Shouldn’t the “skim” be a dead issue now?

[Kel]

We have owned a low season Desert Springs II week for 23 years and it exchanges Red all year. We always lock it off and exchange for 2 weeks. It has and still works thru Interval for us. We were told 23 years ago when we bought that we would have access to all new resorts being added in the future. My issue with the points system isn't that we only get 1675 points for our week - it is that we are being told by sales reps that we will not be able to or it will be tough to exchange thru Interval into resorts that were not sold as weeks.

We enrolled our week into Marriott's program few years by buying an Encore package so we are saving $. But, I don't like that unless we buy some point we are going to have a tough time getting into new resorts because they are now in Marriott's system and not Intervals.

Right now everything is still working great for us with Interval. Recently we received some destination points for a presentation and I spent five months of a stupid amount of time trying to get one Wednesday night a Marriott's Aruba Surf Club or Ocean Club. Three months on a waitlist and 30 days checking several times a day. Finally got something, but we had to change rooms for the rest of our 2 week stay. And, after almost 10 years in the points business why isn't Marriott's online system 100% automated?

 

[Dean]

We have owned a low season Desert Springs II week for 23 years and it exchanges Red all year. We always lock it off and exchange for 2 weeks. It has and still works thru Interval for us. We were told 23 years ago when we bought that we would have access to all new resorts being added in the future. My issue with the points system isn't that we only get 1675 points for our week - it is that we are being told by sales reps that we will not be able to or it will be tough to exchange thru Interval into resorts that were not sold as weeks.

We enrolled our week into Marriott's program few years by buying an Encore package so we are saving $. But, I don't like that unless we buy some point we are going to have a tough time getting into new resorts because they are now in Marriott's system and not Intervals.

Right now everything is still working great for us with Interval. Recently we received some destination points for a presentation and I spent five months of a stupid amount of time trying to get one Wednesday night a Marriott's Aruba Surf Club or Ocean Club. Three months on a waitlist and 30 days checking several times a day. Finally got something, but we had to change rooms for the rest of our 2 week stay. And, after almost 10 years in the points business why isn't Marriott's online system 100% automated?

The POS that governs your purchase and your ownership certainly says otherwise. I'm sure it says not to expect new resorts added to the system. Remember the Trust is a separate system with the same name and a crossover. Any new resorts in points are not technically part of the same system. Plus the POS says exchange systems are not guaranteed. Don't rely on verbal representations of a salesperson, which BTW, you signed that you weren't when you purchased. This is a lesson for those newer to timesharing, one we've all learned one way or another.

 

[Kel]

Marriott Vacation Club points or weeks is still Marriott Vacation Club. Changing the program in 2010 only works for multiple week owners and owners who buy a lot of points. The reviews I see show those are the people who seem most happy with the points program. And, it appears there are a lot of people out there who are able to spend $50,000 to $100,000+ on a purchase price with large annual maintenance fees.

A few years ago, we started going to a lot of Marriott presentations. The reps stories change all the time. The latest one in the last six months... There is a buyback program. There is NO buyback program. There is a buyback program in writing. No, there is NO buyback program. Why would we or anyone buy anything from Marriott right now. They can't keep their stories straight. Anyway, we gladly take the presentation gifts and listen to their lies. We are still happy with our Marriott and will continue to use it as we have for 23 years.

 

[bazzap]

I was told that the point cost for the individual rooms (1BR, Studios) can be increased, but only the total 2BR villa point values cannot be increased. Therefore, the one bedroom rate increase would not require a corresponding decrease for other days or for studios.

All I know is that when I asked, the total cost of all points for all available unit sizes for all days in the calendar for each resort was always a fixed number.

 

[JIMinNC]

We were told 23 years ago when we bought that we would have access to all new resorts being added in the future. My issue with the points system isn't that we only get 1675 points for our week - it is that we are being told by sales reps that we will not be able to or it will be tough to exchange thru Interval into resorts that were not sold as weeks.

When you were told that by the sales rep 23 years ago, that was a 100% correct statement. The points system wasn't even in the works then. They had no way to know back then that a new program would someday be developed. Products and programs change. We can't expect anything to stay the same forever. Even when you buy a home, you can't predict how your neighborhood might change over time or what changes a HOA might make.

Changing the program in 2010 only works for multiple week owners and owners who buy a lot of points. The reviews I see show those are the people who seem most happy with the points program. And, it appears there are a lot of people out there who are able to spend $50,000 to $100,000+ on a purchase price with large annual maintenance fees.

