Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[indyhorizons]

This potential change is not a good way to represent the emotional vs objective/factual line of thinking. Look at it another way, say Marriott took away the 13 month priority options, something they can easily do on their own and in some ways, likely should. The question isn't how it affects you personally but what is the reasonableness of the decision itself independent of your personal involvement. BTW, this exact change would likely cause me to sell some of my weeks, but I could still understand it.

Perry, I rather thought you'd take that stance, you were the one I was thinking about when I wrote the statement because you've essentially already made those type of statements. Let me clarify one point, I cannot respect the reasonableness of the opinion but can respect the person.

You know Dean, you're right everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, who among us does not make decisions (emotional or otherwise) based on what they believe is good/best for them. There is nothing that says that those decisions have to be rational to the rest of the world. It takes a big person (that would be you) who can truly look at it from an objective perspective and say, Marriott (or whomever) has the right to do whatever, (fill in the blank here) and I respect that right. I would say the majorty of the world thinks like Perry and could give a rat's you know what how/what Marriott is doing and why, only to the extent of how it might affect them. (Unless you are a Marriott associate and/or stockholder). I personally fall in the camp with Perry on this last note...

 

[taffy19]

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.

Marriott has resorts in many countries so how can they tag the points to rack rates? Rates are very different from one country to another. Points should be allocated by the quality, size, amenities, season and views of one resort against each other and should be adjusted by the demand for that resort worldwide at the moment when you make the reservation. That is a true floating system, IMHO.

I have a feeling that they will combine the two systems (AP and MVCI) by making some basic changes to both because we want to be able to travel all over the world.

I just remember references being made here and there about changes. The new Maui towers will be an interesting example too- some were sold as floating and some as fixed weeks.

I would hope that the AP program and whatever new scheme Marriott introduces would be melded together. Otherwise- imagine 4 different sets of reservation systems for the resorts in the AP program (and any future resorts added to that program)! At least for the current resorts, there will still be deeded week owners in both the old systems and presumably point owners in both the new systems; future resorts would have 2 sets of point owners if the programs weren't combined. Imagine the limitations that would impose, especially on limited inventory weeks (such as OF, 3BR's, etc.).

I just remember references being made here and there about changes. The new Maui towers will be an interesting example too- some were sold as floating and some as fixed weeks.

Marriott must have thought about this already when they sold the fixed week/units at the new Maui towers because there is a clause in our deed that we can convert our fixed week/unit to the floating system. I found this clause strange but they must have known then already that they were going to change an outdated system eventually. I have been looking for the papers so I could quote it here but they are where the DSV-I papers are too and so far, I haven't found them.

 

[PerryM]

A matter of timing...

...
Perry, I rather thought you'd take that stance, you were the one I was thinking about when I wrote the statement because you've essentially already made those type of statements. Let me clarify one point, I cannot respect the reasonableness of the opinion but can respect the person.

Thank you!

400,000 families are going to be hit with unexpected bills next week - if we take the "official" unemployment at 9.7% and an equally valid one at about 18% against our 400,000 families that means that between 40,000 and 72,000 unemployed Marriott families are going to be thrust into a whirlwind where they are going to have to make a painful decision.

And for what? I don't see where they will be better off a few years from now because of this upheaval at this time. I don't see where dumping weeks for Points makes my Marriott ownership any better.

How many of the 400,000 families are already in bankruptcy because of their timeshare purchases?

So I have NO sympathy for Marriott at all for ramming this down our throats now because they can do so.

I'm sure Marriott has a philanthropic side where it donates big bucks each year to outside organizations - that would be the same Marriott that has no hesitation in ruining a family because of 2 delinquent timeshare payments.

I don't like what Marriott is doing and I don't like that they are doing this to so many folks at this time.

Do they have the right to do all this to all those folks? - sure.

 

[DanCali]

Why should Marriott owners be forced to be a member of II and pay the fees simply to move between other Marriott resorts? It makes no sense.

So it's better to pay the fees to Marriott? Fees will be paid regardless... it's jut a matter of who does a better job with exchanges and who can be more objective with assessing trading power.

IMO II is the one that gets a pretty full picture of supply and demand for exchanges and therefore can assess what is "like for like" best.

