Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[PerryM]

What happened to the old PerryM? You know. The one who loved point systems. The old advocate of currency systems vs. barter systems? Seems like he has taken a decidedly Carolinian turn to the dark side. Who kidnapped PerryM?

I love Points in an exchange system.

Doesn't sound like Marriott is thinking down this line.

If Marriott wanted a Points system it would take them one weekend 4 years ago to just contract with Resort2Resort and they would have it - 100% transplant and 100% workable and $199 to join and less than that per exchange.

Throwing out 20+ years of weeks and jumping into a trust-based Points system is a totally different matter.

I'm getting the feeling, from the rumors, that this is a total revamp of Marriott and one that will mean years and years of retraining 400,000 owners.

This I'm scared of...

P.S.
Marriott has a proven track record of devaluing MRP's - I take that as something that will cross their mind down the line. In fairness, MRP's must keep up with exploding fuel costs by charging more for the same.

Assuming Marriott already has the new trust-based Point system ready to go the only decision on our part is to join or not join and that takes a lot of information which is missing right now.

 

[Dean]

I love Points in an exchange system.

Doesn't sound like Marriott is thinking down this line.

If Marriott wanted a Points system it would take them one weekend 4 years ago to just contract with Resort2Resort and they would have it - 100% transplant and 100% workable and $199 to join and less than that per exchange.

Throwing out 20+ years of weeks and jumping into a trust-based Points system is a totally different matter.

I'm getting the feeling, from the rumors, that this is a total revamp of Marriott and one that will mean years and years of retraining 400,000 owners.

This I'm scared of...

To have a sales angle they need a complete revamp and they need control. Maybe they've waited so long to try to get it right? LOL, we'll see what they end up with.

 

[PerryM]

To have a sales angle they need a complete revamp and they need control. Maybe they've waited so long to try to get it right? LOL, we'll see what they end up with.

Done right Marriott can incorporate their ENTIRE product line of goods and services in this Point system.

MRP's, Ritz-Carlton Destination Club Points, car rentals, airline tickets, and anything else they want to incorporate.

But the outcome of the above will lead to renting villas to the public and not available to us and that's the RCI Point route.

Like I said before a 3 stage implementation makes more sense:

• Point oriented exchange club - 2 years
• Trust-based timeshares using those Points - 2 years
• Integration to other Marriott goods and services

 

[BocaBum99]

I love Points in an exchange system.

Doesn't sound like Marriott is thinking down this line.

If Marriott wanted a Points system it would take them one weekend 4 years ago to just contract with Resort2Resort and they would have it - 100% transplant and 100% workable and $199 to join and less than that per exchange.

Throwing out 20+ years of weeks and jumping into a trust-based Points system is a totally different matter.

I'm getting the feeling, from the rumors, that this is a total revamp of Marriott and one that will mean years and years of retraining 400,000 owners.

This I'm scared of...

P.S.
Marriott has a proven track record of devaluing MRP's - I take that as something that will cross their mind down the line. In fairness, MRP's must keep up with exploding fuel costs by charging more for the same.

Assuming Marriott already has the new trust-based Point system ready to go the only decision on our part is to join or not join and that takes a lot of information which is missing right now.

I see what Marriott doing as no different than every other developer who went from a fixed/floating week system to a points system. The same. What do you see differently?

 

[m61376]

Of note, DVC is the only points based reservation system I know to have ever done this and, it makes me less inclined to purchase from them. When I make a purchase, I'm looking at usage in specific timeframes for that resort. Should Marriott allow themselves the leasure of changing the point requirements for me to go to that resort during the specific timeframe I purchased it will be thanks but no thanks.

My big concern should this be a part of Marriott's points package is my ownership at Ocean Pointe. We bought Silver season specifically to use in either November or December. Oceana Palms 1 mile north has no such thing as Silver season. Marriott would need to assure me, in writing, that the points for specific weeks can never change or, they'll need to upgrade me in season so that I can still get the weeks I want. A few of those Silver season weeks are platinum at Oceana Palms. I'll be VERY interested to see how they structure the points at Ocean Pointe.

