Sounds like sales lies though there may be a bit of truth there. While I don't believe that the value of what current owners have means anything to MVCI, nor that it should, I don't see how Marriott owners would lose access to II, those resorts who had access to RCI before still do. But they could take away the reduced fees and 24 day priority. Getaways are simply a way to rent weeks so I don't see this issue as having any meaning in this discussion.
First of all, if Marriott was going to sever relations with II they would not have just signed a long term agreement. Even Starwood, who has had a long standing points internal exchange system, has a long-term relationship with II, owners use II for some internal and all external exchanges, and there are Starwood Getaways; I would expect Marriott to continue to similarly use II as a venue for renting excess weeks as Getaways and a means of enticing other timeshare owners to visit their properties (Getaways are also a means to get people to visit and hopefully provide fodder for tours).
I don't agree that the value of what current owners have means nothing to Marriott and that it shouldn't mean anything; while Marirott of course wants to enhance its bottom line, a loyal customer base is the foundation of any business. Maintaining current owner value is essential to Marriott's future; new projects are fueled primarily by current owner purchases, especially in pre-construction phases and, certainly, by word of mouth. IF Marriott was to turn its back on its loyal customers (and I don't believe it will), then Perry's prognostication of it circling the drain would become a reality.
As for continued affiliation with II, Marirott is well aware that their contemplated system will not appeal to everyone (that was clear from Fletch's posts), and they have precedence with that in their Asia Pacific program. They also want to be able to sell their weeks as having access to thousands of properties world-wide, not just fifty something resorts. So II exchanges are mutually beneficial. If there are any fees to join and/or if there is a loss of home resort priority with any new system, there will likely be many people who continue business as usual, and there will likely remain considerable Marriott inventory in II, at least in the short term. IF over time Marriott's internal trading program catches on, then inventory in II will likely proportionally decrease, but the value of deeded weeks owned, reserved and deposited (as per current ownership contracts) in II may actually be enhanced because of more limited inventory, although the options for Marriott to Marriott trades will be impacted.
IF Marriott's new system is purely a points system with loss of home resort priority, as Fletch and others have indicated, then ultimately we will all have to weigh whether the ability to reserve what we now own is outweighed by the possible easier ability to reserve within the Marriott system and the increased flexibility. Personally, I'd like the best of all worlds- I want to keep my home resort priority, I'd like to directly book other Marriotts with the ability to use a form of currency (ie- points) to have control of view, and I like the concept of having control over length of stay (although a week is fine with me so that's not a big issue) and size of unit (it would be nice to be able to book a 3BR for some trips and a smaller unit for others). Since I bought primarily to use, I would not be willing to give up my home resort priority and I would really resent being forced to shell out anything substantial, especially in this economy, to join any new system. The last two biggies for me are MF's (although if home resort priority was maintained that would infer that it was not purely a points trust system, and the current MF system would remain intact) and, the bottom line, how value is assigned.
I know others disagree, but I still maintain that point assignment must be a reflection of real market demand, and not an arbitrary assignment of a number to increase sales. If I own a Grande Vista week, for example, and it is going to cost me double the value of my week to book a winter Caribbean week, then I want to be able to justify that trade. The bottom line- if I could go to Marriott's website and that Grande Vista week is $239 per night for a 2BR villa for week 5 and $855 for the same week in Aruba, then spending additional points makes sense (although if I was the Grande Vista owner I might decide that I prefer the week for week trading through II). However, if I can look at Marriott's website and find that a mid-August week in Aruba is $585 a night and the same size unit it $394 a night at Marco for the same time period, then I wouldn't expect an exchange into Marco to be costing more points than the Aruba unit is allotted; Marriott should not be artificially inflating point values as a sales tool. If I am going to give up my week, I want to be able to get equivalent value (after all, isn't that what, at least on paper, points systems offer- flexibility and being a more equitable system), and that value must have some form of real market objective determination.
That said, I can understand that many people bought into the system with the concept of Platinum for Platinum or high demand Gold for perhaps lower demand Platinum, etc., so I could embrace a system like HGVC's, etc., where most resorts are valued similarly. I can see the concept of equity there too on a broad scale basis.
I think owners will be looking at not only how many points they are getting, but how the points are distributed and if they truly reflect value (and value is really a reflection of market demand, which Marriott's rental rates already reflect) or if, alternately, Marriott decides to value similar seasons similarly across the board (which, to a large degree, is how the product was sold for the last 25 years); for me, I can see equity in either of these scenarios. I cannot see equity in some arbitrary assignment, either now or in the future, of enhanced valuations as a sales tool (ex.- inflating Marco's point allotment to sell units).
History, btw, has a tendency to repeat itself. Starwood did that with inflated values for Lagumar, for ex.. They created a system wherefew deposited high value weeks. Although they later reallocated point assignments to WSJ, very few St. John's weeks ever get deposited because owners will rent them out first. Very few prime weeks are available for non WSJ owners to reserve even internally because the point allocations make it such that owners feel they get gypped if they book anywhere else because they simply don't get enough points allocated. Harborside is another property with similar issues. So Marriott has to be careful that older, but premium properties, don't get out-priced by newer properties simply because they are newer, but might never achieve the same status of some older properties simply because in vacations, like real estate, it is location, location, location.