I don't think you have to own a lot of points to be happy with the points program. We only own a little over 3300 and it works very well for us. We've used ours for a number of of short stays/long weekends, and we bank/borrow/rent points when we need more points to book a more "expensive" stay. We've always gotten exactly what we wanted, and that includes fall/spring holiday and summer in Hilton Head and whale season in Hawaii. We also avoid the frustrating Interval International "start a search and wait for a match" process. We go online at the right time and book.

A few years ago, we started going to a lot of Marriott presentations. The reps stories change all the time. The latest one in the last six months... There is a buyback program. There is NO buyback program. There is a buyback program in writing. No, there is NO buyback program.

Based on reports here on TUG, there is a buyback program for Points. Several have reported Marriott has offered $2-$2.50/point to buy them back. Not a lot of money, but compared to the $3-$4/point price on the external secondary market, a sure $2 from MVC versus an uncertain sale at a higher price, the sure thing from MVC might be attractive to someone wanting to sell.

 

[Dean]

Marriott Vacation Club points or weeks is still Marriott Vacation Club. Changing the program in 2010 only works for multiple week owners and owners who buy a lot of points. The reviews I see show those are the people who seem most happy with the points program. And, it appears there are a lot of people out there who are able to spend $50,000 to $100,000+ on a purchase price with large annual maintenance fees.

A few years ago, we started going to a lot of Marriott presentations. The reps stories change all the time. The latest one in the last six months... There is a buyback program. There is NO buyback program. There is a buyback program in writing. No, there is NO buyback program. Why would we or anyone buy anything from Marriott right now. They can't keep their stories straight. Anyway, we gladly take the presentation gifts and listen to their lies. We are still happy with our Marriott and will continue to use it as we have for 23 years.

The Trust system and the weeks system are legally separate entities with a crossover option which is not guaranteed, the Destinations Club Program. They may be the same in your mind and be under the same name umbrella but they are legally separate entities. Further, DC points only have access to the trust inventory to the extent that those owners use the DC inventory for elected weeks that year. If no trust owners used DC inventory, it wouldn't matter how much trust inventory there was, the DC points would not have legal access to those weeks. Obviously if there's a lot of movement back and forth it doesn't create a problem but it's helpful to understand the inherent set up.

I think you've learned something many of us have known from a long time, relying on sales representations is fraught with danger on a good day even from the ones that are trying to be helpful and accurate but often you can tell they're lying if they're mouth is moving. They have no authority and they often don't know the answers as well as you and I do about many of the issues.

Guilty as charged on the volume and yes, there is an economy of scale but also a large commitment. Same is true for many timeshares systems and all to some degree.

 

[billymach4]

BTW and Fwiw the weasels call it breakage.
Skim or breakage I never liked it. All I can say.

 

[bazzap]

For as long as MVC want to make non Trust (and primarily not Trust) resort inventory available to Trust points owners, so all European resorts, several Asian and Caribbean resorts as well still as quite a few US resorts - they will have to make Trust points resorts available to non Trust points owners to gain access to that non Trust inventory.

 

[Dean]

For as long as MVC want to make non Trust (and primarily not Trust) resort inventory available to Trust points owners, so all European resorts, several Asian and Caribbean resorts as well still as quite a few US resorts - they will have to make Trust points resorts available to non Trust points owners to gain access to that non Trust inventory.

There does need to be a crossover for anything to happen between trust and weeks but the reality is that Trust points have the upper hand in that transaction. As long as there is significant movement both directions, there isn't an issue either way. DC owners also have direct access to other DC inventory (all weeks elected for points from legacy weeks).

 

[bazzap]

There does need to be a crossover for anything to happen between trust and weeks but the reality is that Trust points have the upper hand in that transaction. As long as there is significant movement both directions, there isn't an issue either way. DC owners also have direct access to other DC inventory (all weeks elected for points from legacy weeks).

From my perspective I am not seeing Trust points having the upper hand, if anything the opposite, but that may well be because we live in the UK and most of our ownership and our enrolled weeks is in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean where the Trust has very limited or no ownership so Trust access is very dependent on Weeks owners choices e.g. re: Elected points.

