Sources of inventory

[DanCali]

From the FAQ LINK (Login required)

emphasis mine



Dan, I'm as skeptical as anyone (and probably more than most) as regards the big M, but I'm not going that far based on the anectodes we've seen on TUG so far. The answer in the FAQ is actually pretty unequivocal as compared to some writings that leave more questions than answers in their wake.

Is it proof? Not without an independent (paid for by someone other than M ) audit.

M can make some pretty good guesses on use of MRP, forfeited occupancy, etc., and may well be 'holding' II deposited inventory for anticipated or forecast demand.

If what you hypothesize is true, one lawsuit with some effective forensic accounting discovery and they're toast. It's clearly material to the decision as to whether or not to enroll, it wasn't disclosed and it's contradicted by its own representations in the FAQ.

You raise some good points, as always.

There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big...

Maybe the skim from those who use points is enough to compensate but my theory explains many other things too.

I'll conceed the above quote is somewhat reassuring.

 

[hotcoffee]

From the FAQ LINK (Login required)

emphasis mine



Dan, I'm as skeptical as anyone (and probably more than most) as regards the big M, but I'm not going that far based on the anectodes we've seen on TUG so far. The answer in the FAQ is actually pretty unequivocal as compared to some writings that leave more questions than answers in their wake.

Is it proof? Not without an independent (paid for by someone other than M ) audit.

M can make some pretty good guesses on use of MRP, forfeited occupancy, etc., and may well be 'holding' II deposited inventory for anticipated or forecast demand.

If what you hypothesize is true, one lawsuit with some effective forensic accounting discovery and they're toast. It's clearly material to the decision as to whether or not to enroll, it wasn't disclosed and it's contradicted by its own representations in the FAQ.

I don't know if it is significant or not, but in the quote:

". . . non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points or exchange their week through membership in Interval International",

I wonder whether that is an admission that Marriott has direct access to Marriott weeks exchanged by non-enrolled owners through II and can grab them for DC exchanges. This is not pertinent to where the Aruba weeks came from in DC, but it is related to another topic that we have kicked around about how Marriott can get DC exchange inventory.

I was told way back at the beginning of the program that Marriott has lots of inventory in its possession. They supposedly have inventory at every resort. Those statements were made by a Marriott points salesman in response to my assertion that at the beginning of the program Marriott would not have much inventory available for DC exchanges.

 

[dioxide45]

From the FAQ LINK (Login required)

emphasis mine



Dan, I'm as skeptical as anyone (and probably more than most) as regards the big M, but I'm not going that far based on the anectodes we've seen on TUG so far. The answer in the FAQ is actually pretty unequivocal as compared to some writings that leave more questions than answers in their wake.

Is it proof? Not without an independent (paid for by someone other than M ) audit.

M can make some pretty good guesses on use of MRP, forfeited occupancy, etc., and may well be 'holding' II deposited inventory for anticipated or forecast demand.

If what you hypothesize is true, one lawsuit with some effective forensic accounting discovery and they're toast. It's clearly material to the decision as to whether or not to enroll, it wasn't disclosed and it's contradicted by its own representations in the FAQ.

This however doesn't contradict what I mentioned in my post. Marriott could very well have a pro-rata separation of reservations based on enrolled owners vs. non enrolled owners.

 

[Fredm]

There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big...

Not necessarily, Dan.

Marriott has likely negotiated a dramatically reduced fee schedule with I.I. Perhaps, even a no fee for these trades, as the price for keeping Marriott inventory and membership with I.I.

I.I. cannot afford to lose its premier quality-tier anchor.

Think of it similarly to a "big box" retailer in a shopping mall. They don't pay the same rent as the specialty retailers. They are the traffic draw.

If anything, the DC "all-in one" fee will probably be a big money-maker for Marriott as membership grows.

 

[windje2000]

Not necessarily, Dan.

Marriott has likely negotiated a dramatically reduced fee schedule with I.I. Perhaps, even a no fee for these trades, as the price for keeping Marriott inventory and membership with I.I.

I.I. cannot afford to lose its premier quality-tier anchor.

Probably worth looking at the II SEC filings - it might be disclosed as a material event or in the MD&A discussions of the 2010 year.

 

[Fredm]

Probably worth looking at the II SEC filings - it might be disclosed as a material event or in the MD&A discussions of the 2010 year.

Good idea. Although it may not be a material event for 2010.
The number of DC conversions that would impact I.I. in 2010 would be fairly minor. Certainly more than offset by increased member dues and exchange fees, I.I. system-wide.

 

[windje2000]

This however doesn't contradict what I mentioned in my post. Marriott could very well have a pro-rata separation of reservations based on enrolled owners vs. non enrolled owners.

If DClub access to the occupancy for exchange is as described in the FAQ, why would they bother?

