Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[rsackett]

I believe ALL Marriott owners will have reduced exchange value - ALL.

In my case there isn't any question - I'm not going to go to Maui anymore either joining Marriott or staying with II.

I can't think of a case where ANY Marriott owner will do better than what they have now.

Sure you can combine Points from a few Gold weeks and get Platinum but kiss ANY existing "upgrades" bye bye.

This is exactly what you would expect with a sales/exchange system - Marriott "lost" lots of money for 20+ years by allowing owners to exchange upwards - that should have been their upgrades to sell.

So starting on 6/21/10 your ability to upgrade an exchange now belongs to Marriott.

What about II?

I'm assuming the 24-day rule will expire soon and my Gold week will exchange in II for a similar Gold unit. II will have the opportunity to level the playing field too.

This is going to be a great opportunity for Marriott and II to level the playing field and pocket all those lost upgrades they have been eying for 20 years.

But for all those upgrades you got someone had to be downgraded, or am I missing something? I have on occation been upgraded to a nicer resort, but generaly took a smaller unit. It seems in my mind that like for like (whatever that means) would be a more fair system, no?

ray

 

[l2trade]

... Within the new points system I have some expectation of actually getting 3BR in exchange, because those owners won't have to reserve, lock-off and deposit their weeks in order to get their exchange value. ...

We don't know that is the case, do we? With some points systems, the lock-off and deposit is worth more points than if you deposit the unit whole.

 

[DanCali]

Couldn't the points system be integrated that way, so that all reservations are first-come-first-served with various reservation priorities, while week numbers are simply utilized for inventory controls to prevent Marriott from overselling particular intervals as well as limiting weeks/points reservations to the number of corresponding owners? I think so.

But in the end, again, all that will matter is whether or not the system they implement is supported by the contracts.

No, I don't believe the system cannot be integrated in the way you suggest. It will create huge problems that will not exist if inventory is separated. Here's why:

Suppose a resort has platinum season from weeks 1-20 (much like DSV, ignoring December holiday weeks). Currently, a weeks owner can call as late as Dec 31 and they are guaranteed a week in that season. This will always be the case in a weeks system as long as you call before the season starts so no weeks went unused yet.

Now when you add a points system in the manner you suggest, whether exchangers can call at 12 months in advance or 8 months in advance, all those weeks could get filled up by August. A weeks owner may be locked out of their right to book a week in their season many months before they normally would. If you can't book a week in your season before the start of the season, that likely violates deeded rights.

I'll also respectfully disagree with they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate contracts... In addition to the contract there are state laws that protect consumers. I would also argue that if one bought a timeshare, they should have a reasonable expectation to book any week in their season if they are diligent enough to call at 9am 12 months in advance. Otherwise, one could make the reasonable argument that the season they bought into was represented in an unrealistic (or even fraudulent) manner. If I buy a season that includes summer and fall and can never book any summer week even at exactly 12 months out (or have a 1 in 100 shot of getting one even when calling week after week after week) then I didn't really buy into the summer and fall season, did I?

 

[SueDonJ]

We don't know that is the case, do we? With some points systems, the lock-off and deposit is worth more points than if you deposit the unit whole.

You could be right, I was assuming based on what Asia2000 posted about the values in the AP Program.

How about if I say that depending on where I am in the queue for exchange reservations, it should be more possible (in this new system compared to II's current) for me get a 3BR that has similar value to mine? In any event, I don't expect at all that I will have to be satisfied with less than the 2BR I'm getting now.

 

[rsackett]

You could be right, I was assuming based on what Asia2000 posted about the values in the AP Program.

How about if I say that depending on where I am in the queue for exchange reservations, it should be more possible (in this new system compared to II's current) for me get a 3BR that has similar value to mine? In any event, I don't expect at all that I will have to be satisfied with less than the 2BR I'm getting now.

I would think you would points left over from the two bedroom trade so you could get a stuido unit. I would think you would be better off.

Ray

 

[m61376]

I agree with you.