Some people say that Marriott can do the same thing based on MVCI proprty rental rates on marriott.com. I beg to differ...

When it comes to setting rates for MVCI property rentals, Marriott get a picture of the demand from hotel renters - not timeshare owners. This can be a completely different demand curve. On the supply side, the supply available to rent is the supply Marriott has - it's (i) unsold units (high supply for new resorts, low supply for 20 or 10 year old resorts) and (ii) conversion to hotel points from owners. This is not the supply that II sees...

The intersection of supply and demand in the Marriott world (which determines rental rates - and trading power as some would wish) may be completely different than the intersection of supply and demand in the II world. Which one is more relevant to us? Which one can adapt more dynamically if supply and demand change? To me, the answer is clear here.

 

[rsackett]

One thing that has not been talked about much in maintenance fees; I would think in the new system a point is a point and when Marriott is selling points they will all sell for the same price and have the same maintenance fee per point.

So when the Summit Watch Bronze week owner gets just a few points his maintenance fees will drop, where as a week 52 owners at Summit Watch will get many points and their maintenance fees will go up! More points mean more trading power AND higher maintenance fees! So that week 52 Summit owner wants to stay week 52 at Summit Watch, he must use all his points and his fees are now higher to stay at his week. In this scenario the Bronze week owner actually saves money as long as he stays in a Bronze week. What the Bronze week owner gives up is the chance to move up in season with what he already owns, except possibly in flex change.

So all the owners who have TOP traders at the best resorts that have been thinking that they could get several weeks for their units in a points system, you will be paying more for that privilege.

Ray

 

[taffy19]

So it's better to pay the fees to Marriott? Fees will be paid regardless... it's jut a matter of who does a better job with exchanges and who can be more objective with assessing trading power.

IMO II is the one that gets a pretty full picture of supply and demand for exchanges and therefore can assess what is "like for like" best.

Some people say that Marriott can do the same thing based on MVCI proprty rental rates on marriott.com. I beg to differ...

When it comes to setting rates for MVCI property rentals, Marriott get a picture of the demand from hotel renters - not timeshare owners. This can be a completely different demand curve. On the supply side, the supply available to rent is the supply Marriott has - it's (i) unsold units (high supply for new resorts, low supply for 20 or 10 year old resorts) and (ii) conversion to hotel points from owners. This is not the supply that II sees...

The intersection of supply and demand in the Marriott world (which determines rental rates - and trading power as some would wish) may be completely different than the intersection of supply and demand in the II world. Which one is more relevant to us? Which one can adapt more dynamically if supply and demand change? To me, the answer is clear here.

I agree with you and I wonder how Marriott is going to tackle that. It's going to be a nightmare to keep everyone happy. Would there be two indexes? One for allocating points and one for doing the exchanges? I give up guessing.

 

[PerryM]

Marriott has resorts in many countries so how can they tag the points to rack rates? Rates are very different from one country to another. Points should be allocated by the quality, size, amenities, season and views of one resort against each other and should be adjusted by the demand for that resort worldwide at the moment when you make the reservation. That is a true floating system, IMHO.

...

To make a 100% "Honest" Point system based upon deeds two things are essential:

• Independent real estate appraisals
• Independent, real world, source of supply and demand - rental rates to folks who pay cold hard cash to simply occupy the unit for a short while

Marriott isn't about to use either.

An independent real estate appraisal of a timeshare week is probably an inside joke in the real estate appraisers world.

Marriott rental rates could be used for supply and demand and they work ALL around the world. The rate in Maui can be compared to the rate in Hong Kong because entire industries exist to instantly appraise the "value" of one currency against another; the exchange rate.

Marriott won't use their own rental rates since reality has nothing to do with their new sales system. What timeshare developer's sales system does?

We're going to learn the new Marriott way of doing timeshares and we all have to decide if it's worth the bucks to upgrade or stay and be affected by that same new system.

 

[taffy19]

To make a 100% "Honest" Point system based upon deeds two things are essential:

• Independent real estate appraisals
• Independent, real world, source of supply and demand - rental rates to folks who pay cold hard cash to simply occupy the unit for a short while

Marriott isn't about to use either.