That concern would apply to other resorts as well. What about the owners at several resorts where Plat. seasons really are too long? Are you saying, for argument's sake, that if Marriott valued the Plat. weeks at NCV at 40,000 points and gave every Plat. owner 40,000 points, that they could then decide that the 10 or so premium weeks cost 50,000 points to book, and the other 10 weeks cost 30,000 each to book (I am not sure of the number of weeks, but am just using this as a rough example), so that the total number of points assigned to owners and the total points cost to book all the weeks equaled, but leaving owners without enough points to actually book the most sought after weeks in their owned resort unless they supplement them?

 

[m61376]

On your second point, it does give a dilemma for places like OP vs Oceana Palms and Lakeshore vs GV which have very different seasons for the same demand. On a smaller scale even for the 2 weeks at HH that are Plat for BB and Surfwatch and Gold at GO.

There are likely several other examples. Wasn't one of the Hawaii resorts initially sold as all Platinum (?Waiohai) and later sold with a 1-50 Plat. season and Plat. Plus for the holiday weeks. In Aruba, the Ocean Club is Plat. from 51-52 and 1-17, and the Surf Club next door has 4 Plat. Plus weeks during the same timeframe. I am sure there are several other resorts with similar disparities.

 

[Dean]

Done right Marriott can incorporate their ENTIRE product line of goods and services in this Point system.

MRP's, Ritz-Carlton Destination Club Points, car rentals, airline tickets, and anything else they want to incorporate.

But the outcome of the above will lead to renting villas to the public and not available to us and that's the RCI Point route.

Like I said before a 3 stage implementation makes more sense:

• Point oriented exchange club - 2 years
• Trust-based timeshares using those Points - 2 years
• Integration to other Marriott goods and services

"Done Right" is a very subjective and personal issue. What might be right for me, might not be for you. What's reasonable from Marriott's standpoint might not be for many existing owners. This will be all about the best compromise and there WILL be losers and we'll see some of them whine dramatically. It does give them opportunities to link some of their products though my experience with timeshare points system is that it's not the core product that gets you but it is these other peripheral options where the smoke and mirrors comes in. In many ways, I'm more interested in how (if) any new system interacts with II than anything else. Do they let you pick the week to deposit for example. For that matter, does II roll out their long rumored points program in conjunction with or within a few months of Marriott. If not, does Marriott change back over to RCI. Does Marriott join up with other points systems such as DVC's Buena Vista Trading Company which is a fully licensed exchange company or do they work with other systems such as Bluegreen does with Shell.

I see what Marriott doing as no different than every other developer who went from a fixed/floating week system to a points system. The same. What do you see differently?

Obviously Perry can speak for himself, however, I believe he answered this question previously by essentially giving two explanations (as I understood him). One, that it's a change to the fundamental system that is already established and two, the length of time they've had their system in place made it unreasonable to change now. Neither hold water IMO partly due to the issues you are reminding us of.

There are likely several other examples. Wasn't one of the Hawaii resorts initially sold as all Platinum (?Waiohai) and later sold with a 1-50 Plat. season and Plat. Plus for the holiday weeks. In Aruba, the Ocean Club is Plat. from 51-52 and 1-17, and the Surf Club next door has 4 Plat. Plus weeks during the same timeframe. I am sure there are several other resorts with similar disparities.

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to be all inclusive, just adding a few examples and the best ones that came to mind plus a couple of others personal to me. I suspect Platinum Plus will be handled special for this situation but we'll see. Thinking about it from another angle, I think that the bigger issue isn't as much the ones I mentioned as it is between resorts of different areas. LV and Orlando Platinum certainly aren't the same demand as HI or HH platinum.

 

[PerryM]

I see what Marriott doing as no different than every other developer who went from a fixed/floating week system to a points system. The same. What do you see differently?

Won't see anything until release date..

 

[dougp26364]

That concern would apply to other resorts as well. What about the owners at several resorts where Plat. seasons really are too long? Are you saying, for argument's sake, that if Marriott valued the Plat. weeks at NCV at 40,000 points and gave every Plat. owner 40,000 points, that they could then decide that the 10 or so premium weeks cost 50,000 points to book, and the other 10 weeks cost 30,000 each to book (I am not sure of the number of weeks, but am just using this as a rough example), so that the total number of points assigned to owners and the total points cost to book all the weeks equaled, but leaving owners without enough points to actually book the most sought after weeks in their owned resort unless they supplement them?