The devil may be in the details. But, some details will never be known.
No developer is going to lay bare the intricate details of its inventory management.

It really comes down to whether one believes that Marriott will follow the law. Of course they will. The law protects reservation rights for deeded week owners.

As for the rest of it, each of us must decide if the benefits/drawbacks of the new (yet unexplained) system will warrant our participation. The issue that matters to most is the cost of participating in whatever is introduced. If the buy-in is free, most will give it a try no matter what it is. The rest is in the eating. That will likely take a couple of years to evaluate.

Those that bought to occupy their home resort should care less about the new program.

I am one who is hopeful that Marriott will act in good faith and divide the inventory such that every owner (weeks or points) has access to potentially book every week (and arrival date, for that matter), and that Marriott will take an equal proportion of every week into the new system, reflective of the percentage of owners that convert.

That said, this is a very big issue for everyone, including those that bought to occupy their home resort. I characteristically go during higher demand times and nevr have a problem making my reservation. I don't want to get stuck with fringe season weeks because Marriott took the lion's share of the better weeks and left a disproportionate amount of the less requested weeks as left-overs for weeks owners to book.

I am not saying that I think that will happen; I think that the same language that had been discussed before which ensures that resale owners would have equivalent access to reservations as direct purchasers will apply here and that Marriott will be unable to hog the better weeks. But I do think it is a big concern, perhaps even moreso for those who occupy their owned weeks and are less likely to convert.

 

[scrapngen]

So you have no problem with Marriott taking weeks 22 to 30 and converting one of those prime weeks to points every time a platinum beach owner converts just because it is legal? Marriott's blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members" is irrelevant? You don't mind that 100% of the converted points inventory will be prime platinum weeks while the majority of people who don't convert will choose from 100% of the non prime in season weeks (18 to 21 and 31 to 34) that marriott left in weeks and the ever decreasing availability of prime in season weeks?

So Marriott's plan to force owners to either pay to convert or be squeezed out by Marriott's transferance of prime inventory from weeks to points is a good thing? We will have to disagree on this. Marriott is using legal language in the contracts to change the entire Marriott timeshare program just to force owners to pay more or lose inventory access. That is wrong. If they really wanted to roll out a great new program to benefit owners, it would be offered for free!!! It isn't going to be free, it is extortion to make Marriott money on the backs of current owners.

The fact that other timeshare companies have done it doesn't make it right. I thought that Marriott was more ethical than most companies, but I was obviously wrong.

My issue with this argument/post is that that you are making a huge assumption (!) of a worst case scenario that is not based on previous Marriott actions but only speculation and knowledge of what OTHER companies have done and then based on this assumption saying Marriott WAS more ethical, but now that is not the case. YOu are also using inflammatory language throughout the post and directly applying it before knowing any facts. In a speculation it is not fair, IMHO, to paint Marriott black when there is no evidence of this behavior. Nowhere in the rumours has there been the suggestion that Marriott would hold people to their specific listed week on the deed when they have a floating week - that would clearly be a contract violation subject to lawsuits. And just as Marriott made the 50% rule transparent so that this type of speculation was crushed, I suspect there will be some similar action on their part with a points roll-out.

If we look at Marriott's history of implementing a change that enhances some owners who were willing to buy more which ends up being at the expense of those who only own a single week, they set the 50% rule and it is publicised. Yes, it definitely affects inventory, but across the board, not specific weeks. So, once again, these allegations are purely speculative, and therefore saying Marriott IS unethical and has "..blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members..." is ranting. Yes, TUGGERs and others figured out how to "play" the new system to swoop in and get the power weeks by linking reservations in an unintended way, but still at 12 months 50% of the available week are there to reserve. I believe and hope that in this new system, it would be managed in a similar way. NOT these allegations that ALL prime weeks will be siphoned into points, leaving the one and even multiple week owner who does not choose to convert no chance in Hades of that precious summer/ski week.

