Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[DanCali]

But that brings me to, what is in a resale deed that's not in a developer-direct deed which makes you resale buyers think that you have a right to expect any dollar value return?

Susan - I quoted you but my response applies to quite a few who raise the issue of valuation and rates of return.

It doesn't matter much whether you call it a "financial investment" or a "usage right" or "investment in luxury". What maters is that, in my opinion, the vast majority of buyers buy a timeshare because they think it will save them in costs versus rentals, or because they can get great trades.

I like to thik of it in these simple terms:

Resale Value of TS = Value from owning versus renting + Value from exchange options.

The first component (Value from owning versus renting) comes from the fact that MFs are (typically) lower than rental costs of comparble accomodations. So you benefit from using, or potentially renting. Technically, this should also account for opportunity cost of the initial investment.

The second component (Value from exchange options) comes from the ability of an owner to "trade up", whether it's desireable locations with high rental costs or 2 for 1 trades (using lockoffs) into preferred seasons.

Now, using this "model" you can think of what hapens to the resale value of a timeshare if some underlying factor changes. For example:

• If everything stays constant forever, the resale value should remain constant - that may or may not be the default assumption for most people. If I sell my timeshare in 10 years, all the parameters are the same in perpetuity so the price I sell should be the same as the price I bought it for. For an RTU timeshare, the years you have left to reap the benefits decreases, so the price is expected to decrease over time.

• If MFs go up more than rental costs for comparable accomodations, the benefit of owning versus renting decreases so the resale value of the timeshare drops. This is the reality of owning with Starwood, Marriott and other "brand names" which typically increase MFs at rates higher than CPI. In Marriott's defense, they have been much better than Starwood on this front especially in this most recent MF cycle. But this is the main reason why resale values drift down over time...

• If the economy recovers and rental costs of comparable accomodations go up, but our MFs increase by smaller amounts (or -wishful thinking- maybe stay flat or go down) then the benefit of owning versus renting increases, so resale values should increase.

• If II removes the 24 day Marriott priority, exchanges become more competitive, so this negatively affects the "Value from exchange options" component and resale values will go down.

Even though it's simple and doesn't capture everything, personally I find this a useful way to think about things...

As for the difference in cost between retail and resale, I attribute that primarily to the need of the developer to recover their marketing costs... This is pretty evident in a system like Hilton where there is no difference in usage between retail and resale. It's similar to why timeshares sold resale via brokers typically have higher asking prices... sellers are trying to pass on the commission to the buyers.

 

[DanCali]

In case you missed any of those posts, one from SurfWatch's Description of the Timesharing Plan follows - there are others as well throughout the Timesharing Declaration and Management Contract.

Quote:
Purchaser should purchase a time sharing interest as a vacation experience and for his or her personal use and enjoyment. Purchaser should not purchase a time sharing interest as an investment for profit upon its rental or resale.

The prospectus of any mutual fund has similar disclosures - this doesn't mean you don't invest in it with the intent to make money.

While I don't expect a timeshare to necessarily appreciate I certainly don't expect it to "go to zero" (unless it's an RTU). If the assumption should be that resale values do go to zero even for a deeded purchase, let salespeople say that in a presentation and let people do their math accordingly...

 

[SueDonJ]

The prospectus of any mutual fund has similar disclosures - this doesn't mean you don't invest in it with the intent to make money.

While I don't expect a timeshare to necessarily appreciate I certainly don't expect it to "go to zero" (unless it's an RTU). If the assumption should be that resale values do go to zero even for a deeded purchase, let salespeople say that in a presentation and let people do their math accordingly...

This has to be the last time because I honestly cannot think of a way to say any of this any more clearly:

Our Marriott rep sold our units to us without any need to embellish the product or offer illusions of investment protections. It was represented as a vacation lifestyle that appealed to us, with obligations set forth in the governing docs and deed.

The governing docs' provisions for any purchase protect Marriott, not the owners, in the event that a buyer does not realize a return on investment.