What would they have to gain by ticking off a lot of owners who can't get access to what they clearly purchased and own?

 

[Luckybee]

As of the annual meeting in May of 2010 at the Aruba Ocean Club , Marriott voted 1510 votes. 1500 of those votes were the class B shares(in simple terms...and not getting into other issues..."shares not related to ownership interest") and 10 class A shares tied to ownership of 5 weeks. I have no idea whether they purchased more subsequently but as of May they only owned 5 weeks at the OC(because you can be darned sure had they owned more they would have voted that interest). So where they are getting the inventory is anyone' guess at this point.

 

[hotcoffee]

As of the annual meeting in May of 2010 at the Aruba Ocean Club , Marriott voted 1510 votes. 1500 of those votes were the class B shares(in simple terms...and not getting into other issues..."shares not related to ownership interest") and 10 class A shares tied to ownership of 5 weeks. I have no idea whether they purchased more subsequently but as of May they only owned 5 weeks at the OC(because you can be darned sure had they owned more they would have voted that interest). So where they are getting the inventory is anyone' guess at this point.

I presume that MRP trades and delinquencies would not be counted as ownerships. Take the 5 weeks plus any MRP trade inventory and any delinquencies, then add in a couple of enrollments, and perhaps that could account for the inventory.

Of course, there is also another possibility: one of the theories having been suggested in various threads is that Marriott might get first crack at anything exchanged through II. Could it be that they might swap with with II some of their excess inventory somewhere else for some Aruban inventory (equal value)?

 

[m61376]

As for reservations, I was emphatically told that owners reserving weeks- whether enrolled or not- would be in the same pool for reservations and the availability of those reservations would be based on the percentage of week owners using their weeks, versus enrolled week owners converting to points and any inventory owned by Marriott.

Although I was told that enrolled owners exchanging in weeks would be exchanging in II versus through Marriott first, since the line between Marriott, the Marriott desk at II, and II is sorta blurred, I am not as confident that Marriott doesn't get first dibs on any deposited weeks that they want, exchanging "similar" inventory elsewhere. Of course, that goes back to whose definition of similar we are referring to, and whose needs/best interests are dominant.

For example, one might argue that a Plat. Aruba week is not the same as an off season Orlando week. However, are two off season Orlando weeks equal in value? Maybe not to me, BUT II has the potential to extract two trade fees, and also make one of their biggest clients happy. So a strong argument can be made that II considers that an equivalent trade. Thus, Marriott may very well be siphoning off prime weeks for those less desirable trades, giving II "like for like" that they have worked out as being equivalent, while you and I are getting the short end of the stick in the process.

In reality, this scenario would have Marriott in compliance with all its promises, written and verbally assured via Customer Advocacy and other sources.

 

[ilene13]

All,


We know there are no weeks in the Trust Inventory from Aruba Surf Club or Aruba Ocean Club. And yet the Exchange Inventory has many weeks available, all sizes and views, and Interval International is empty (to me at least, with a strong Like for Like trader). I don't know how these weeks got into the Exchange Inventory, and at the moment, my hypothesis could still be the explanation.


I don't know, but the practical result is the same -- the Aruba inventory is in the Destination Club and not in Interval International, and I remain intrigued as to how it got there.

As a AOC owner I can make an educated guess how the inventory got there. Unlike your 1st post in this thread where you said MOC owners do not trade that is why they have been given a lot of points and AOC owners have not been given a lot of points. I disagree with that comment. AOC has the largest % of skim factor in this whole program. As I have previously said while I was in Aruba wks 51 and 52 I only found 2 owners who said they joined the DP program. AOC owners do not trade. When we are there Christmas and New Years 98% of the occupants are owners or renters, not II trades. I myself often rent out a week 52 (I own 3 wks)if I'm personally not using a 2nd wk 52 for my children (adults). Many 2 week owners do not get their 2nd week when trying to book. They immediately put the week into MRP so they can stay at the hotel. Therefore Marriott is getting platinum inventory!

 

[GregT]

AOC owners do not trade. When we are there Christmas and New Years 98% of the occupants are owners or renters, not II trades. I myself often rent out a week 52 (I own 3 wks)if I'm personally not using a 2nd wk 52 for my children (adults). Many 2 week owners do not get their 2nd week when trying to book. They immediately put the week into MRP so they can stay at the hotel. Therefore Marriott is getting platinum inventory![/COLOR]

Okay, I thought the Aruba properties were significantly more traded than MOC but perhaps not.

But even if, as suggested above, the Marriott owner is redeeming that second week for MRP, I don't think an owner would be redeeming 2012 usage weeks yet, would they?