When speculation suddenly turns into fact and then the company is vilified, I take exception to the posting. As long as it stays in the speculative realm, or addresses possibilities, I enjoy this thread. This is my opinion.

 

[SueDonJ]

No, I don't believe the system cannot be integrated in the way you suggest. It will create huge problems that will not exist if inventory is separated. Here's why:

Suppose a resort has platinum season from weeks 1-20 (much like DSV, ignoring December holiday weeks). Currently, a weeks owner can call as late as Dec 31 and they are guaranteed a week in that season. This will always be the case in a weeks system as long as you call before the season starts so no weeks went unused yet.

Now when you add a points system in the manner you suggest, whether exchangers can call at 12 months in advance or 8 months in advance, all those weeks could get filled up by August. A weeks owner may be locked out of their right to book a week in their season many months before they normally would. If you can't book a week in your season before the start of the season, that likely violates deeded rights.

Do your resort's docs not contain something similar to this from SurfWatch's?

USE OF UNRESERVED USE PERIODS
... the Declarant may reserve any unreserved Use Period beginning on and after seventy-four (74) days prior to the first day of the Use Period and thereafter use such Use Period(s). If the Association or the Declarant makes use of such Use Period, the Use Period may not be available for reservation or use by Owners or any other persons deriving their use rights through Owners other than the Association or Declarant.

If they do, it's true that any owner could call 12/31 before the season opens and a week commencing 75 days or more hence may be available (if other owners have not booked them,) but any of the weeks commencing within 74 days could conceivably be booked at that point by other owners as well as Marriott. You say "ignoring holiday weeks" but the fact that December holiday weeks are the same season designation means that the owner who wanted one of the weeks 1-20 may have to accept an open December week or forfeit his year's usage if all the 1-20 weeks are gone.

I'll also respectfully disagree with they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate contracts... In addition to the contract there are state laws that protect consumers. I would also argue that if one bought a timeshare, they should have a reasonable expectation to book any week in their season if they are diligent enough to call at 9am 12 months in advance. Otherwise, one could make the reasonable argument that the season they bought into was represented in an unrealistic (or even fraudulent) manner. If I buy a season that includes summer and fall and can never book any summer week even at exactly 12 months out (or have a 1 in 100 shot of getting one even when calling week after week after week) then I didn't really buy into the summer and fall season, did I?

I'm assuming that Marriott follows state laws when they write their contracts and do business in the states.

And I would argue that the consumer's expectations should only reach as far as what the contracts stipulate. In the current system, the guarantee is that an owner can reserve a specific unit type within a designated season, subject to availability and the defined Reservation Procedures. There is no guarantee that a call at 9AM using the 12/13 month rule will definitely get you the reservation you want now, is there? No. There are simply weeks in which demand far exceeds inventory.

I'm not understanding, though, how what I proposed would prevent an owner from getting a week in his season (not a specific week) if he calls consistently at 9AM on the days the reservation windows open. Eventually he will get a confirmed reservation because at 12/13 months he is only competing with other owners. (Based on that survey, exchange windows open later than owners' windows.)

 

[scrapngen]

No, I don't believe the system cannot be integrated in the way you suggest. It will create huge problems that will not exist if inventory is separated. Here's why:

Suppose a resort has platinum season from weeks 1-20 (much like DSV, ignoring December holiday weeks). Currently, a weeks owner can call as late as Dec 31 and they are guaranteed a week in that season. This will always be the case in a weeks system as long as you call before the season starts so no weeks went unused yet.

Now when you add a points system in the manner you suggest, whether exchangers can call at 12 months in advance or 8 months in advance, all those weeks could get filled up by August. A weeks owner may be locked out of their right to book a week in their season many months before they normally would. If you can't book a week in your season before the start of the season, that likely violates deeded rights.