It would be possible although unlikely. creating unequal points for the same season would upset a lot of owners. When weeks have been purchased under the current system, no one cared what week was assigned. One week was a good as the other since everything was floating. If Marriott suddenly valued one week over another and, considering no one had a choice in the matter, owners who were assigned weeks at random that have a lower value would have a serious beef with Marriott.

Inventory control will be handled a little different. As it stands now, an owner who wants to exchange typically wants one of those strong summer weeks. They are under the impression they MUST have a strong week to get whatever they want in exchange regardless of how true it is. With points, it doesn't matter what week Interval gets. Points are points and they'll have a set trade value with Interval. Marriott will have contracted a cretain number of weeks of a determined quality. Otherwise, Marriott owners in the points system who actually want to stay at their home resort will have first pick of the prime weeks for personal use. Those weeks won't hit the exchange market with Interval. That's what's so nice about points programs. It's almost never a race to see who calls in first. Prime weeks get used by owners and not reserved to be given to Interval for exchange.

 

[PerryM]

The kicker...

It would be possible although unlikely. creating unequal points for the same season would upset a lot of owners. When weeks have been purchased under the current system, no one cared what week was assigned. One week was a good as the other since everything was floating. If Marriott suddenly valued one week over another and, considering no one had a choice in the matter, owners who were assigned weeks at random that have a lower value would have a serious beef with Marriott.

Inventory control will be handled a little different. As it stands now, an owner who wants to exchange typically wants one of those strong summer weeks. They are under the impression they MUST have a strong week to get whatever they want in exchange regardless of how true it is. With points, it doesn't matter what week Interval gets. Points are points and they'll have a set trade value with Interval. Marriott will have contracted a cretain number of weeks of a determined quality. Otherwise, Marriott owners in the points system who actually want to stay at their home resort will have first pick of the prime weeks for personal use. Those weeks won't hit the exchange market with Interval. That's what's so nice about points programs. It's almost never a race to see who calls in first. Prime weeks get used by owners and not reserved to be given to Interval for exchange.

Probably part of the negotiations with II just weeks ago covered the topic of how the new exchange system interfaces with II - because it has to.

There are many ways to do this but basically X number of Points is required to book a 2BR of any season in II. Members do this and once in a while II goes to Marriott with those XXX Points and Marriott will turn over a basket of weeks of various sizes and II seasons. You, the member/owner, have no say in this matter.

We will see how smart Marriott is negotiating with II. WM did a super job for us owners, basically I do Request First exchanges, i.e. I don't give up one Point until a reservation is snagged and I accept it after the 24-hr rejection period.

For ALL 2BR units in II it costs me 10,000 Points which are ONLY deducted when a reservation is found and I accept it. Then I have a few days to go get those Points from my account, or pay cash for it, or rent Points from other WM owners.

A 1BR is 9,000 and a studio is 8,000 and at 59-days or less it costs me just 4,000 Points of anything I snag.

But here's the kicker - I must put up a WM unit to use for the exchange and the largest we have to exchange is a 3BR and that's the Trading Power we use to snag a 2BR or less. Basically I use 3BR WM in all my searches and make sure they start before the 59-day mark so even then I put up high trading power.

So I have lots of open II searches going on all the time and don't have the Points to satisfy all of them - I have time, throughout the year, to get them normally or to rent them from other WM owners.

Let's see how Marriott did representing we Marriott owners to II. Did they do as good a job as WM or did they cave in and take the minimum for us?

A through, in-depth, analysis of II exchanges has to be part of your due diligence because you will want to exchange out of Marriott sometime, maybe lots of times.

 

[bobcat]

It would be possible although unlikely. creating unequal points for the same season would upset a lot of owners. When weeks have been purchased under the current system, no one cared what week was assigned. One week was a good as the other since everything was floating. If Marriott suddenly valued one week over another and, considering no one had a choice in the matter, owners who were assigned weeks at random that have a lower value would have a serious beef with Marriott.