I have never said that I expect the dollar resale values of our purchases to be zero. Geeeeze, how much more clearly can it be said?! The fact that Marriott is not charged with protecting our dollar investment does not equate to its value being zero. The idea of a zero dollar value that has been discussed in this thread is coming from the folks who think the rumored exchange system will decimate all resale values to zero; it's NOT coming from developer owners who have simply pointed out that none of us has a bestowed right to expect a return on our initial investments. Gah, my head is spinning.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I see Marriott moving to something more of an overlay program that is only used for exchanges. They won't drastically change the status quo. Assign a point value to each resort/season/view. This will only be used for exchanging. This would mean a platinum owner will pay a lower per point MF than a silver season owner since they have more points but pay the same MF.

This is the internal exchange system that I am really hoping they will implement. Or at least, it's one that I would seriously consider workable and maybe perfect for our family.

Beyond that, we're having to make too many assumptions in order to say if one way or another or another could work. The one thing I am sure of, is that the brainiacs on TUG will be (once more) worth their weight in gold when/if the time comes to analyze an actual new product.

 

[Dave M]

Well stated, Susan! I concur.

There are many, many decisions we make in life where economics are not the highest priority.

As just one simple example, for some people, buying the car of their dreams is more important than how much the car costs and what the future value might be. Similarly, for some of us here, we bought the vacation(s) of our dreams, without much consideration for what the future value might be - even though we knew there would likely be some future value.

Just because we did it that mindset doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean that we "should have purchased an RTU", any more than the car buyer should have bought a different car (that wasn't first choice) that might have had a higher expected resale value or lower operating cost.

 

[jimf41]

Dave,
So you agree with my decision to buy the Audi A4 convertible in 2006 even though it's only worth 1/3 of what I paid for it and its out of warrantee and Audi gets $550 for an oil change?

 

[timeos2]

Spend to get what you enjoy is a legitimate way to go

There are many, many decisions we make in life where economics are not the highest priority.

As just one simple example, for some people, buying the car of their dreams is more important than how much the car costs and what the future value might be. Similarly, for some of us here, we bought the vacation(s) of our dreams, without much consideration for what the future value might be - even though we knew there would likely be some future value.

Just because we did it that mindset doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean that we "should have purchased an RTU", any more than the car buyer should have bought a different car (that wasn't first choice) that might have had a higher expected resale value or lower operating cost.

While I tend to be a strong proponent of resale as it usually is the best value I see resale values in a never ending free fall due to oversupply - it was well underway prior to the economic collapse - which got accelerated when the otherwise strong real estate market took its plunge. But I'm equally sold on the idea of owning timeshare - preferably deeded - rather than renting or trading to obtain what I want to use. With the incredible unknowns of annual fees/special assessments that on the surface seems at odds.

That's where Dave's point comes in. I have bought what I like, where I like and, unexpectedly, went even farther to become part of the Association Board in two cases to help steer the direction of some of my resorts. I found early on that whatever trading I did decide to do - again NEVER as my primary reason for buying - was much more efficient and returned far better value in points than week for week trades. Again the cost to join those points systems (I now belong to 3 different ones) wasn't steep but offered a great return on cost. Week for week exchange is too much of an unknown crap shoot and too much like the hassles of renting to be viable to me. Points are more like a hotel reservation - call or log in, see what you have to spend, see what is available, make your choices and be done with the knowledge you'll get exactly what you expect. Simple. Clean Cheap.

The same idea applies to all my ownerships - weeks or points. I bought them because I wanted to use them and want to stay at places I know I like. Trying to rent them would have meant the added real possibility of not getting those exact resorts, unit sizes or dates that I can be sure to get as an owner. So if it costs me a few hundred extra to know I'll get what I want instead of being disappointed it is money well spent.

I certainly hope that as I sell off the ownerships at some time they will bring in a few dollars - the more the better of course! But if they simply go to a new owner that will take over the fees and enjoy them I'd be happy. We already got our value out in use as many here have also stated. So I ask to be treated as any other owner would be as a resale buyer and for the Associations to hold down fees as best they can without compromising the resort quality and features we bought in for. The games of always trying to sell more, build walls between owners based on things that have zero meaning to owners are nonsense.

Other than the fact that someone may have paid more or less than you, and they pay the annual fees, is it in any way important if they bought resale or retail? Of course not. It is sales blather and nothing else. That type of nonsense, along with the blatant attempts to undermine resale values, infuriates me. It exposes that the Developers who practice it know they are hoodwinking buyers at the least and in the worst cases outright stealing from them. I can tell you without a doubt that no owner controlled Board / Association sits down and says "That fee is late/on time - but they are a resale buyer so send them another bill/bonus/nasty gram". An owner is an owner who pays what they owe and get use of what they bought or they don't. Nothing else matters.