I'll also respectfully disagree with they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate contracts... In addition to the contract there are state laws that protect consumers. I would also argue that if one bought a timeshare, they should have a reasonable expectation to book any week in their season if they are diligent enough to call at 9am 12 months in advance. Otherwise, one could make the reasonable argument that the season they bought into was represented in an unrealistic (or even fraudulent) manner. If I buy a season that includes summer and fall and can never book any summer week even at exactly 12 months out (or have a 1 in 100 shot of getting one even when calling week after week after week) then I didn't really buy into the summer and fall season, did I?

This is very well put!!

 

[l2trade]

Marriott's new point system will look more like Diamond than DVC. After June 16th, Marriott will cease selling specific resort deeds, but instead will sell points based on a multi-property trust. You will no longer be able to purchase a specific resort. EOY weeks are a DOA concept under the new system. This trust will increase in size as owners convert weeks to points. Owners who purchase prior to conversion will have extra benefits that are grandfathered in to entice them to make the switch. For example, only owners prior to the switch will be guaranteed a specific resort during a specific season during a specific reservation window.

If you want the benefits of the old along with an invitation to the new, tomorrow is the time to buy (avoid states with less than 7 day rescission period: http://rcivip.com/2010/timeshare-rescission-period-in-us/ ). Next, study the details which I am told will be available this Sunday. Then, rescind immediately if you are not happy. I am not going to do this, as I detest developer controlled point systems (w/ the exception of DVC). Marriott will be watching the rollout and owner reaction closely. It would be a very strong message if many sales today & tomorrow rescind the moment the new system rolls out.

 

[SueDonJ]

Marriott's new point system will look more like Diamond than DVC. After June 16th, Marriott will cease selling specific resort deeds, but instead will sell points based on a multi-property trust. You will no longer be able to purchase a specific resort. EOY weeks are a DOA concept under the new system. This trust will increase in size as owners convert weeks to points. Owners who purchase prior to conversion will have extra benefits that are grandfathered in to entice them to make the switch. For example, only owners prior to the switch will be guaranteed a specific resort during a specific season during a specific reservation window.

Hmmmm. Can you give some more details about Diamond so we can hack that system to death?

You know how that survey talked about a possible priority with a home resort or a group of resorts? I'm thinking that a trust encompassing all of Marriott's resorts could be one big*** trust to unwieldy to manage, but several trusts broken down into regions or similar-amenity properties or similar-age properties might be something to think about ....

If you want the benefits of the old along with an invitation to the new, tomorrow is the time to buy (avoid states with less than 7 day rescission period: http://rcivip.com/2010/timeshare-rescission-period-in-us/ ). Next, study the details which I am told will be available this Sunday. Then, rescind immediately if you are not happy. I am not going to do this, as I detest developer controlled point systems (w/ the exception of DVC). Marriott will be watching the rollout and owner reaction closely. It would be a very strong message if many sales today & tomorrow rescind the moment the new system rolls out.

The thing is, I'm not sure that I would be comfortable relying on the reported June 20th date for roll-out. Unless Marriott sent us all an email notification saying, "June 20th is THE day! Get Ready!" then I would be worried about another delay affecting the purchase/rescission. But then again, I haven't felt comfortable about buying ANY timeshare product ever since the economy tanked.

 

[l2trade]

The legacy reservation benefits for owners who convert will be similar to those who do not. It does not sound like the new reservation system will segregate week owners who do not convert from owners who do, anymore than the existing pool of units for that season does. So, point owners may or may not account for a disproportionate share of the most desired weeks within the shared season. To what extent the best reservation weeks in a given season end up pulled into the point system is TBD. I doubt we will know that anytime soon, if ever, beyond individual observations. All we will know are the new system rules. We will be left to speculate about the latter.

New retail purchasers will not have the same resort, season guarantees.

 

[DanCali]

Do your resort's docs not contain something similar to this from SurfWatch's?


If they do, it's true that any owner could call 12/31 before the season opens and a week commencing 75 days or more hence may be available (if other owners have not booked them,) but any of the weeks commencing within 74 days could conceivably be booked at that point by other owners as well as Marriott. You say "ignoring holiday weeks" but the fact that December holiday weeks are the same season designation means that the owner who wanted one of the weeks 1-20 may have to accept an open December week or forfeit his year's usage if all the 1-20 weeks are gone.

