How many Points Marriott generates varies by the second - folks will join and leave all the time. Marriott has no obligation to publish those stats and won't. Additionally the Points generated per similar unit will vary over time. Just because a Platinum week at Summit Watch brings in 45,000 Points today doesn't mean it will for the next unit deposited - it could be more or less.
Inflation is a HUGE problem in a Point system - just how do they handle inflation/deflation of Points? Who knows right now.
So no, I don't see where Marriott is going to be held liable for the number of Points in their system nor how they change it at their will.
We are going to have to wait for all the gory details but they won't tell us that much. This is going to be a proprietary sales tool under their control and if anyone wants to read anything else into that well their imagination is their guide.
Home resort advantage - I see lots and lots of problems with this. Say I have 50,000 points in my account and 10,000 came from my Gold week at Summit Watch and 40,000 came from Branson. I want to reserve New Year's week at Summit Watch which costs 50,000 Points - do I get home resort advantage?
So my guess is that there is no home advantage - too many thorny problems.
The likely reality of point devaluation over time is troublesome; it will depend on how aggressive Marriott decides to be. DVC has done it and consumers are ok with it, while in Starwood's case it has caused dismay. I think it depends on whether or not the point differential reflects value (if a resort is truly more upscale or in a more desirable location) or whether it is a sales tool and the valuation is artificially enhanced.
That's why I think the way Marriott rolls out their system (IF they do, in fact, roll out a system), particularly the way they assign valuations, is going to be something that warrants careful assessment. IF the valuations appear to be grounded in something other than a sales wish list, so to speak, and reflects real market demand (akin to the way that any other pricing is set; Marriott already does this by setting rental rates at its various properties, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel), then the system could be a winner. If, on the other hand, they release a point valuation where even a good Platinum week won't be able to trade for half of the Plat. weeks in the system in a like for like fashion (size/length of stay), as seen in the Asia Pacific program (although admittedly that was just a small sampling of properties) then I think the appeal will be limited for the more educated owners.
However, I think that's going to be a rub- how informed is the average owner? Marriott will hype this as the next best thing since sliced bread- the answer to all their owners' complaints. Will people simply believe what they hear, or research it?
For me, home resort priority would be a must. You can get around your issue with it by limiting it to reserving not just in the property you bought but reserving the season and category you originally purchased for home resort priority.
That would also infer that they would still be selling individual properties, and not just points. Thus, MF's would be tied to the property purchased and not simply a trust type of ownership. Many others have done that successfully and, unlike their Asia Pacific program, I think that would be much more user friendly and would be attractive to owners who bought where they like to go, but also would like to be able to trade.
I think it will be easy to see from the outset how they are figuring points, although, as you point out, there is the risk of finagling over time. Will there be small disparities between newer resorts still in active sales, but in the same general location, as older properties, or will there be significant differences? I think that will at least be an indication of what trend they, at least initially, contemplate, and is something that I think will warrant careful scrutiny. I know some others disagree, but I still feel that properties that rent for similar rates should be assigned similar point values, because the rental rates reflect the "value;" "value" is really a combination of supply and demand (and location and construction/amenities influence demand), and the marketplace - as reflected in what people are willing to pay for something- determines value.
One issue that we probably won't see addressed and can only hope Marriott deals with fairly (but given history I have my qualms here) is the extent of devaluation over time. For argument's sake, let's say Marriott ties its current valuation to what they are renting units for. So, if Marriott is charging $400 per night for timeshare A, the unit would be worth 2800 points. Fast forward five years; the rental rate is $500 per night. The unit is still worth 2800 points, which was its assigned value in 2010. That's ok if subsequent point valuations are based on 2010 dollars. For example, if Marriott's next resort, timeshare B, in 2015 rents for $500 a night, will that unit be assigned 2800 points or 3500 points? The market value of the newer unit is the same as the older unit, but will the point value be inflated? If so, that would mean that the original owner of timeshare A would have to either accept a smaller unit or fewer days at timeshare B, even though the market considers them equivalent properties. Similarly, in 2015, if timeshare C was introduced, and its location and/or amenities dictated that it was more valuable, how would its points value be assigned? Would they be relative to the original scale or a newly inflated scale? If timeshare C rents for $600 a night at the same time that timeshare A was renting for $500 a night, would timeshare be valued at 20% more (which would reflect the relative difference in market pricing adjusted for time and inflation) or would it be assigned a 50% higher valuation (since its current value is 50% higher than timeshare A was at the time that points were assigned to timeshare A).
My point is that prices increase over time, but so does the value of older resorts. In the rewards point program, the issue wasn't the increase in the number of points required for exchange (which I think most people understood was a natural consequence of the timeshare exchange for points system being part of a larger points program which is impacted by inflation), but the fact that the number of points for redemption reflected inflationary factors, but the point value assigned remained stagnant, fixed at the time of purchase. For any new system to be equitable, either all point assignments, both now and in the future, have to be adjusted to reflect 2010 values, or all valuations have to be periodically readjusted to reflect current rates. Otherwise, in 5-10 years down the road even that premium Hawaii, Caribbean or skiing New Year's week might not have enough points to reserve a week in a 2BR during Plat. season at whatever the newest resort is.