 

[Dean]

From my perspective I am not seeing Trust points having the upper hand, if anything the opposite, but that may well be because we live in the UK and most of our ownership and our enrolled weeks is in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean where the Trust has very limited or no ownership so Trust access is very dependent on Weeks owners choices e.g. re: Elected points.

As I noted it isn't an issue as long as there's significant activity on both sides. I'm talking the technical setup, from a practical standpoint weeks is likely better off if they underlying weeks that fit their situation and are enrolled because of their numbers and volume, if Trust inventory becomes a larger % of the total then this issue will be more important. Let's look at a clean slate where no reservations have been done and everything is on the table and assume the developer doesn't kickstart the process artificially. The numbers don't matter, let's assume there are weeks where points have not been elected, that some have elected points and that there are trust points all in play. In that case the DC owners have NO option to reserve trust inventory BUT trust owners have the option to reserve DC inventory. They have the first move and without their movement, DC owners have no options for the trust inventory and DC owners are limited by the volume of the activity of the trust owners. Of course Trust owners have no access to unenrolled weeks or weeks that have not elected for points. The other variable is HOW they determine which weeks go to points availability once an owner elects. Is it the actual week owned or any week within the season, that issue is likely far more important because if they open up the entire season it'll dramatically increase the completion for the better weeks. If it's by week owned, it'd be random given the MVC setup. For a system like Bluegreen where you can take points or take you actual week/unit, it would increase demand for the better weeks AND decrease supply.

 

[bazzap]

As I noted it isn't an issue as long as there's significant activity on both sides. I'm talking the technical setup, from a practical standpoint weeks is likely better off if they underlying weeks that fit their situation and are enrolled because of their numbers and volume, if Trust inventory becomes a larger % of the total then this issue will be more important. Let's look at a clean slate where no reservations have been done and everything is on the table and assume the developer doesn't kickstart the process artificially. The numbers don't matter, let's assume there are weeks where points have not been elected, that some have elected points and that there are trust points all in play. In that case the DC owners have NO option to reserve trust inventory BUT trust owners have the option to reserve DC inventory. They have the first move and without their movement, DC owners have no options for the trust inventory and DC owners are limited by the volume of the activity of the trust owners. Of course Trust owners have no access to unenrolled weeks or weeks that have not elected for points. The other variable is HOW they determine which weeks go to points availability once an owner elects. Is it the actual week owned or any week within the season, that issue is likely far more important because if they open up the entire season it'll dramatically increase the completion for the better weeks. If it's by week owned, it'd be random given the MVC setup. For a system like Bluegreen where you can take points or take you actual week/unit, it would increase demand for the better weeks AND decrease supply.

OK maybe, but I don’t see this changing now in any practical way to have a negative impact on our plans or usage in the forseeable future or perhaps even in our lifetime?

 

[Dean]

OK maybe, but I don’t see this changing now in any practical way to have a negative impact on our plans or usage in the forseeable future or perhaps even in our lifetime?

Maybe not but IMO it's important to understand the underlying technicalities to actually understand the system and how to use it to your advantage. I suspect it's more important now than some think but as long as you get what you want and are mainly looking at non trust options, it likely won't be an issue. IIRC most of your personal choices do not have Trust components but most US properties are and some have most, if not all, of their inventory in the Trust (Crystal Shores, newer Pulse).

 

[Dean]

I've raised the question a couple of times of the exact week that is available for points once one elects. I've gotten conflicting answers but the best information so far suggests that it opens up the entire season of the elected week for the view type that would have been available for the number of nights and does so generically across the season. Something like Grande Ocean which has 2 view types (all 2 BR), an 11 week Platinum season and no lockoff's would be pretty straight forward. Something like Surf Club with 2 & 3 BR, 4 view types and L/O options will be far more complicated. It could, and likely will, increase completion for the more in demand weeks. It should give a decent increased chance of success for the upper levels VIP, esp if they try at 12 & 13 month AND wait list if needed. But at the end of the day one can only reserve what's available. From an importance standpoint it means that most every time a weeks owner with a higher demand week cancels and or elects points later, that week will go to the points owners, likely to the wait list, since there is no hold or wait list option on the weeks side.

 

[bazzap]

My understanding, when I have enquired, is that the Waitlists do not differentiate between those with Trust points or Enrolled week Elected points, just the date an Owner goes on the Waitlist.
Whenever I have used my Enrolled week Elected points to Waitlist they have always come through very quickly.