I'm not understanding, though, how what I proposed would prevent an owner from getting a week in his season (not a specific week) if he calls consistently at 9AM on the days the reservation windows open. Eventually he will get a confirmed reservation because at 12/13 months he is only competing with other owners. (Based on that survey, exchange windows open later than owners' windows.)

I think you focused on the wrong things in my post. I said "a resort", no necessarily DSV. Ignoring the holiday weeks was for illustration purposes. We could equally talk about a Hawaii 1-50 Platinum float or a NCV Platinum 23-51.

I'll take the 75 days clause you found and re-argue that, using the Hawaii 1-50 float example, a weeks owner is guaranteed to get a week as long as they call by mid October. In fact, that clause you quote regarding "USE OF UNRESERVED PERIOD" pretty much guarantees that indirectly because there is no other reason for all weeks to go away. Now you add a bunch of non-Hawaii owners trying to get Hawaii weeks at 12 months out and all weeks may be gone before Oct 15...

Again, the issue if not whether it's Hawaii, DSV, NCV or what the weeks are... it's the fact that pooling the inventory can cause deeded week owners to get locked out at times they shouldn't be.

You are right, calling at 12 months out a weeks owner would not get locked out. But not all owners want or have to call at 12 months out. Currently, as long as they call 1 day (or 75 days, like you point out...) before the season starts they can get a week in the season. Some may have bought being happy with this arrangement. What you propose can change that.

I'm assuming that Marriott follows state laws when they write their contracts and do business in the states.

And I would argue that the consumer's expectations should only reach as far as what the contracts stipulate. In the current system, the guarantee is that an owner can reserve a specific unit type within a designated season, subject to availability and the defined Reservation Procedures. There is no guarantee that a call at 9AM using the 12/13 month rule will definitely get you the reservation you want now, is there? No. There are simply weeks in which demand far exceeds inventory.

I never said calling at 12 months out will definitely get the reservation. But if I own at a resort and an willing to settle for any summer week, and I call at 12 months out at 9am (when allegedly 50% of inventory is available) week after week after week 10 weeks in a row all summer is it reasonable to expect to get one of the summer weeks? maybe once every 2 years? I would think so... if not then the season is not what it's advertised to be...

 

[m61376]

Marriott's new point system will look more like Diamond than DVC. After June 16th, Marriott will cease selling specific resort deeds, but instead will sell points based on a multi-property trust. You will no longer be able to purchase a specific resort. EOY weeks are a DOA concept under the new system. This trust will increase in size as owners convert weeks to points. Owners who purchase prior to conversion will have extra benefits that are grandfathered in to entice them to make the switch. For example, only owners prior to the switch will be guaranteed a specific resort during a specific season during a specific reservation window.

If you want the benefits of the old along with an invitation to the new, tomorrow is the time to buy (avoid states with less than 7 day rescission period: http://rcivip.com/2010/timeshare-rescission-period-in-us/ ). Next, study the details which I am told will be available this Sunday. Then, rescind immediately if you are not happy. I am not going to do this, as I detest developer controlled point systems (w/ the exception of DVC). Marriott will be watching the rollout and owner reaction closely. It would be a very strong message if many sales today & tomorrow rescind the moment the new system rolls out.

Is this an assumption or based on an official statement or leak?

 

[tombo]

My issue with this argument/post is that that you are making a huge assumption (!) of a worst case scenario that is not based on previous Marriott actions but only speculation and knowledge of what OTHER companies have done and then based on this assumption saying Marriott WAS more ethical, but now that is not the case. YOu are also using inflammatory language throughout the post and directly applying it before knowing any facts. In a speculation it is not fair, IMHO, to paint Marriott black when there is no evidence of this behavior. Nowhere in the rumours has there been the suggestion that Marriott would hold people to their specific listed week on the deed when they have a floating week - that would clearly be a contract violation subject to lawsuits. And just as Marriott made the 50% rule transparent so that this type of speculation was crushed, I suspect there will be some similar action on their part with a points roll-out.

