Sources of inventory

[wof45]

Perhaps you need to read this document from Marriott. https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/program_disclosure_guide.pdf. Marriott didn't create if just for kicks and grins. They must file this document with the state of Florida every year because of this statute . So exchange companies, at least in Florida where MVD operates, are a regulated industry.

It is very possible that there is a Wyndham Exchange Company like MVD. However is Wyndham pulling weeks from RCI to fulfill internal exchanges in their internal system?

It is quite a stretch to go from filing a yearly disclosure form to being a regulated industry.

If you notice, the form basically says this is what I intend to do, but if I ever want to change it, I can as long as I tell the members.

 

[ocdb8r]

It is very possible that there is a Wyndham Exchange Company like MVD. However is Wyndham pulling weeks from RCI to fulfill internal exchanges in their internal system?

I have no idea if Wyndham is pulling weeks from RCI to match exchanges. Based on the link you provided, if they were it would be fine as long as they disclosed it in the documentation to members. I am still not entirely clear what any of this has to do with anti-trust regulation?!?! Even if Wyndham/RCI as an example is not one that perfectly matches the relationship between MVCD and II, I still don't see any argument that points to there being a compelling anti-trust violation.

Further, it appears the Florida regulations are aimed squarely at disclosure. I have yet to see any indication that Marriott and II are doing something that is not adequately disclosed. Even if they were, what sort of relief is it that you think you'd get in court? Increased disclosure...maybe some rebate on your II membership fee because you joined without adequate disclosure? There is nothing that gives you a right to what you feel is a "fair" exchange...nothing gives you a right to equal access to inventory. What would your stance have been a year ago if a non-Marriott owner were to claim the Marriott to Marriott preference window in II was illegal ? If Marriott does pull inventory from II to fill DC requests one could argue all they have done is create a new tier in the Marriott to Marriott preference.

The bottom line is that there is nothing legally preventing II and MVCD from having the sort of relationship that is described in this thread. I'm not happy about it, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.

 

[hotcoffee]

It is very clear to me that early fears of shrinking Marriott inventory in II are valid. However close the relationship between II and Marriott has become, it is clear that the relationship has changed in ways that provide a tangible benefit to DC members.

Nevertheless, what was described by the OP has probably nothing to do with the new relationship between II and Marriott.

 

[sparty]

My thoughts, which I am sure are different than at least a few others...

I think the DC inventory is getting filled by Marriott owned (controlled?) weeks coming from foreclosures or unsold units. To me this seems much more likely than having a good number of people booking 13 mos in advance and depositing for which Marriott snags em.

In the thread I've seen a couple mentions that the Marriott owned weeks is single digits at places like Aruba. Doesn't make sense to me, I think there are a lot of weeks Marriott owns. All of them are going to DC and none to II. I think mostly what went to II this year from Marriott directly was week 53.

A month or so ago Double Oxygen I think was reporting seeing deeds recorded to Marriott for prime time weeks in Florida (like Cypress) and other places. During this time we also got love notes from Marriott saying they were instituting new rules about prime/platinum weeks reserved at your home resort for which there might be no availability.

I don't think the numbers of 13 mos reservers is significant when compared to Marriott owned/forclosed/ROFR'd/purchased

 

[sparty]

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

Multiple-Week Owners: If you own two or more weeks within Marriott Vacation Club and you want to occupy either concurrent weeks (two villas in one week) or consecutive weeks (two weeks back-to-back), you may be able to make reservations as early as 13 months prior to the first check-in date of your requested week. The 13-month option is only available if you are reserving concurrent or consecutive use. Specific procedures for making reservations at your resort are set forth in your resort’s Reservation Procedures or Program Rules. To see an example of when inventory is released, first, determine if your resort allows check-ins as early as Thursday or Friday.

 

[dioxide45]

My thoughts, which I am sure are different than at least a few others...

I think the DC inventory is getting filled by Marriott owned (controlled?) weeks coming from foreclosures or unsold units. To me this seems much more likely than having a good number of people booking 13 mos in advance and depositing for which Marriott snags em.