Inventory control will be handled a little different. As it stands now, an owner who wants to exchange typically wants one of those strong summer weeks. They are under the impression they MUST have a strong week to get whatever they want in exchange regardless of how true it is. With points, it doesn't matter what week Interval gets. Points are points and they'll have a set trade value with Interval. Marriott will have contracted a cretain number of weeks of a determined quality. Otherwise, Marriott owners in the points system who actually want to stay at their home resort will have first pick of the prime weeks for personal use. Those weeks won't hit the exchange market with Interval. That's what's so nice about points programs. It's almost never a race to see who calls in first. Prime weeks get used by owners and not reserved to be given to Interval for exchange.

Do you want to trade in your deed for points in a trust system?. This does not sit right with me. They can not force you to join the new system .I have a friend who has 2 summer weeks fixed on HH. He will not trade. I do not like points. Been there, done that. Give me my week and leave me alone. Besides, timeshare co"s raise the points you need to book units. Now they raise the points and you do not have enough to book. The Ocean Beach timeshares will have a higher points value I think. We are in very hard times. Do you want to pay more for your timeshare. If all Marriott owners raise their vioce , no leave me along and will not pay you another cent. How far do you think Marriott can go. Marriott are you taking notes.

 

[bluesfan]

Anticipated impacts to lock-off owners?

 

[Asia2000]

I think lockoff owners will not enjoy the same benefits they do now under points. The only exception would be flexchanges. If we can keep trading through interval, the usual ways, I think points will look less attractive. Marriott will need to think of a way to make the lockoff feature, similar to what it is today.

 

[dougp26364]

Do you want to trade in your deed for points in a trust system?. This does not sit right with me. They can not force you to join the new system .I have a friend who has 2 summer weeks fixed on HH. He will not trade. I do not like points. Been there, done that. Give me my week and leave me alone. Besides, timeshare co"s raise the points you need to book units. Now they raise the points and you do not have enough to book. The Ocean Beach timeshares will have a higher points value I think. We are in very hard times. Do you want to pay more for your timeshare. If all Marriott owners raise their vioce , no leave me along and will not pay you another cent. How far do you think Marriott can go. Marriott are you taking notes.

I'm not a big fan of trust based ownership. There's to much control given to the trust manager who is controled by the developer.

We own in two points based systems. They are far superior in flexiblity and ease of internal exchange to the existing weeks based program Marriott offers. Inflation is a moot point in either points or weeks based systems. Newer resorts require more trade power, which is a hidden value, in weeks based systems. With points you can see the inflation. With weeks you can only guess. Weeks is a deposit and hope for confirmation. Points you know if you can make the exchange just by looking.

Marriott is going to do this thing despite owners raising their voices. You have a choice. Stay as you are with deeded weeks or join the new points based internal exchange system. No one is going to be able to force you to give up what you have now. All they can do is offer you something new. It's up to you as to the worth of the new program.

I can tell you one thing. It's impossible to pass judgement on a program you haven't even looked seen. It's best to keep an open mind, look at the proposed change and then make up your mind. In every points based system I've seen, if you always use the week you own, there really isn't any advantage to changing how the unit is exchanged. If you don't exchange then the exchange system used doesn't affect you at all.

I'll look at the program, listen to what they have to offer and then decide what works best for us. If they want us to convert our deeded weeks into some form of a trust, it's going to take a lot more study time. If it's simply a points overlay system with us keeping our deeds we'll be more open to the concept. I like points based internal exchange systems. They work for us. But if it's a trust based system I'm not do sure it will be in our best interest.

Time will tell. Only a few couple of more weeks and we should start getting some answers.

 

[Asia2000]

Did you ever inquire as to why they had the relative value differences between the resorts? Was it based on anything concrete? Why was a Plat. Phuket week valued so much less than a Ko'Olina week, and for that matter, why weren't the Hawaii properties similarly valuated? Did you get the impression the values assigned were actually based on some objective factor?

m,

No, I never inquired about this. However, I can only speculate (as usual) that it is completely based on demand and/or inventory. The difference in the Hawaii resorts was that Ko'Olina did not guarantee an ocean view where Waiohai did (for more points). Phuket seemed like the median resort (which would make sense as it is in the center of Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong (seemingly where the majority of these programs were sold).