Marriott (or anyone else) that wants to develop a better exchange system that is fair and can make a case for its value should do so. But to artificially create tiers of owners and pit them against each other, hanging on to management by edict after they should have owners in charge and the other well known moves simply to make more money are signs of poorly run and insecure organizations. If they were doing the job and offering true value the units/system would sell themselves without deception and if they were good managers they would be asked to operate resorts, not threatened with expulsion.

The closest we have to that model may be Disney who is upfront with all they do, how they control it due to the RTU and yet have loyal and happy owners. It can be done. We also see it in some independent management companies that are nearly universally respected by owners. We have yet to see any of the "big names" non-RTU's accomplish that, again with Disney as close as we seem to have overall.

I don't mind paying for the resorts I want, the fees truly necessary to operate and maintain them and for competent management that answers to the Association/Boards.

I have and will continue to fight and rail against developers who fail/refuse to properly turn over control to the owners, hang on to resort management they clearly can't handle while charging outrageous fees and that create roadblocks to resale of the very product they touted They deserve to be exposed and in many cases removed.

So far Marriott is on the fence over the last parts. If they insist on corporate profit over the owners they have gone the Wastegate route to ruin. If they unveil a reasonably priced, optional exchange system with no distinction on how you buy but properly based on what you own they might yet manage to be the second Disney and give us hope that not every big guy exists only for profiteering off a loyal base. Only time will tell.

 

[Pit]

But there we're getting back to the perspective argument that's been a part of this discussion - is Marriott considering a higher initiation fee for resale buyers in the rumored exchange plan it may implement in order to deliberately penalize resale buyers, or because it is a way for them to generate increased revenues while lessening the burden of their direct buyers? As well, will the rumored exchange plan actually decimate all resale values to the extent speculated by some?

Clearly, they wish to differentiate the retail product by penalizing resale buyers. Otherwise, they would charge the same for all owners, or charge nothing at all.

The rumored exchange plan will most certainly impact resale prices. How much of an impact depends on how much they choose to penalize resales, and how well the program is received by owners. If owners are uninterested, and the program flops, it may have little impact. If Fletch is correct and they penalize resales with a steep fee to join, then all units may be devalued, independent of how you purchased.

Just because it wasn't pitched to you as an investment, you seem to suggest that owners shouldn't care (or at least shouldn't complain) about these efforts to destroy their resale value. I disagree.

 

[rsackett]

...Ray, I did say that "we'd be better off thinking we'd never see our upfront money again..." but that was a worst-case scenario which we adopted after browsing the resale market for some established older Marriott resorts. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, but our thinking at the time we purchased wasn't that the worst-case was a given, only that the resale market at the time confirmed what we'd been told - that Marriott doesn't offer any protections to prevent the worst-case scenario. It isn't that we don't care about our investments, it's that we expect the financial risks we took with them are worth the usage rewards.....

Sue,

Thanks for the expanation, I understand now, and I am glad you are still happy with your purchases. I am still happy with mine as well. I had misunderstood what you and some others said and interpited it as meaning that you always concidered the resale value to be Zero and did not care if changes in the Marriott system resulted in a drastic loss of resale value.

Ray

Well stated, Susan! I concur.

There are many, many decisions we make in life where economics are not the highest priority.

As just one simple example, for some people, buying the car of their dreams is more important than how much the car costs and what the future value might be. Similarly, for some of us here, we bought the vacation(s) of our dreams, without much consideration for what the future value might be - even though we knew there would likely be some future value.

Just because we did it that mindset doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean that we "should have purchased an RTU", any more than the car buyer should have bought a different car (that wasn't first choice) that might have had a higher expected resale value or lower operating cost.

Dave,

I never ment to imply that you had made a wrong decision. The reason that I brought up RTU was if I was going to buy a TS that had a zero resale value I would rather buy a RTU so I would not have to try to sell a TS that had zero value. A car that has deprciated to zero I can take to a scrap yard and be done with it. Realestate that is viued as having no value but has ongoing obligations would be much harder to dispose of.

Again sorry for the confusion.

Ray

 

[lovearuba]

Marriott is not stupid are they?