Foreclosures and delinquent weeks probably make up about 5-7% of the inventory. As late as October, Marriott moved a significant amount of reacquired inventory in to the trust. So one would have to expect that Marriott actually itself holds a very small amount of reacquired inventory and most of it is moved to the trust.

Delinquency rates on MF probably hover around 5% but Marriott can't instantly take someone's 2012 ussage as soon as they are late on 2011 MF. People pay late all the time and when they do pay, they have rights to the week they own.

In the thread I've seen a couple mentions that the Marriott owned weeks is single digits at places like Aruba. Doesn't make sense to me, I think there are a lot of weeks Marriott owns. All of them are going to DC and none to II. I think mostly what went to II this year from Marriott directly was week 53.

A month or so ago Double Oxygen I think was reporting seeing deeds recorded to Marriott for prime time weeks in Florida (like Cypress) and other places. During this time we also got love notes from Marriott saying they were instituting new rules about prime/platinum weeks reserved at your home resort for which there might be no availability.[/QUOTE

I have reported in the Recorded Trust Documents thread the actual amount of points going in to the trust. Those deeds that were reported were actually conveying the inventory to the trust. I think it is a stretch to say that Marriott would move inventory from the trust to the exchange company for DC Enrollees at pretty much sold out resorts 13 months out. The trust will hold on to inventory at resorts with very little trust inventory. They want to save that inventory for trust owners.

I don't think the numbers of 13 mos reservers is significant when compared to Marriott owned/forclosed/ROFR'd/purchased

If Marriott controls 50% of the inventory, that means they have the right to 50% of the 13 month inventory at 13 months. However at most sold out resorts in prime seasons, I think it is very likely that owners out number Marriott in the number of weeks controlled.

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . .

'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."

Thanks for the info superchief.

I had to think on this one for a while. But there is always a question one can ask which better explains the original querey/subject.

Just to be clear here. This Marriott statement refers to MVCI owners working in the old legacy program ( I prefer to see we MVCI folks as traveling in a parallel universe which is definitely better than the first iteration of the parallel program called DC whose sails Marriott recently hoists )

I break down that Marriott statement with a simple question: Why would Marriott want to cancel all multiple13 month reservations made by a multiple week owner ( multi-interest owner in Marriott-speak )?

But then I gotta re-read the Marriott policy statement revise this question a tad:

Why would Marriott negate all reservations made by a multiple week owner who reserves 13 months in advance AND cancels one or more of these reservations 13 months before occupancy?

The answer is simple. Marriott wants to prevent multiple week owners from "gaming" the system. For example. I own a platinum season week at resort A and resort B. I want to be sure that I get my coveted week at resort A, so I use the 13 month rule to make "concurrent" reservations using my resort A and resort B weeks. After I get the reservations confirmed, I cancel the resort B week and I occupy the coveted week A when that occupancy falls due. Same scenerio applies to a single resort multi-week owner who uses the 13 month rule to get one coveted week and cancels the concurrent week with the idea of reserving a different week later in the season calendar.

Not sure that this has any connection to DC or the new competing MVCEC internal trade program as much as it might reflect Marriott "tidying up" policy loose ends.

Another question to ask is when did Marriott issue the above policy statement ( which BTW says "at discretion" which sort of leaves the doors of ambiguity wide open in terms of enforcement ).

If recently, this could mean with DC running parallel to MVCI, Marriott is suddenly "inventory conscious" about fulfillment issues either for direct DC requests, or MVCEC trades. Or it could be simple policy housekeeping.

Barry

 

[jerseyfinn]

I don't have a lick of legal training, but I do know the following. As of 6/20/10 MVCD is running a "competing" exchange company with II . . .

Yep. In very simple terms Marriott is competing against Interval when it launches it's alternative exchange program.

We MVC folks need to take this mental timeshare calculus a bit further and be very aware that Marriott not only runs it's own exchange program, but it is now competing with the usage interests of MVCI owners when it creates Destinations and links DC with MVCI owners who enroll their weeks in the new exchange program.

I'm not saying that Marriott is now Darth Vader. But they are a corporation whose business is to generate revenues and profits ( 300,000 plus MVC owners have put a lot of profit into Marriott's pockets ). The good news is that Marriott is a reputable company with knowledge and experience.