The weeks that the DClub have available are February 2012, so I don't think they can be sourced from MRP redemptions? The only thing that continues to make sense to me is that Marriott/DClub have first crack at whatever is deposited into II. Which means either they have a contractual relationship with II, or they have a number of well structured trade requests on an on-going basis that effectively put them first in line.

As soon as I get another Studio deposit into II, I'll run the experiment again with other properties that aren't in the Trust (therefore we can rule out that as the source of the weeks) and see if the same situation occurs of prime high demand weeks being in DClub at 13 months out, but II still remaining dry.

Best to all,

Greg

 

[Bunk]

From the FAQ LINK (Login required)

Quote:
Where will the inventory come from to fulfill vacation reservations within the Marriott Vacation Club Collection?

Inventory throughout the Marriott Vacation Club Collection will be available for reservations for Enrolled Owners via other Marriott Vacation Club Owners who enroll their weeks and elect Vacation Club Points, and non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points or exchange their week through membership in Interval International.

This is discussed in #25 above.



So does this mean that if you are a legacy owner and enroll in the New Program and go through Interval, Marriott can not touch your week.

If you are a legacy owner and do not enroll in the New Program, Marriott can acquire the week you intend to deposit with Interval. It doesn't even say that Marriott has to replace that week with another week.


Does anyone have access to documents that explained the relationship between Marriott and Interval before the new program was set up? Did Marriott always have the right to take the week an owner intends to deposit with Interval and use it for its own purposes as opposed to allowing other Interval members to acquire that week?

 

[rickxylon]

Aruba 2012 Reservations

To answer the OP's question on 2012 reservations:
On 1/3 I confirmed the following at 13 months
Locked off 2 BR Surf Club
Reserved 2/4-11 studio and 2/11-18 master
Reserved 2 1BR Ocean Club weeks 2/19-26 (2/18 checkin was not available for 13 month checkin) I'll call again when the 12 month inventory is available and probably get it then like I did for our 2011 reservations.

I was on the phone almost immediately at 9 ET. The VC commented about 5 minutes later that there were already over 100 calls waiting in the Q!

 

[GregT]

To answer the OP's question on 2012 reservations:
On 1/3 I confirmed the following at 13 months
Locked off 2 BR Surf Club
Reserved 2/4-11 studio and 2/11-18 master
Reserved 2 1BR Ocean Club weeks 2/19-26 (2/18 checkin was not available for 13 month checkin) I'll call again when the 12 month inventory is available and probably get it then like I did for our 2011 reservations.

I was on the phone almost immediately at 9 ET. The VC commented about 5 minutes later that there were already over 100 calls waiting in the Q!

Rick, thank you for the information. To confirm, you made these reservations with your week ownership -- and are keeping them for personal use, or did the weeks get deposited into II?

Thanks again -- enjoy your trip!

Best,

Greg

 

[rickxylon]

I have not enrolled so they were made as a weeks owner.

They have not been deposited with II. Although we probably will sometime in the next few months to trade into Waiohai. I also reserved there for 2/11-18 on 1/3.

We are headed to Aruba on 2/9 (next month) for 3 weeks!. It is snowing here in MN now and they are forecasting 25 below sometime next week! Can't wait to stick my toes in some sand instead of shoveling snow!!!

 

[GregT]

TUGgers,

Does anyone have a deed that they can check that includes 13-month reservation abilities? My MOC deeds don't speak to it, and another TUGger has emailed me and believes that the deeds that do cover it indicate that 13-month reservations are for personal use only.

This could further support my contention that Marriott can get those 13 month deposits from II -- since those reservations were intended for personal use (and not for deposit into II).

Please let me know if anyone has such information in their deed -- thanks!

Greg

 

[hotcoffee]

"Marriott can get those 13 month deposits from II . . ."

My understanding is Marriott and II are now working more closely together for the mutual benefit of both. II might need some weeks that Marriott has in its inventory, and Marriott might need some weeks that were deposited into II. If any owner (enrolled or not enrolled) makes an exchange via II, there is a pretty good chance that Marriott will get the week (assuming they need it) for a DC exchange request.

 

[puckmanfl]

good morning...

As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues????

just curious.....

 

[SueDonJ]

TUGgers,

Does anyone have a deed that they can check that includes 13-month reservation abilities? My MOC deeds don't speak to it, and another TUGger has emailed me and believes that the deeds that do cover it indicate that 13-month reservations are for personal use only.

This could further support my contention that Marriott can get those 13 month deposits from II -- since those reservations were intended for personal use (and not for deposit into II).

Please let me know if anyone has such information in their deed -- thanks!

Greg

The language may not be in the deed received at closing; if it exists in any form, it is in the Master Deed and various amendments of the governing docs. We've discussed this many times on TUG and I think the conclusion is pretty much that Marriott uses a blanket policy* across all resorts despite the fact that the docs are not all the same - some of the older resorts docs do not contain any references to 13-mo concurrent/consecutive reservations, while of those that do, some contain a version of the "personal use only" stipulation and some do not.