 

[Dean]

My understanding, when I have enquired, is that the Waitlists do not differentiate between those with Trust points or Enrolled week Elected points, just the date an Owner goes on the Waitlist.
Whenever I have used my Enrolled week Elected points to Waitlist they have always come through very quickly.

That's how it should be, at that point there would be no difference between trust and DC points as that would be a week put into the DC program for points. The order in line for the same waitlist should determine who it goes it as it's a first come first served option. But understanding the relative demand and competition for a given time as well as the likely dates of the underlying weeks can be huge. For example say for a HHI resort that only has Sunday start dates and you waitlist starting on Saturday, your chances of success are infinitely less than someone who's wait list starts on Sunday. My wait lists have tended to come through fairly quickly but there's also a big match as the election windows get close and a certain % decide to elect rather than use my week as I just did for some of my weeks yesterday and will for a few more in a few days. The one issue I've had is that they limit the number on the waitlist by checkin day so I've had weeks not available to me to be placed on a wait list. Or like MGO for this year, I could only wait list the Sunday, matched, and later found the Saturday as a single day so I have 2 units for a week that are actually 1+6. Now I know the resort will put them together but they don't have to.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

BTW and Fwiw the weasels call it breakage.
Skim or breakage I never liked it. All I can say.

I believe breakage is a pretext made up to justify an additional fee. Never heard an HGVC or Vistana rep ever mention it. MVC collects their MF no matter whether the unit is used or not. Sure there is more housekeeping but the higher than average MVC MF should more than compensate the diff.

 

[JIMinNC]

I believe breakage is a pretext made up to justify an additional fee. Never heard an HGVC or Vistana rep ever mention it. MVC collects their MF no matter whether the unit is used or not. Sure there is more housekeeping but the higher than average MVC MF should more than compensate the diff.

I've never seen the breakage as a maintenance fee issue - the extra housekeeping is accounted for in transfer payments from the MVC Trust/DC to the resort HOAs. I think it's more about balance in the point system. Here is a simplistic example:

- Assume a theoretical points system made up of twenty 7000 point intervals (1000 points per night) each owned by twenty different people. Total points available=140,000 (140 total nights)
- If no split weeks are allowed, there will always be exactly 20 owners chasing those 20 intervals - 140,000 owner points chasing 140,000 points of availability. All points can be used.
- But, lets say the system allows people to split weeks, and out of the 140 total nights, there wind up being 10 "orphan nights" (Example: owner A books three nights of interval #1, and owner B books three nights, leaving one orphan night in interval #1 that no one books.) Those 10 orphans essentially mean that you have 140,000 owner points chasing 130,000 available points. Yes, theoretically, those orphan nights are still bookable by those 10,000 extra owner points, but it's unlikely that those orphans will actually get booked because they are scattered randomly around the system. So, that means the system would be out of balance - from a practical use standpoint - and would have too much demand chasing an inadequate supply. The "skim" is a way to project a certain amount of breakage, reduce the points available to create demand, thus mitigating that imbalance - at least to the degree that MVC's estimate of breakage is reasonably accurate.

I'm sure HGVC and Vistana face a similar issue, but they have either chosen to ignore it, or they feel they have enough developer-owned inventory to generate enough extra supply to mitigate that issue. In other words, they keep developer inventory that can be used either to rent for cash or absorb any points system imbalances. If that is the case, then the fees they charge that Marriott doesn't, wind up being cost recovery for the lost rental revenue created by the breakage. Since Marriott puts their developer inventory into the MVC Trust, maybe they don't have as much truly developer-owned inventory as HGVC or Vistana, so the skim became their preferred way to deal with this issue.

This is all obviously a supposition on my part, but I'm just looking for logical explanations here that assumes that, while these companies are profit-motivated (a good thing, not a bad thing), they are not in business to create false pretexts.

 

[Dean]

I believe breakage is a pretext made up to justify an additional fee. Never heard an HGVC or Vistana rep ever mention it. MVC collects their MF no matter whether the unit is used or not. Sure there is more housekeeping but the higher than average MVC MF should more than compensate the diff.

DVC does this routinely and calls it breakage. The rented out time is returned as a credit to dues up to a limit of 2.5% IIRC.