The biggest concern that we MVC owners have is to keep our eyes and ears wide open and focus upon verifiable facts and avoid oversimplification, abstraction, and conspiracy thinking.

Destination Club is a work in progress and it is gonna bob and weave all over the place as Marriott necessarily tweaks the program. But at some point in time, it is also going to rub against the interests of we MVCI owners. It's all gonna be a part of the natural process of give and take in the larger world around us. We just gotta make sure that Marriott does not "take" too much from our MVCI owner interests/rights. But it's early in the game and we're still in the learning process as both sides wait to see how goes the economy and if we can both sail into the sunset or someone has to man the cannons. It's all about observation, introspection, and submitting useful feedback both here in TUG ( hats off to TUGgers ) as well as letting Marriott know clear and loud what we're thinking about and what concerns us.

Barry

< for the record, I have enrolled our MPB and MVO weeks in the competing exchange program. I've no intention of submitting any of those weeks for trades within MVCEC & I'll stick with Interval for the time being. Not sure if I "guess right" by enrolling, but it looked to me as if the price entry point for enrollment has been set ( or is close to the set point ) so I roll the dice and get on the list even if I don't plan to attend the new Marriott church. Then again, we own several weeks and the price point logic appears to be neutral to our interests. Folks with single or 2 week ownership might have a tougher time figuring out when to take the first step. That said, if I thought that by enrolling, I diminish any of my MVCI usage rights or perogatives, I would not have done so. Then again, a new "surprise" from Marriott could make me change my mind in that regard. >

 

[SueDonJ]

... Another question to ask is when did Marriott issue the above policy statement ( which BTW says "at discretion" which sort of leaves the doors of ambiguity wide open in terms of enforcement ).

If recently, this could mean with DC running parallel to MVCI, Marriott is suddenly "inventory conscious" about fulfillment issues either for direct DC requests, or MVCEC trades. Or it could be simple policy housekeeping.

Barry

Barry, the notices went out for a few resorts beginning in mid-November. I don't think any more resorts have sent them out since that first round, at least not that they've been reported on TUG.

 

[Fredm]

Originally Posted by Fredm
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.

The Q3 Conference Call hinted at the issue.

Management presentation noted I.I. member retention rate is 88% (stated as a positive because of the Marriott DC program).
However, Revenue per member is expected to be lower in Q4 than in Q3.

In response to a question re: free cash flow, I.I. responded that developer members are shifting from an asset based model to a fee for service model.
I infer that developers (notably Marriott and Starwood) are retaining some portion of exchange revenue that would otherwise flow to I.I.

 

[OldPantry]

Another possible gotcha!

Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!
I have one small thing to contribute: one of the choices I have as a legacy week owner, not enrolled in the points program, is to have Marriott do the II deposit for me. I inquired what would be the advantage to me of doing that, rather than reserving my own week and depositing it myself. They made it sound like a big favor, and the representative mentioned that Marriott would select the week "for me" and deposit it into II "for me." When I asked what would stop them from selecting a mud week (Ko Olina now has 27 lesser value weeks, and 23 new super platinum weeks) for my exchange to II, I got a resounding silence. The representative disappeared, and wouldn't come back online. This would be a real source of inventory for the points program, as Marriott would almost certainly hand off lesser weeks to II, reducing their obligation to deliver the good stuff. My suggestion: never trust Marriott to select the week for deposit to II!

 

[tschwa2]

Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!
I have one small thing to contribute: one of the choices I have as a legacy week owner, not enrolled in the points program, is to have Marriott do the II deposit for me. I inquired what would be the advantage to me of doing that, rather than reserving my own week and depositing it myself. They made it sound like a big favor, and the representative mentioned that Marriott would select the week "for me" and deposit it into II "for me." When I asked what would stop them from selecting a mud week (Ko Olina now has 27 lesser value weeks, and 23 new super platinum weeks) for my exchange to II, I got a resounding silence. The representative disappeared, and wouldn't come back online. This would be a real source of inventory for the points program, as Marriott would almost certainly hand off lesser weeks to II, reducing their obligation to deliver the good stuff. My suggestion: never trust Marriott to select the week for deposit to II!

