

I recall someone in this forum saying that deposit first weeks gain in trade power (or, at worst, do not lose trade power) over time whereas request first weeks lose trade power over time as explained in a post above. I don't believe this is material if you are doing an instant exchange but may be material if you are doing a ongoing search.

Hope this helps.

 

[dioxide45]

It was my understanding from reading years ago that the trading power assigned to your OGS stays the same throughout the search unless you cancel. If you cancel and deposit, you will have the trade power based on when you actually deposit. But if you place an OGS, you don't lose trade power as it goes along. Though I could be wrong or not remembering correctly, or it all could have changes since then.