An independent real estate appraisal of a timeshare week is probably an inside joke in the real estate appraisers world.

Marriott rental rates could be used for supply and demand and they work ALL around the world. The rate in Maui can be compared to the rate in Hong Kong because entire industries exist to instantly appraise the "value" of one currency against another; the exchange rate.

Marriott won't use their own rental rates since reality has nothing to do with their new sales system. What timeshare developer's sales system does?

We're going to learn the new Marriott way of doing timeshares and we all have to decide if it's worth the bucks to upgrade or stay and be affected by that same new system.

What about the standard of living? Some hotels (Halekulani for instance) in Honolulu on Waikiki beach are very expensive for us but not for the Japanese as everything costs so much more in Japan. For them it is not expensive. I hope that Marriott has figured it all out as they took years to do it. They may even go together with other brand name timeshare developers as several have made adjustments lately.

I would like to know how many people are converting or if it will be one big flop? Time will tell.

 

[PerryM]

What about the standard of living? Some hotels (Halekulani for instance) in Honolulu on Waikiki beach are very expensive for us but not for the Japanese as everything costs so much more in Japan. For them it is not expensive. I hope that Marriott has figured it all out as they took years to do it. They may even go together with other brand name timeshare developers as several have made adjustments lately.

I would like to know how many people are converting or if it will be one big flop? Time will tell.

As long as we keep thinking of 3rd party, independent, sources of supply and demand then there probably is a list that can be made, and we are on the right trail.

In 10 years of being an amateur timeshare aficionado I can't find a better source, of supply and demand, than what someone who has no interest in buying the condo will pay to rent the condo.

But, maybe there are...

 

[Cindala]

One thing that has not been talked about much in maintenance fees; I would in the new system a point is a point and when Marriott is selling points they will all sell for the same price and have the same maintenance fee per point.

So when the Summit Watch Bronze week owner gets just a few points his main fees will drop, where as a week 52 owners at Summit Watch will get many points and their maintenance fees will go up! More points mean more trading power AND higher maintenance fees! So that week 52 Summit owner wants to stay week 52 at Summit Watch, he must use all his points and his fees are now higher to stay at his week. In this scenario the Bronze week owner actually saves money as long as he stays in a Bronze week. What the Bronze week owner gives up is the chance to move up in season with what he already owns, except possibly in flex change.

So all the owners who have TOP traders at the best resorts that have been thinking that they could get several weeks for their units in a points system, you will be paying more for that privilege.

Ray

And those in the Bronze season will have to wait 3 years to have enough points to get the week they want and pay 3 years of maintenance fees, even if they are less.
Ex. Old way; one years fees say $850 = one week (where you want to stay)
New way; 3 years fees say $600 x 3 = $1800 = one week(where you want to stay)

Even though the fees may be less each year, it may take longer to get the points you need for the week you want. So the week you get will cost more in the long run.

Marriott is the clear winner here.

 

[wuv pooh]

You know Dean, you're right everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, who among us does not make decisions (emotional or otherwise) based on what they believe is good/best for them. There is nothing that says that those decisions have to be rational to the rest of the world. It takes a big person (that would be you) who can truly look at it from an objective perspective and say, Marriott (or whomever) has the right to do whatever, (fill in the blank here) and I respect that right. I would say the majorty of the world thinks like Perry and could give a rat's you know what how/what Marriott is doing and why, only to the extent of how it might affect them. (Unless you are a Marriott associate and/or stockholder). I personally fall in the camp with Perry on this last note...

Marriott does what is best for the majority (and most profitable) of its customers, period end of story. Those customers do not include people who obsess over 1800 post TUG threads regardless of what we think. It is the 80/20 rule. Any changes will be gladly embraced by those who pay the bills. The rest of us will adapt and move on to the next loophole regardless of our opinions or emotions.

 

[DanCali]

Marriott does what is best for the majority (and most profitable) of its customers, period end of story.

No - Marriott does what is best for it and its shareholders.

If it actually cared about timeshare owners it wouldn't let resale prices crater - clearly that hurts owners' pockets, no?