If the US point system resembles the Asia program, I can see two types of units holding much higher point values. Platinum Plus Weeks and 3 bedroom units. If you own either of these, I would think you have nothing to worry about. If you own a 2 bedroom platinum, I would say your point value will be high enough as long as your Platinum TDI average is high versus other resorts. It seems like Newport Villas and Palm Desert have higher averages (for platinum) than Orlando or Hawaii, simply because Orlando and Hawaii have very large Platinum windows. For this reason my theory could be off. Try telling a Hawaii owner that his property is worth less than Newport when his MFs are 50%+ higher. Maybe not.

However, I think demand will rule. Just like for people on the street buying hotel rooms. The higher the demand, the higher the price. For MVCI resorts, the higher the demand, the higher the point value of your week. If the II TDI index is not an accurate gauge, then maybe street price averages for platinum/silver/gold weeks would be the barometer.

A switch to points has no doubt challenged the financial minds (the numbers freaks) within the Maryland headquarters. I am trying to figure out if they think they will financially gain from new buyers or from existing owners. Certainly, the best of both worlds would be the optimal situation for Marriott. I'm sure everyone's bonus for 2010 and beyond will be riding on the success of this program. They have one chance to get it right.

At this point, the program is finalized. Now they just have to convince their employees that this is the best thing they have ever done. Then, they have to convince the general buying public. Then, they must convince the most discriminating group of all, the TUGgers.

Let the games begin.

 

[dougp26364]

I'm thinking this thing may be closer to the Ritz-Carlton program than the AP program. Fletch seems to think there will be no home resort advantage and that makes me believe this may be a trust based ownership. I'm pretty sure from the descripition I've seen that RC is a trust based ownership.

 

[JimIg23]

m,

No, I never inquired about this. However, I can only speculate (as usual) that it is completely based on demand and/or inventory. The difference in the Hawaii resorts was that Ko'Olina did not guarantee an ocean view where Waiohai did (for more points). Phuket seemed like the median resort (which would make sense as it is in the center of Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong (seemingly where the majority of these programs were sold).

If the US point system resembles the Asia program, I can see two types of units holding much higher point values. Platinum Plus Weeks and 3 bedroom units. If you own either of these, I would think you have nothing to worry about. If you own a 2 bedroom platinum, I would say your point value will be high enough as long as your Platinum TDI average is high versus other resorts. It seems like Newport Villas and Palm Desert have higher averages (for platinum) than Orlando or Hawaii, simply because Orlando and Hawaii have very large Platinum windows. For this reason my theory could be off. Try telling a Hawaii owner that his property is worth less than Newport when his MFs are 50%+ higher. Maybe not.

However, I think demand will rule. Just like for people on the street buying hotel rooms. The higher the demand, the higher the price. For MVCI resorts, the higher the demand, the higher the point value of your week. If the II TDI index is not an accurate gauge, then maybe street price averages for platinum/silver/gold weeks would be the barometer.

A switch to points has no doubt challenged the financial minds (the numbers freaks) within the Maryland headquarters. I am trying to figure out if they think they will financially gain from new buyers or from existing owners. Certainly, the best of both worlds would be the optimal situation for Marriott. I'm sure everyone's bonus for 2010 and beyond will be riding on the success of this program. They have one chance to get it right.

At this point, the program is finalized. Now they just have to convince their employees that this is the best thing they have ever done. Then, they have to convince the general buying public. Then, they must convince the most discriminating group of all, the TUGgers.

Let the games begin.

Have you heard of any EOY usage in the Asia Program?

 

[urple2]

When this system is finally released it will be great to get everyone's perspective on this.

I'm sure this info from all on here will help each other in making our decisions.

 

[Dean]

Anticipated impacts to lock-off owners?

More flexibility for internal trading but less value. Lost or decreased ability to trade up in unit size by trading say a studio for a 2 BR. If there's a home resort or similar priority, may need to reserve entire unit size to take advantage of it.