Clearly, they wish to differentiate the retail product by penalizing resale buyers. Otherwise, they would charge the same for all owners, or charge nothing at all.

The rumored exchange plan will most certainly impact resale prices. How much of an impact depends on how much they choose to penalize resales, and how well the program is received by owners. If owners are uninterested, and the program flops, it may have little impact. If Fletch is correct and they penalize resales with a steep fee to join, then all units may be devalued, independent of how you purchased.

Just because it wasn't pitched to you as an investment, you seem to suggest that owners shouldn't care (or at least shouldn't complain) about these efforts to destroy their resale value. I disagree.

I doubt very much if Marriott would develop a system that punishes the majority of the people they want to join. That would be --the resale owners at their resorts. It would be difficult for them to get enough units to make their new proposed point system worthwhile if the resale units are not in that inventory. Marriott will not penalize those owners because they need them. Its a dollar and cents proposition. You cant get as big as Marriott is by making really stupid decisions. They are reading this site and posting to it as they always do, no one can monitor which posts belong to them and which ones don't so you can speculate all you want and your opinions are being monitored so Marriott can finetune their system. There is no way they will create a system that is prohibitively expensive for resale owners to join. They need the inventory. They don't care about anything but the bottom line.

 

[SueDonJ]

Clearly, they wish to differentiate the retail product by penalizing resale buyers. Otherwise, they would charge the same for all owners, or charge nothing at all.

The rumored exchange plan will most certainly impact resale prices. How much of an impact depends on how much they choose to penalize resales, and how well the program is received by owners. If owners are uninterested, and the program flops, it may have little impact. If Fletch is correct and they penalize resales with a steep fee to join, then all units may be devalued, independent of how you purchased.

It's not a given that a rumored exchange plan will BE implemented at all, nevermind what the terms of such a plan would entail. Nothing at all about what Marriott will do, or why, is clear.

My opinion is that it's being considered as a revenue-producing venture for Marriott, and that it is in Marriott's best interest to present it to owners in such a way that the majority of the ownership base will be enticed to join. The only other thing that I think can be confidently assumed is that Marriott will protect the owners' perceived values only to the extent that Marriott's 10% cut of management fees does not suffer unduly. Beyond those two things, I can't begin to imagine what the plan will look like or if it will decimate all resale values to any certain extent.

Just because it wasn't pitched to you as an investment, you seem to suggest that owners shouldn't care (or at least shouldn't complain) about these efforts to destroy their resale value. I disagree.

You should disagree. I would, too, with anyone who says all owners shouldn't care about a depreciating resale value. If you did hear that from someone, it wasn't me who said it.

For one thing, again, I don't think that an internal exchange system will destroy resale values, except to the extent that a resale purchaser may have to adjust his offer to include an initiation fee. The example I gave before is of a $6K resale offer and a $1K initiation fee - there I could see the seller having to accept $5K. That's not a destroyed resale market.

Another thing is, it's important to remember how this discussion evolved and why certain things have been brought into it. "Inherent value" has been used as a point in one of the repeated arguments here against Marriott decimating resale values (which, again, isn't a given IMO) - the reason we direct buyers have brought up the non-investment provisions is to disprove that point. That's it. From there, though, a few folks have made assumptions about how we direct buyers interpret those non-investment provisions. That's why I can't seem to let this go, because words are being attributed to me that I've never said/wrote.

Gah, I wish I could say things the way some Tug posters do, clearly and concisely with as few words as possible. (My dad always told me I didn't know how to tell time without writing a book. ) I guess simply, it's important to respond to the words that other folks actually say, and not the meaning we might be unfairly putting to their words.

 

[scrapngen]

Dave,
So you agree with my decision to buy the Audi A4 convertible in 2006 even though it's only worth 1/3 of what I paid for it and its out of warrantee and Audi gets $550 for an oil change?

I TOTALLY agree with the Audi purchase!! and the reference to how we choose to spend money on TS's...

After owning an A4 and currently a proud owner of a 2001 All-road and a 2008 A3, it's all about choices

 

[Pit]

I doubt very much if Marriott would develop a system that punishes the majority of the people they want to join. That would be --the resale owners at their resorts. It would be difficult for them to get enough units to make their new proposed point system worthwhile if the resale units are not in that inventory. Marriott will not penalize those owners because they need them. Its a dollar and cents proposition. You cant get as big as Marriott is by making really stupid decisions. They are reading this site and posting to it as they always do, no one can monitor which posts belong to them and which ones don't so you can speculate all you want and your opinions are being monitored so Marriott can finetune their system. There is no way they will create a system that is prohibitively expensive for resale owners to join. They need the inventory. They don't care about anything but the bottom line.