If we look at Marriott's history of implementing a change that enhances some owners who were willing to buy more which ends up being at the expense of those who only own a single week, they set the 50% rule and it is publicised. Yes, it definitely affects inventory, but across the board, not specific weeks. So, once again, these allegations are purely speculative, and therefore saying Marriott IS unethical and has "..blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members..." is ranting. Yes, TUGGERs and others figured out how to "play" the new system to swoop in and get the power weeks by linking reservations in an unintended way, but still at 12 months 50% of the available week are there to reserve. I believe and hope that in this new system, it would be managed in a similar way. NOT these allegations that ALL prime weeks will be siphoned into points, leaving the one and even multiple week owner who does not choose to convert no chance in Hades of that precious summer/ski week.

When speculation suddenly turns into fact and then the company is vilified, I take exception to the posting. As long as it stays in the speculative realm, or addresses possibilities, I enjoy this thread. This is my opinion.

You are not hurting my feelings. I have on numerous occasions said that I could be wrong and Marriott might treat owners better than I expect, but I doubt it.

A lot of what I post is from personal experience at resorts that converted to points to fleece owners. Yes I know that happened at other resorts and I know that I can't be sure what exactly Marriott will do, but unless they offer points conversions for free they are offering points to make a profit, not to enhance customer's ownership. They are also creating two classes of Marriott owners and totally doing away with weeks sales. Do you expect Ford to continue to worry about Mercury vehicles longevity, Mercury dealerships, and customer's satisfaction with the mercury vehicle lines in upcoming years after they totally do away with the Mercury division? Nope that is history and their focus will be on Fords and Ford products. After Marriott rolls out points, no more weeks will be sold, so the weeks program will be the red headed step child of marriott resorts. marriott will focus solely on points, points conversions, points sales, and points owners.

Now to assumptions and conjecture. What we have heard is that supposedly EOY weeks are done never to be sold again and that EOY weeks will fare poorly with the new points system system. Where are these rumrs coming from? Marriott employess, that's where. I have been told numerous times that Marriott will devalue my resale when the new system is launched, also by Marriott employees. If it is not true then Marriott needs to fire or retrain numerous employees who have all said the same thing. This will be bad for me as an owner if true, and who do I have to listen to but TUG and Marriott employees?. I have been told that unless I swapped to points that I will be left behind, have access to ever diminshing inventory, and face other hardships if i retain ownership in my deeded resale week. All of this too comes from Marriott employees and their managers. A lot of what I fear about the new points program has been told to me by people who WORK FOR MARRIOTT!

They say that a company is only as good as it's employees, so either Marriott hires honest employees who are truthfull when they tell me that the new program will be bad for me (which means that marriott is going to screw us), or else the employees are pathological liars which means that marriott is a company who hires, retains, and promotes untruthful employees. Either way you want to look at it this is not going to be good for deeded owners with resale weeks who won't convert to points. Of course if all are lying then we might not get screwed as was advertised by Marriott employees, and we are instead fortunate enough to own timeshares in a company who proudly and openly employs a lying staff who spreads lies and rumors and untruths to owners. Which one of these 2 scenarios makes Marriott an ethical, trustworthy company?

Why don't I trust Marriott to do what is right? Because of past experiences at other resorts and because Marriott employees have repeatedly told me that Marriott is going to penalize resale owners and weeks owners who don't convert to points!

 

[SueDonJ]

I think you focused on the wrong things in my post. I said "a resort", no necessarily DSV. Ignoring the holiday weeks was for illustration purposes. We could equally talk about a Hawaii 1-50 Platinum float or a NCV Platinum 23-51.

I'll take the 75 days clause you found and re-argue that, using the Hawaii 1-50 float example, a weeks owner is guaranteed to get a week as long as they call by mid October. In fact, that clause you quote regarding "USE OF UNRESERVED PERIOD" pretty much guarantees that indirectly because there is no other reason for all weeks to go away. Now you add a bunch of non-Hawaii owners trying to get Hawaii weeks at 12 months out and all weeks may be gone before Oct 15...

