Easy one, the amount of points you will need for HI is higher than the points you receive for your Orlando TS.
Just to add my thoughts to the new "maybe" program:
I think that the new system will not be too different from the current one they are selling in Asia (=MVCI Asia-Pacific). I´ve written some details about that program in another thread and as stated over there my main concern with that programm is that if you are not flexible with your vacation time there is no way to trade up. If you want to secure your 2-BDR unit during prime time you will have to fork over the required points. Naturally new resorts will require more points so as the years pass by your "old" points purchase will not be enough to secure your trade into those new resorts. As of now Marriott can increase my maintenance fees but they can´t change the fact that a week is a week and will be a week in 15 years down the road. So as long as there is someone willing to exchange his week for my week and i am able to find that person, i don´t need Marriott.
When I had read your post sometime back that's what went through my mind. I was wondering if it was a small-scale trial for the overall points program. Not only were buy-ins high (even for developer bought weeks), but there didn't seem to be any home resort advantage. It appeared (to me at least) that once you bought into the points system you no longer owned an actually week anywhere. MF's were distributed by points, such that Bronze week owners, receiving fewer points, paid lower MF's that Plat. week owners. IF that was how Marriott intends to revamp the system it could make it a nightmare. I am not sure how they are logistically going to treat the MF's IF they adopt the same type of program.
I bought where I like to visit. I want first priority to booking my owned week, and don't want to be competing with every other owner elsewhere who may have enough points to make the reservation.
The other big issue I saw is that the point distribution was such that even a Plat. Las Vegas week, for ex., would only qualify for a partial week in a more premium location, or for a smaller unit. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember being a bit surprised at the details you had posted at how poorly some of the weeks did- even some of the Hawaii weeks not having enough points to trade into another Hawaii resort of similar size.
JimIg23- I wouldn't be surprised IF the new program doesn't get the reception they anticipate if they try to encourage joining by running promotions.
Latravel- I know we've disagreed on this, but even though they may not want to reward prior resale purchasers, they have little to gain by not grandfathering. If they make the buy in high, then resale buyers will continue to trade in II and Marriott will have less initial adopters to the new program; they will also have lost the only thing that penalizing current owners could give them- a few extra dollars in buy in, and the price of the loss of goodwill may be much higher. It may turn out that I am naive, but I always believed that Marriott would care about its customers and not try to alienate any subset. After all, I still contend that many, if not most, resale buyers are also direct purchasers and all, if they are happy, will be potential future buyers of new resorts. Only 7% may be resales, but the percentage of owners who own one or more resale weeks may be considerably higher (since many people who own developer weeks have bought those 7% of resales). Antagonizing perhaps 15 or 20% of owners can't be in anyone's best interests. I know that if I feel that Marriott treats me unfairly I will never buy another week from them, no matter how beautiful or enticing the next resort is. If I feel they treated me right, I'll remain a loyal customer and could possibly be enticed to buy direct if the property and the incentives were right.
As for future property transfers- I can see the logic in penalizing future resales since it provides a strong incentive to direct purchases, BUT it will decimate the resale market and may negatively impact their reputation and overall saleability over time. It is true that it is not advertised as an investment, BUT it is sold at least partially as one, with reference to retained value. IF one was to approach a Marco sale for 70K, for example, with the attitude that they were plunking down the money and losing not only the principal but the income of let's say $3500 a year from it, and there was not re-saleability (a valueless asset) it would be pretty hard to sell the week. The buyer would be out about 70K+ 4500 a year and climbing (as MF's increase) for the right to go to Florida for the week. That's pretty hard to justify, at least in my book. The illusion of property with retained value sells the weeks and is used in any sales pitch to justify the purchase. Marriott just needs to look at what Starwood's voluntary resorts are selling for to realize what will happen under such a system. In today's Internet savvy public, it won't be long before their reputation is in the toilet.