Those customers do not include people who obsess over 1800 post TUG threads regardless of what we think. It is the 80/20 rule. Any changes will be gladly embraced by those who pay the bills. The rest of us will adapt and move on to the next loophole regardless of our opinions or emotions.

With any new points system it will be the 50/50 rule because it's a zero sum game. For every Hawaii owner who used to get 7 days and now gets 11 days in Orlando, there will be the Orlando owner who used to get 7 days in Hawaii and now gets only 3 days. 50% of owners will be better off, 50% will be worse off. It pretty much has to work that way...

 

[PerryM]

Smiley faces - grim faces

Marriott does what is best for the majority (and most profitable) of its customers, period end of story. Those customers do not include people who obsess over 1800 post TUG threads regardless of what we think. It is the 80/20 rule. Any changes will be gladly embraced by those who pay the bills. The rest of us will adapt and move on to the next loophole regardless of our opinions or emotions.

Marriott has but one goal - to maximize profits for their stockholders. If they do anything else they will be sued by those stockholders.

Customers have but one goal - to maximize the money spent for goods and services returned; at least the ones who care do.

Each of the two camps does what's best for them and if free markets and robust competition exists we have the best system of commerce ever devised. Notice the absence of political forces replacing free market forces.

This means that after the ink dries on that sales contact, the smiley faces of the salesreps are replaced by the grim faces of the legal department. From that instant on its the professional legal department against the rank amateur owner. Want to guess who wins here?

In a little over a week the grim faces of the lawyers will tell us what they did to us and turn the show over to the smiling faces of the salesreps.

That's how all this works...

 

[Dean]

You know Dean, you're right everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, who among us does not make decisions (emotional or otherwise) based on what they believe is good/best for them. There is nothing that says that those decisions have to be rational to the rest of the world. It takes a big person (that would be you) who can truly look at it from an objective perspective and say, Marriott (or whomever) has the right to do whatever, (fill in the blank here) and I respect that right. I would say the majorty of the world thinks like Perry and could give a rat's you know what how/what Marriott is doing and why, only to the extent of how it might affect them. (Unless you are a Marriott associate and/or stockholder). I personally fall in the camp with Perry on this last note...

I chose to think most people are better than that, that they can at least see both sides of the issue even if they disagree with the decision. To be honest, I see ONLY being able to look at at issue of HOW it affects you as a problem because it means those decisions are emotional decisions, I believe it essentially represents the entitlement mentality.

 

[wuv pooh]

No - Marriott does what is best for it and its shareholders.

If it actually cared about timeshare owners it wouldn't let resale prices crater - clearly that hurts owners' pockets, no?

Yes, which is exactly what I said. What is best for the shareholders is to take care of the profitable customers, not the "deadbeat" customers. Clearly its most profitable customers are the ones who use the system and will buy another retail week, not people who buy or want to resell. Resale is irrelevant to Marriott and its customers as every timeshare presentation is required to state by law

They are not infallible, but they clearly have built the most successful timeshare organization in the world. They have access to significantly more marketing data and other examples of systems that work and don't work. My guess is that the system they roll out will be very successful. If I were a betting man my money would be on them vs. anyone on this thread , and it is

 

[Dean]

No - Marriott does what is best for it and its shareholders.

If it actually cared about timeshare owners it wouldn't let resale prices crater - clearly that hurts owners' pockets, no?

I think good companies like Marriott try to find the best balance possible on the myriad of issues that apply. However, I don't believe that resale value is an issue with timeshares in general. They are sold essentailly with the idea of use it not resale, that the resale value is essentially zero going in and that therefore there is nothing to support. I don't think a company can really protect resale value anyway and while I think ROFR does so minimally in SOME situations, I don't think it's very effective in doing so except where the underlying product has enough value that it shouldn't be needed. I can't think of anything Marriott has done in the last few years responsible for the cheaper prices we now see.

 

[PerryM]

I think good companies like Marriott try to find the best balance possible on the myriad of issues that apply. However, I don't believe that resale value is an issue with timeshares in general. They are sold essentailly with the idea of use it not resale, that the resale value is essentially zero going in and that therefore there is nothing to support. I don't think a company can really protect resale value anyway and while I think ROFR does so minimally in SOME situations, I don't think it's very effective in doing so except where the underlying product has enough value that it shouldn't be needed. I can't think of anything Marriott has done in the last few years responsible for the cheaper prices we now see.