 

[PerryM]

I'm not a big fan of trust based ownership. There's to much control given to the trust manager who is controled by the developer.

We own in two points based systems. They are far superior in flexiblity and ease of internal exchange to the existing weeks based program Marriott offers. Inflation is a moot point in either points or weeks based systems. Newer resorts require more trade power, which is a hidden value, in weeks based systems. With points you can see the inflation. With weeks you can only guess. Weeks is a deposit and hope for confirmation. Points you know if you can make the exchange just by looking.

Marriott is going to do this thing despite owners raising their voices. You have a choice. Stay as you are with deeded weeks or join the new points based internal exchange system. No one is going to be able to force you to give up what you have now. All they can do is offer you something new. It's up to you as to the worth of the new program.

I can tell you one thing. It's impossible to pass judgement on a program you haven't even looked seen. It's best to keep an open mind, look at the proposed change and then make up your mind. In every points based system I've seen, if you always use the week you own, there really isn't any advantage to changing how the unit is exchanged. If you don't exchange then the exchange system used doesn't affect you at all.

I'll look at the program, listen to what they have to offer and then decide what works best for us. If they want us to convert our deeded weeks into some form of a trust, it's going to take a lot more study time. If it's simply a points overlay system with us keeping our deeds we'll be more open to the concept. I like points based internal exchange systems. They work for us. But if it's a trust based system I'm not do sure it will be in our best interest.

Time will tell. Only a few couple of more weeks and we should start getting some answers.

WOW! I could have written this.

That means one of us is in trouble

 

[aka Julie]

How will MVCI let us know

OK, I've been keeping up with this thread and "soaking it all in."

So my question for the "experts" is how do you think MVCI is going to communicate the changes to all owners? I'm sure it will be a lot to digest and wonder how comprehensive the announcement and communication vehicle will be.

 

[m61376]

It would be possible although unlikely. creating unequal points for the same season would upset a lot of owners. When weeks have been purchased under the current system, no one cared what week was assigned. One week was a good as the other since everything was floating. If Marriott suddenly valued one week over another and, considering no one had a choice in the matter, owners who were assigned weeks at random that have a lower value would have a serious beef with Marriott.

Inventory control will be handled a little different. As it stands now, an owner who wants to exchange typically wants one of those strong summer weeks. They are under the impression they MUST have a strong week to get whatever they want in exchange regardless of how true it is. With points, it doesn't matter what week Interval gets. Points are points and they'll have a set trade value with Interval. Marriott will have contracted a cretain number of weeks of a determined quality. Otherwise, Marriott owners in the points system who actually want to stay at their home resort will have first pick of the prime weeks for personal use. Those weeks won't hit the exchange market with Interval. That's what's so nice about points programs. It's almost never a race to see who calls in first. Prime weeks get used by owners and not reserved to be given to Interval for exchange.

While I agree that it is better for prime weeks to get used by owners than being reserved for deposit and trading in II, the owner who wants to trade for a prime property outside of Marriott and wants to maximize his/her trade power will, I am sure, disagree. Just look at the Starwood board at the posts generated when Starwood recently made those changes with some of their voluntary owners.

And, yes, I agree creating different point values to reserve in the same season would upset a lot of owners. But. IF Marriott reserves the right to tweak point assignments/costs in the future, what will stop them from making this tweak? While inherently unfair to owners, it makes sense to a certain degree based on demand and I could foresee them proffering that argument as a rationale, especially since it would help level out demand. I am not referring to an uneven valuation given to owners- all owners in a season must be given the same number of points. I am questioning whether, at some future date, Marriott could change the point cost to reserve- could they value a NCV Plat. week, for example, at 40,000 points, but charge 30,000 points to reserve the 10 less desirable weeks and 50,000 to reserve the 10 premium weeks, so that the net cost and the net allocation are the same, but owners may not have enough points purely from their owned week to reserve a week in their purchased season? Basically, how much latitude will Marriott reserve for future changes?