My Barony Beach governing docs do:

... Multi-Week Owners may reserve concurrent weeks, meaning two (2) or more Units during the same week, or consecutive weeks, meaning one (1) or more Units for two (2) or more weeks in a row (for Owner occupancy only), beginning on the date which is thirteen (13) months in advance of the date of the first Check-In Day ...

My SurfWatch governing docs do not:

... Multi-Interest Owners, excluding Declarant, may reserve concurrent Use Periods, meaning two (2) or more Units during the same week, or consecutive Use Periods, meaning one (1) or more Units for two (2) or more Use Periods in a row, beginning on the date which is thirteen (13) months in advance of the date of the first Check-In Day ...

* {edited to add} The "blanket policy" Marriott has been using for years is that despite any language to the contrary in the governing docs, all multi-Week Owners are eligible to use the 13-mo reservation rule; that Weeks reserved using the rule will receive separate confirmation numbers for each Week; that consecutive or concurrent Weeks are not required to be at the same resort; and that any Week(s) reserved using the 13-mo rule can be rented out by the Owner, rented through Marriott's rental program, or deposited immediately or any time after into II for an exchange.

 

[hotcoffee]

good morning...

As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues????

just curious.....

How so? The issue is whether an exchanger gets his exchange or not, and whether any actions between Marriott and II affect the exchange in a negative way. If you submit a search request via II and get the week you are searching for, why would you care if II and Marriott affected a trade between them that allowed you to get your desired week? II is a business and will not give Marriott a week unless they get something they want in return.

 

[ocdb8r]

good morning...

As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues????

just curious.....

"close" is a relative term. I seriously doubt it given there are many competitors in the timeshare (and exchanging) world. Don't forget, RCI and Wyndham are actually owned by the same company...if that didn't raise any regulatory eyebrows, I doubt the II/Marriott relationship (no matter how close) will.

 

[dioxide45]

How so? The issue is whether an exchanger gets his exchange or not, and whether any actions between Marriott and II affect the exchange in a negative way. If you submit a search request via II and get the week you are searching for, why would you care if II and Marriott affected a trade between them that allowed you to get your desired week? II is a business and will not give Marriott a week unless they get something they want in return.

What if you don't get your request filled because of that same relationship?

"close" is a relative term. I seriously doubt it given there are many competitors in the timeshare (and exchanging) world. Don't forget, RCI and Wyndham are actually owned by the same company...if that didn't raise any regulatory eyebrows, I doubt the II/Marriott relationship (no matter how close) will.

The difference here is that Marriott and II are both an Exchange Company. You can't have a maker of one product colluding with another maker of the same product. That is illegal. The MVCI/MVD Exchange company relationship is the same as the RCI/Wyndham relationship. Marriott and their MVD Exchange company are a developer exchange company relationship, just the same as RCI and Wyndham.

I think what is much more likely to be happening here to avoid an anti trust laws is that the trust is really just an II member, just like you and I can be II members. The trust can exchange weeks with II just like the rest of us. The trust can then also exchange with the MVD Exchange Company.

It probably isn't likely that the MVD Exchange Company is doing direct exchanges with II. If it is, that would likely boarder on anti trust.

 

[Superchief]

" Marriott has been using for years is that despite any language to the contrary in the governing docs, all multi-Week Owners are eligible to use the 13-mo reservation rule; that Weeks reserved using the rule will receive separate confirmation numbers for each Week; that consecutive or concurrent Weeks are not required to be at the same resort; and that any Week(s) reserved using the 13-mo rule can be rented out by the Owner, rented through Marriott's rental program, or deposited immediately or any time after into II for an exchange.

A previous thread discussed the implications of the changes in T&C that were sent out for many resorts in November. Several included the following:

'The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."

I think this raises the question regarding whether weeks reserved 13 mo. in advance can be deposited for II exchange without fear of cancellation by MVC due to violation of T&C. If depositing a week reserved 13+mos violates MVC T&C, how can Marriott rely on this as a source of inventory from II? I guess they can legally cancel these reservations for violating T&C, and then confiscate them for use in DC inventory.

Has anyone had any recent experiences regarding depositing 13 mo. advance reserved weeks for exchange?

 

[hotcoffee]

What if you don't get your request filled because of that same relationship? . . .

While this is a valid point, as pointed out, II is a business. If they can get something of a higher value via a Marriott request than any of the existing requests in their system, what will they do? What would you do? If you exchange a valuable MOC week, and there are five searches ongoing for just that week, and Marriott also wants it, who gets it? The one with the highest value week in trade? I wonder what the odds are that Marriott can come up with the best trade?