Well, how about bashing the hell out of resales every chance they get?

Marriott has been carrying on a rumor campaign, for as long as I can remember, disparaging those sniveling, irritating, commission halting, Marriott owners who dare compete with Marriott to sell used timeshares?

Marriott profits with every dollar resales falls - they simply exercise the ROFR when they need inventory.

Marriott has a vested interest in seeing that resales crumble - more profits for the stockholders and that's what they were hired to do.

Let's not forget this is a Fortune 500 company out to destroy your resale; this isn't some kook on a website spewing hate. Every time that Marriott salesrep warned us about resales I wanted to stand up and shout "You idiot - I'm that owner you hate so much", but I just took their free gift and went on my way...

 

[taffy19]

I think good companies like Marriott try to find the best balance possible on the myriad of issues that apply. However, I don't believe that resale value is an issue with timeshares in general. They are sold essentailly with the idea of use it not resale, that the resale value is essentially zero going in and that therefore there is nothing to support. I don't think a company can really protect resale value anyway and while I think ROFR does so minimally in SOME situations, I don't think it's very effective in doing so except where the underlying product has enough value that it shouldn't be needed. I can't think of anything Marriott has done in the last few years responsible for the cheaper prices we now see.

What is so ironic is that the Government does such a great job protecting us from what? The documents are pages long "for our protection" but the clause that is most important in the contract is missing and that is that timeshares have lost most of it's value the moment you walk out of the office because it isn't real estate. Why is that not included in big print in the contract? Most people assume that they are buying real estate but they are not and Marriott says so on their own web page as all you buy is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories. It's right here in black and white!

Benefits of Ownership​

Experience the peace of mind that comes from owning extraordinary resort vacations year after year. Timeshare is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories​

 

[RandR]

With any new points system it will be the 50/50 rule because it's a zero sum game. For every Hawaii owner who used to get 7 days and now gets 11 days in Orlando, there will be the Orlando owner who used to get 7 days in Hawaii and now gets only 3 days. 50% of owners will be better off, 50% will be worse off. It pretty much has to work that way...

That's not how the math works. It does not have to be anywhere close to 50/50. As long as everything adds up, the bulk of the advantage can go to a small percentage of the owners. As a very simple example, if one owner gets to now reserve 4 extra days and 4 owners can each reserve one less day, the math works out but only 20% have benefitted.

 

[Dean]

Well, how about bashing the hell out of resales every chance they get?

Marriott has been carrying on a rumor campaign, for as long as I can remember, disparaging those sniveling, irritating, commission halting, Marriott owners who dare compete with Marriott to sell used timeshares?

Marriott profits with every dollar resales falls - they simply exercise the ROFR when they need inventory.

Marriott has a vested interest in seeing that resales crumble - more profits for the stockholders and that's what they were hired to do.

You mean by trying to sell retail weeks instead? Obviosly there is a competition here and they have a vested interest. Still, the market will sort itself out and those that are aware of the option of resale will know they have choices and can make decisions. I think you give the sale staff more power than I do.

 

[Dean]

What is so ironic is that the Government does such a great job protecting us from what? The documents are pages long "for our protection" but the clause that is most important in the contract is missing and that is that timeshares have lost most of it's value the moment you walk out of the office because it isn't real estate. Why is that not included in big print in the contract? Most people assume that they are buying real estate but they are not and Marriott says so on their own web page as all you buy is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories. It's right here in black and white!

Benefits of Ownership​

Experience the peace of mind that comes from owning extraordinary resort vacations year after year. Timeshare is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories​

I believe they do have you sign that you understand that buying a timeshare is NOT an investment and that there is no promised sale or rental value.

 

[ricki999]

What is so ironic is that the Government does such a great job protecting us from what? The documents are pages long "for our protection" but the clause that is most important in the contract is missing and that is that timeshares have lost most of it's value the moment you walk out of the office because it isn't real estate. Why is that not included in big print in the contract? Most people assume that they are buying real estate but they are not and Marriott says so on their own web page as all you buy is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories. It's right here in black and white!