You may be right, or not. The same statements could have been said about Starwood. Yet, most resale owners at SVO have no opportunity to participate in their internal exchange, not at any price. And all new resorts are being sold as Voluntary, which precludes future resales from joining the internal exchange. If this is so stupid, how did Starwood get so big?

Our resident, former insider says that few resales will join due to the cost. You have better information?

They are reading this site and posting to it as they always do, no one can monitor which posts belong to them and which ones don't

Is this a confession?

 

[lovearuba]

I had to laugh at that

You may be right, or not. The same statements could have been said about Starwood. Yet, most resale owners at SVO have no opportunity to participate in their internal exchange, not at any price. And all new resorts are being sold as Voluntary, which precludes future resales from joining the internal exchange. If this is so stupid, how did Starwood get so big?

Our resident, former insider says that few resales will join due to the cost. You have better information?



Is this a confession?

I have to say you are the first person that hinted that I might work for Marriott, you havent read the Aruba ocean club post:ignore:

 

[Pit]

You should disagree. I would, too, with anyone who says all owners shouldn't care about a depreciating resale value. If you did hear that from someone, it wasn't me who said it.

For one thing, again, I don't think that an internal exchange system will destroy resale values, except to the extent that a resale purchaser may have to adjust his offer to include an initiation fee. The example I gave before is of a $6K resale offer and a $1K initiation fee - there I could see the seller having to accept $5K. That's not a destroyed resale market.

In your first paragraph, you disclaim the suggestion that owners shouldn't care about Marriott's errosion of resale values. Then, in the very next paragraph, you state that a devaluation is ok -- even gave an example of it. It seems you want it both ways.

 

[Pit]

I have to say you are the first person that hinted that I might work for Marriott, you havent read the Aruba ocean club post:ignore:

I know. I've read it.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Just because it wasn't pitched to you as an investment, you seem to suggest that owners shouldn't care (or at least shouldn't complain) about these efforts to destroy their resale value. I disagree.

... You should disagree. I would, too, with anyone who says all owners shouldn't care about a depreciating resale value. If you did hear that from someone, it wasn't me who said it.

For one thing, again, I don't think that an internal exchange system will destroy resale values, except to the extent that a resale purchaser may have to adjust his offer to include an initiation fee. The example I gave before is of a $6K resale offer and a $1K initiation fee - there I could see the seller having to accept $5K. That's not a destroyed resale market. ...

In your first paragraph, you disclaim the suggestion that owners shouldn't care about Marriott's errosion of resale values. Then, in the very next paragraph, you state that a devaluation is ok -- even gave an example of it. It seems you want it both ways.

Recognizing and caring about a depreciating resale market doesn't automatically mean that every depreciation is akin to a "destroyed" resale market, which is how you presented it. A depreciating resale market is and has been for quite some time the norm with timeshares; a destroyed resale market is what some folks assume will occur with the rumored internal exchange system if initiation fees are higher for resales.

 

[Pit]

Recognizing and caring about a depreciating resale market doesn't automatically mean that every depreciation is akin to a "destroyed" resale market, which is how you presented it. A depreciating resale market is and has been for quite some time the norm with timeshares; a destroyed resale market is what some folks assume will occur with the rumored internal exchange system if initiation fees are higher for resales.

Ok, "errode" is a better word choice than "destroy."

Let's differentiate between external market forces, and the intentional efforts of developers to errode resale values. I'm talking about devaluation, not depreciation.

In the example you gave, the owner receives $5K instead of $6K. Guess where the missing $1K goes -- out of the owner's pocket into Marriott's income statement. The higher the entry fee, the greater the devaluation that impacts every owner, retail or resale.

 

[jlf58]

resale owners are NOT the majority of people and if they didn't charge more to resale owners, they would tick off the people who bought from the developer. They will have no problem deciding which class they need to be loyal to.

I doubt very much if Marriott would develop a system that punishes the majority of the people they want to join. There is no way they will create a system that is prohibitively expensive for resale owners to join. They need the inventory. They don't care about anything but the bottom line.