Hopefully Marriott won't go the way of Starwood and decide that they will give you the average of your season in trading power with II and then decide which weeks to hold back for DC members and which to deposit in II whether you joined the DC or not. On the surface it is not terrible because you still get priority in II and decent trading power and they still bulk deposit a fair number or units but holiday's are almost never made available to anyone other than club participants and summer deposits are limited to early June and mid to late August deposits. Also any bulk deposits for higher seasons come only 6-7 months in advance if at all instead of 12-13 months in advance. Non summer Hurricane season and off season are deposited 9-11 months in advance. It also works out ok if you want to stay at your own resort during your season because you don't have to compete with II exchangers for the prime weeks but it hurts anyone who bought to exchange into other Marriott's or back into your own resort during a different season.

 

[Fredm]

Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!

Not convoluted.

My comments were originally in reply to a post by DanCali:
"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..."

Dan's post presumed that Marriott was paying the same or similar fees to I.I. for an exchange. I pointed out that was not necessarily so.

 

[windje2000]

The Q3 Conference Call hinted at the issue.

Management presentation noted I.I. member retention rate is 88% (stated as a positive because of the Marriott DC program).
However, Revenue per member is expected to be lower in Q4 than in Q3.

In response to a question re: free cash flow, I.I. responded that developer members are shifting from an asset based model to a fee for service model.
I infer that developers (notably Marriott and Starwood) are retaining some portion of exchange revenue that would otherwise flow to I.I.

Most interesting. I'll be on the lookout for the 2010 II 10-K, and any recent securities analyst presentations.

 

[Fredm]

Most interesting. I'll be on the lookout for the 2010 II 10-K, and any recent securities analyst presentations.

I.I.'s response to the developer migration to a fee for service model was to increase member dues and exchange fees system wide. Net result is an ~3% increase in collected fees.

 

[windje2000]

I.I.'s response to the developer migration to a fee for service model was to increase member dues and exchange fees system wide.

Which of course gives the developers' programs a price umbrella. I expect that Marriott bundled fee to be short lived, and it will it soon look like the banking system fee for services model.

 

[Fredm]

Which of course gives the developers' programs a price umbrella. I expect that Marriott bundled fee to be short lived, and it will it soon look like the banking system fee for services model.

That's the way I see it.
There is more to the DC than meets the eye.
Marriott has boosted its fee revenue stream, which will only increase over time.
Meanwhile, it can be an attractive alternative to unbundled fees paid by those who choose to not join (which, of course, is the hook).

 

[OldPantry]

Yes, but?

Hopefully Marriott won't go the way of Starwood and decide that they will give you the average of your season in trading power with II and then decide which weeks to hold back for DC members and which to deposit in II whether you joined the DC or not. On the surface it is not terrible because you still get priority in II and decent trading power and they still bulk deposit a fair number or units but holiday's are almost never made available to anyone other than club participants and summer deposits are limited to early June and mid to late August deposits. Also any bulk deposits for higher seasons come only 6-7 months in advance if at all instead of 12-13 months in advance. Non summer Hurricane season and off season are deposited 9-11 months in advance. It also works out ok if you want to stay at your own resort during your season because you don't have to compete with II exchangers for the prime weeks but it hurts anyone who bought to exchange into other Marriott's or back into your own resort during a different season.

I'm wondering about the "priority" I would have in II if Marriott selected a lesser week for me (which seems probable). Wouldn't a better week (say April 6-12 for Ko Olina) trade better through II than a minimal week (say Jan 6-12)? Since Marriott now rates the one higher (you need more VC points to reserve it), wouldn't II do the same? If so, trusting Marriott would be a mistake.

 

[OldPantry]

Oops

Not convoluted.

My comments were originally in reply to a post by DanCali:
"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..."

Dan's post presumed that Marriott was paying the same or similar fees to I.I. for an exchange. I pointed out that was not necessarily so.

Hi Fredm,
My comment was directed to the entire thread, not your comment in particular. Sorry for the misunderstanding.