Benefits of Ownership​

Experience the peace of mind that comes from owning extraordinary resort vacations year after year. Timeshare is an investment in a lifetime of vacations and lasting memories​

Then why are we paying property taxes.

 

[PerryM]

No - Marriott does what is best for it and its shareholders.

If it actually cared about timeshare owners it wouldn't let resale prices crater - clearly that hurts owners' pockets, no?



With any new points system it will be the 50/50 rule because it's a zero sum game. For every Hawaii owner who used to get 7 days and now gets 11 days in Orlando, there will be the Orlando owner who used to get 7 days in Hawaii and now gets only 3 days. 50% of owners will be better off, 50% will be worse off. It pretty much has to work that way...

I respectfully disagree - it ain't close to 50/50.

The Marriott salesreps will ONLY sell hot holiday weeks from opening day on. Before they were frustrated because those weeks sold out immediately and it was down hill from there. They could not sell New Year's week every day of the year to every yahoo that walked in the sales gallery - that was yesterday next week they can.

What happens in Point systems is all that overestimation of holiday weeks has owners spending Points on much less desirable weeks/days in front of the holiday week. So although you deposit a week 52 Platinum for 50,000 Points, lets say, it will take you MUCH MUCH more to get that week back - you will have to pad the front with worthless weeks.

Do the Math: 50,000 Points in and 75,000 Points out. Wait a minute - need to buy more Points. There is nothing close to 50/50 here that I can see.

 

[taffy19]

Then why are we paying property taxes.

Good question!

 

[DanCali]

I believe they do have you sign that you understand that buying a timeshare is NOT an investment and that there is no promised sale or rental value.

Any prospectus of an IPO or a 10K filing is littered with risk factors describing why you might lose money. These are all CYA clauses... That doesn't mean one buys to lose money. One also shouldn't buy a timeshare if they don't think it saves money versus renting.

Developer timeshares are pitched as saving money versus rentals (the Worldmark pitch is "pay for it once and vacation forever"), but I've been to 6-8 presentations, and have yet to meet the salesperson who tells me that my "investment" is worth much less 7 days later. The reality is that if people factored in all the costs, it is impossible to justify a retail purchase financially. Any new points system will not be much different in that regard.

Let me give you an example (and you can substitute the numbers at your respective resort). I believe the retail cost of a Platinum NCV is currently around $26K (maybe slightly higher - I lost track with the 15%-20% discounts running these days).

Cost #1: MFs + taxes is around $1000/year

Cost #2: Opportunity cost of initial investment - I use 4% because in most economic times you can get this rate almost risk free in a 5 year CD or treasuries. In the case of NCV it is also about $1000

Cost #3: Immediate depreciation of investment - The Platinum NCV resells for 11K these days. So you lose $15K of your investment the moment you buy. Amortize that if you will over 15 years and that another $1000/year (this is conservative because you incur that cost upfront and I ignored time value of money).

So assuming no MF increases over the next 15 years (also very conservative... and wishful thinking), the cost of owning a retail Platinum NCV is around $3000 a year. I doubt many owners would buy retail if they realized this was the true cost of ownership.

With a resale purchase Cost #3 doesn't exist, and Cost #2 is lower (less money upfront) so the overall cost is lower. A resale purchase is just easier to justify financially. Notice that is resale prices were higher, retail prices are easier to justify because there would be much less disparity between retail and resale cost. It is in Marriott's interest to keep resale prices high...

So why do people buy retail? (i) Because Marriott has great salespeople who have a great sales pitch and also convince them that $1250 worth of Marriott points (the cost for a couple to buy 100K points from Marriott) are worth 5-10 times more than $1250, and (ii) because the wording in the purchase documents is vague enough that when they say for example "you cannot sell the same product you buy because hotel points won't transfer," many people don't realize this actually means "your investment is worth much less the moment you walk out the door"...

I'm not sure about others here, but I bought my timeshares to save money versus the alternative of renting comparable accommodations. To me, that is a financial investment decision - just like any other "lease versus buy" decision. If others buy for other reasons that's great too - but I am not sure how many would buy retail if they realized the financial implications of that decision... We may all get a second chance soon enough.