 

[SueDonJ]

Ok, "errode" is a better word choice than "destroy."

Let's differentiate between external market forces, and the intentional efforts of developers to errode resale values. I'm talking about devaluation, not depreciation.

In the example you gave, the owner receives $5K instead of $6K. Guess where the missing $1K goes -- out of the owner's pocket into Marriott's income statement. The higher the entry fee, the greater the devaluation that impacts every owner, retail or resale.

Agreed. But (you knew that was coming, right?) if we assume that Marriott is considering rolling out an internal exchange system in order to generate revenue, which I do, then initiation fees are going to be a major component of that revenue. (If the program is rolled out) whether or not resales will be charged a higher fee isn't clear yet, but it can be confidently assumed that developer sales will not be the only sales subject to an initiation fee. With a direct buy, though, the fee can be rolled into the developer price, while with a resale it's probably going to be assumed by the seller. Is there another way?

{edit} Fletch just snuck in there ahead of me - maybe it is clear that resales will be charged more?

 

[jlf58]

This is my educated guess. new sales will have the fee included, owners who buy another week will get thier weeks grandfathered, owners who just want to upgrade thier weeks will pay about $500 per week. My guess would be resale owners, more like $1500.

Agreed. But (you knew that was coming, right?) if we assume that Marriott is considering rolling out an internal exchange system in order to generate revenue, which I do, then initiation fees are going to be a major component of that revenue. (If the program is rolled out) whether or not resales will be charged a higher fee isn't clear yet, but it can be confidently assumed that developer sales will not be the only sales subject to an initiation fee. With a direct buy, though, the fee can be rolled into the developer price, while with a resale it's probably going to be assumed by the seller. Is there another way?

{edit} Fletch just snuck in there ahead of me - maybe it is clear that resales will be charged more?

 

[SueDonJ]

This is my educated guess. new sales will have the fee included, owners who buy another week will get thier weeks grandfathered, owners who just want to upgrade thier weeks will pay about $500 per week. My guess would be resale owners, more like $1500.

Hmmmm. Every time you post I hear Bonnie Raitt in my head - "... give 'em sumpin' to tawk about ..."

So, do you mean future resales, or current owners of former resales?

 

[Pit]

while with a resale it's probably going to be assumed by the seller

I think we're saying the same thing. This system will devalue resales, including resales of retail purchases.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Value Of Intangibles & Exclusivity.

Other than the fact that someone may have paid more or less than you, and they pay the annual fees, is it in any way important if they bought resale or retail? Of course not. It is sales blather and nothing else.

During 1 of the many TUG-BBS rehashes of ROFR, 1 of the ROFR fans who came round, eventually acknowledging that ROFR really does not keep resale values from going "too low" after all, still claimed to favor ROFR because it meant not having to rub shoulders in the pool or hobnob in the clubhouse, etc., with anybody who got there by buying cheap.

The ROFR fan felt secure in the knowledge that even if previous owners sold cheap, nobody but the timeshare company could buy cheap.

By me that's mox nix, but the ROFR fan admitted it was important to have assurance that no other regular owners could buy in at prices too much less than the full-freight buyers paid.

I filed that factoid in the Suspicions Confirmed department.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[dioxide45]

This has to be the last time because I honestly cannot think of a way to say any of this any more clearly:

Our Marriott rep sold our units to us without any need to embellish the product or offer illusions of investment protections. It was represented as a vacation lifestyle that appealed to us, with obligations set forth in the governing docs and deed.

The governing docs' provisions for any purchase protect Marriott, not the owners, in the event that a buyer does not realize a return on investment.

I have never said that I expect the dollar resale values of our purchases to be zero. Geeeeze, how much more clearly can it be said?! The fact that Marriott is not charged with protecting our dollar investment does not equate to its value being zero. The idea of a zero dollar value that has been discussed in this thread is coming from the folks who think the rumored exchange system will decimate all resale values to zero; it's NOT coming from developer owners who have simply pointed out that none of us has a bestowed right to expect a return on our initial investments. Gah, my head is spinning.

However, I think it can be said that both resale and developer buyers would equally be upset if Marriott took steps that caused resale value to plummet to near zero, regardless of what one was told or not told during their sales presentation. Regardless of what was promised, losing value in anything through devaluation doesn't make anyone happy.