I've never seen the breakage as a maintenance fee issue - the extra housekeeping is accounted for in transfer payments from the MVC Trust/DC to the resort HOAs. I think it's more about balance in the point system. Here is a simplistic example:

- Assume a theoretical points system made up of twenty 7000 point intervals (1000 points per night) each owned by twenty different people. Total points available=140,000 (140 total nights)
- If no split weeks are allowed, there will always be exactly 20 owners chasing those 20 intervals - 140,000 owner points chasing 140,000 points of availability. All points can be used.
- But, lets say the system allows people to split weeks, and out of the 140 total nights, there wind up being 10 "orphan nights" (Example: owner A books three nights of interval #1, and owner B books three nights, leaving one orphan night in interval #1 that no one books.) Those 10 orphans essentially mean that you have 140,000 owner points chasing 130,000 available points. Yes, theoretically, those orphan nights are still bookable by those 10,000 extra owner points, but it's unlikely that those orphans will actually get booked because they are scattered randomly around the system. So, that means the system would be out of balance - from a practical use standpoint - and would have too much demand chasing an inadequate supply. The "skim" is a way to project a certain amount of breakage, reduce the points available to create demand, thus mitigating that imbalance - at least to the degree that MVC's estimate of breakage is reasonably accurate.

I'm sure HGVC and Vistana face a similar issue, but they have either chosen to ignore it, or they feel they have enough developer-owned inventory to generate enough extra supply to mitigate that issue. In other words, they keep developer inventory that can be used either to rent for cash or absorb any points system imbalances. If that is the case, then the fees they charge that Marriott doesn't, wind up being cost recovery for the lost rental revenue created by the breakage. Since Marriott puts their developer inventory into the MVC Trust, maybe they don't have as much truly developer-owned inventory as HGVC or Vistana, so the skim became their preferred way to deal with this issue.

This is all obviously a supposition on my part, but I'm just looking for logical explanations here that assumes that, while these companies are profit-motivated (a good thing, not a bad thing), they are not in business to create false pretexts.

There is an inherent inefficiency with a points system over a weeks system unless the system matches up such reservations to the underlying week as Wyndham's does. A minimum stay, cheaper full week reservation or delay for shorter reservations also tends to help.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

HGVC requires a 3 day min stay (x bHC which is 1 night. W57 NYC charges $85 housekeeping if less tha 3 nights. Residences NYC bHC has daily housekeeping and HKP included in MF so no fee.)

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I've never seen the breakage as a maintenance fee issue - the extra housekeeping is accounted for in transfer payments from the MVC Trust/DC to the resort HOAs. I think it's more about balance in the point system. Here is a simplistic example:

- Assume a theoretical points system made up of twenty 7000 point intervals (1000 points per night) each owned by twenty different people. Total points available=140,000 (140 total nights)
- If no split weeks are allowed, there will always be exactly 20 owners chasing those 20 intervals - 140,000 owner points chasing 140,000 points of availability. All points can be used.
- But, lets say the system allows people to split weeks, and out of the 140 total nights, there wind up being 10 "orphan nights" (Example: owner A books three nights of interval #1, and owner B books three nights, leaving one orphan night in interval #1 that no one books.) Those 10 orphans essentially mean that you have 140,000 owner points chasing 130,000 available points. Yes, theoretically, those orphan nights are still bookable by those 10,000 extra owner points, but it's unlikely that those orphans will actually get booked because they are scattered randomly around the system. So, that means the system would be out of balance - from a practical use standpoint - and would have too much demand chasing an inadequate supply. The "skim" is a way to project a certain amount of breakage, reduce the points available to create demand, thus mitigating that imbalance - at least to the degree that MVC's estimate of breakage is reasonably accurate.

I'm sure HGVC and Vistana face a similar issue, but they have either chosen to ignore it, or they feel they have enough developer-owned inventory to generate enough extra supply to mitigate that issue. In other words, they keep developer inventory that can be used either to rent for cash or absorb any points system imbalances. If that is the case, then the fees they charge that Marriott doesn't, wind up being cost recovery for the lost rental revenue created by the breakage. Since Marriott puts their developer inventory into the MVC Trust, maybe they don't have as much truly developer-owned inventory as HGVC or Vistana, so the skim became their preferred way to deal with this issue.

This is all obviously a supposition on my part, but I'm just looking for logical explanations here that assumes that, while these companies are profit-motivated (a good thing, not a bad thing), they are not in business to create false pretexts.

I can only speak for the HGVC system.

First, and foremost, it is not a points driven system. You do not buy "points". You buy a week.

Before any points use, there is a period for the owner of the <week> that was purchased to reserve that week, as a week, with no competition from any other user other than owners of that resort, type, and season.