I agree with Dean- the bigger issue, of course, is the difference between different areas, and how Marriott will allocate points to owners of thee areas. I also think the uneven seasons at adjacent resorts will create an assignment problem, and, even moreso, the instances where Plat. Plus weeks were later added to the calendar but initial purchasers had access to those coveted weeks as part of their Plat. reservation.

 

[Dean]

the instances where Plat. Plus weeks were later added to the calendar but initial purchasers had access to those coveted weeks as part of their Plat. reservation.

Does anyone have a list of such situations. I know they tried to do that with the OP OF building but backed down. I know Waiohai was mentioned earlier I believe.

While I realize it won't affect a large chunk of owners, I wonder how the current AP points owners will be incorporated. My guess is if the systems are essentially the same they'll be rolled over for a small fee. However, if the systems are totally different, as I expect, then they may be worse off than many of those trying to convert from weeks.

 

[indyhorizons]

Inflation is a moot point in either points or weeks based systems. Newer resorts require more trade power, which is a hidden value, in weeks based systems. With points you can see the inflation. With weeks you can only guess. Weeks is a deposit and hope for confirmation. Points you know if you can make the exchange just by looking.

Doug, The only comment I would make to this is, while this may be true, thru II, if you play your cards right, you might stumble on a great trade even with a weaker resort. It may be at 4am on Sunday morning, but I think for some of us, that's the beauty of the hunt. And therefore it doesn't cost me anything more but time and patience, whereas the proposed new system might cost me money (on the front end-to join, AND on the back-end if/when I have to buy more points). I realize that society thrives on convenience, (in this case, your example of points based system giving you instant gratification) and more and more companies exploit that. As long as I can continue to get decent trades thru II, so far, I am not convinced. As you have said, time will tell...

 

[m61376]

m,

No, I never inquired about this. However, I can only speculate (as usual) that it is completely based on demand and/or inventory. The difference in the Hawaii resorts was that Ko'Olina did not guarantee an ocean view where Waiohai did (for more points). Phuket seemed like the median resort (which would make sense as it is in the center of Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong (seemingly where the majority of these programs were sold).

If the US point system resembles the Asia program, I can see two types of units holding much higher point values. Platinum Plus Weeks and 3 bedroom units. If you own either of these, I would think you have nothing to worry about. If you own a 2 bedroom platinum, I would say your point value will be high enough as long as your Platinum TDI average is high versus other resorts. It seems like Newport Villas and Palm Desert have higher averages (for platinum) than Orlando or Hawaii, simply because Orlando and Hawaii have very large Platinum windows. For this reason my theory could be off. Try telling a Hawaii owner that his property is worth less than Newport when his MFs are 50%+ higher. Maybe not.

However, I think demand will rule. Just like for people on the street buying hotel rooms. The higher the demand, the higher the price. For MVCI resorts, the higher the demand, the higher the point value of your week. If the II TDI index is not an accurate gauge, then maybe street price averages for platinum/silver/gold weeks would be the barometer.

I think you are misinterpreting what TDI means. It just means the relative demand of different weeks within the same area over the course of the year. Thus, areas such as Newport Coast and Palm Desert, which have a vast difference in demand between certain weeks, will have a much higher TDI during certain weeks than others (so their Plat. average TDI would be expectantly higher). Areas which are prime travel destinations year around (like Hawaii, etc.) will have lower average TDI's because the season is year 'round and there are few weeks which are much, much more popular than others. A TDI of 120 in Hawaii or several other locations might have a much higher demand than an Orlando week with a TDI of 140 or 150; you cannot use TDI's for comparison purposes.

What I did see Marriott doing in the AP program was charging different points to exchange in II based on the TDI of the requested week, so that many Plat. owners would not even have the requisite number of points to exchange back into their owned resort via II for some of the more premium weeks in their season. I thought that was curious.

I bolded what you said about street prices reflecting demand and, hence, value. I maintain that this is the only really objective means of fairly assigning values- because it is a system already in place which does reflect market conditions and treats all resorts on an equal footing, reflecting what they have to offer, rather than being influenced by date of construction. IF Marriott bases valuations on that, people would be hard pressed to cry foul that they weren't being given what they thought their unit was worth.