Only after that period ends, does the point system come into force. All remaining inventory (not booked as a week by the week owner) can then be booked by points, using points as a swap mechanism. It was designed for swapping weeks, although it allows 3 day (quasi-half-week) stays. How "breakage" is handled, I don't know. Probably from developer weeks.

Since it was designed for a swap mechanism between owners, embedding a "skim" defeated the purpose of "even up" swapping. Hence, a fee based system, with the fees being external to the point value.

There is no "points system" competing with a "weeks system"; each has its own sphere of operations, weeks first, then points.

This is all stated up front, although many people see only points, and are willing to accept the "breakage" risk, for that ability to pick and choose among the panoply of different resorts.

 

[csalter2]

I can only speak for the HGVC system.

First, and foremost, it is not a points driven system. You do not buy "points". You buy a week.

Before any points use, there is a period for the owner of the <week> that was purchased to reserve that week, as a week, with no competition from any other user other than owners of that resort, type, and season.

Only after that period ends, does the point system come into force. All remaining inventory (not booked as a week by the week owner) can then be booked by points, using points as a swap mechanism. It was designed for swapping weeks, although it allows 3 day (quasi-half-week) stays. How "breakage" is handled, I don't know. Probably from developer weeks.

Since it was designed for a swap mechanism between owners, embedding a "skim" defeated the purpose of "even up" swapping. Hence, a fee based system, with the fees being external to the point value.

There is no "points system" competing with a "weeks system"; each has its own sphere of operations, weeks first, then points.

This is all stated up front, although many people see only points, and are willing to accept the "breakage" risk, for that ability to pick and choose among the panoply of different resorts.

I went to a presentation with HGVC and at NO TIME was the word week used. The sals people only speak in terms of points. All charts, tables and written documents discuss POINTS not weeks.

If what you’re saying here is true, then the HGVC is quite similar to Marriott as a week has to become available for points to b used.

 

[Dean]

I can only speak for the HGVC system.

First, and foremost, it is not a points driven system. You do not buy "points". You buy a week.

Before any points use, there is a period for the owner of the <week> that was purchased to reserve that week, as a week, with no competition from any other user other than owners of that resort, type, and season.

Only after that period ends, does the point system come into force. All remaining inventory (not booked as a week by the week owner) can then be booked by points, using points as a swap mechanism. It was designed for swapping weeks, although it allows 3 day (quasi-half-week) stays. How "breakage" is handled, I don't know. Probably from developer weeks.

Since it was designed for a swap mechanism between owners, embedding a "skim" defeated the purpose of "even up" swapping. Hence, a fee based system, with the fees being external to the point value.

There is no "points system" competing with a "weeks system"; each has its own sphere of operations, weeks first, then points.

This is all stated up front, although many people see only points, and are willing to accept the "breakage" risk, for that ability to pick and choose among the panoply of different resorts.

Which is why there is little chance for non owners to reserve the most in demand options (good or bad). Each system has it's plusses and minuses as well as nuances. I like the home resort option because you can improve your chances of success by buying what you want albeit at a likely higher cost for the more in demand options. I find that in the end most systems end up fairly similarly for those that are informed prior to purchase but they often get there quite differently. DVC is inherently a points based system with a home resort priority, they sell 96-98% of the potential points with the rest going to Maintenance and breakage but they also have a premium on lockoff portions which frees up some room as well. Bluegreen is a fixed unit/ fixed weeks based system at heart even though it mostly functions on the points side. You have an underlying week but you must notify them if you want to take your week. Wyndham is a mixture though mostly points though I'm sure I don't understand it's nuances as well as I do Marriott, DVC & BG. BG & Wyndham particularly have an aggressive VIP system (more so than Marriott's). BG has been my best Value, Marriott my best overall option, DVC is my first love and we still enjoy it.

 

[Dean]

I went to a presentation with HGVC and at NO TIME was the word week used. The sals people only speak in terms of points. All charts, tables and written documents discuss POINTS not weeks.

If what you’re saying here is true, then the HGVC is quite similar to Marriott as a week has to become available for points to b used.

That's what I was thinking as I read the description presented. I think they also have a home resort points priority which is quite different than Marriott and I actually prefer because you have a better chance of getting what you want if you plan well on the buy.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I merely describe HGVC system as it really is.

How can you tell if a TS salesman is lying? . . . . .