Again, the issue if not whether it's Hawaii, DSV, NCV or what the weeks are... it's the fact that pooling the inventory can cause deeded week owners to get locked out at times they shouldn't be.

You are right, calling at 12 months out a weeks owner would not get locked out. But not all owners want or have to call at 12 months out. Currently, as long as they call 1 day (or 75 days, like you point out...) before the season starts they can get a week in the season. Some may have bought being happy with this arrangement. What you propose can change that.



I never said calling at 12 months out will definitely get the reservation. But if I own at a resort and an willing to settle for any summer week, and I call at 12 months out at 9am (when allegedly 50% of inventory is available) week after week after week 10 weeks in a row all summer is it reasonable to expect to get one of the summer weeks? maybe once every 2 years? I would think so... if not then the season is not what it's advertised to be...

Maybe we're both saying similar things but getting confused in the details? I understand that the intent of the timeshare purchase needs to be protected - an owner must be able to actually reserve any time period within his purchased season on a reasonable basis. IOW, any weeks should be available to him on a rotating basis, whether that happens naturally through the reservation process with no help from Marriott or with Marriott's help by exercising their "lottery" or "priority lists" provisions contained in the contracts. I'm just not seeing how not keeping the points inventory separate from weeks (except insofar as the percentages of each correlate to what's been sold) and making all home resort reservations available first-come-first-served defeats that intent.

Have you considered that in either the current system or the points system, we are still talking about the same number of owners with a home resort priority trying to reserve the same number of days within their season? I think where we may be getting crossed up is in when exchangers are able to make reservations, and I'm assuming based on that survey that they will have a later window than owners.

Now when we start getting in to systems such as Diamond with no home resort priority, I am totally clueless how Marriott could manage things. But that doesn't mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, it just means somebody needs to tell us how and why Diamond works the way it does.

 

[l2trade]

Hmmmm. Can you give some more details about Diamond so we can hack that system to death?

Wow! That could be a whole thread in itself. Let's oversimplify to say that the Trust holds all the deeds which are assigned fixed point values from many resorts. Owners buy points from that bundle. Non-trust deeds (including non-Diamond timeshares) can also be converted to fixed Diamond point values. It is a big black box that gives the developer super powerful control. IMHO, resale value sucks and I would never buy it, as the product is handicapped for external trades without the full Diamond Resort system. Please, hack away!

You know how that survey talked about a possible priority with a home resort or a group of resorts? I'm thinking that a trust encompassing all of Marriott's resorts could be one big*** trust to unwieldy to manage, but several trusts broken down into regions or similar-amenity properties or similar-age properties might be something to think about ....

Breaking down resorts into smaller trusts, doesn't change the fact that Marriott must manage all of them. When you go the trust route, I expect bigger and more diverse will be seen as better. I am not an expert in this area, but these things can get quite complex, with trusts inside trusts, right? Reservation rules need not be directly related to the complexity of the underlying trust(s).

The thing is, I'm not sure that I would be comfortable relying on the reported June 20th date for roll-out. Unless Marriott sent us all an email notification saying, "June 20th is THE day! Get Ready!" then I would be worried about another delay affecting the purchase/rescission. But then again, I haven't felt comfortable about buying ANY timeshare product ever since the economy tanked.

June 20th is THE day! Of this, I've been promised. If something unforeseen happens and suddenly it ain't, then buyer beware! Rescind, rescind, rescind!

 

[m61376]

Maybe we're both saying similar things but getting confused in the details? I understand that the intent of the timeshare purchase needs to be protected - an owner must be able to actually reserve any time period within his purchased season on a reasonable basis. IOW, any weeks should be available to him on a rotating basis, whether that happens naturally through the reservation process with no help from Marriott or with Marriott's help by exercising their "lottery" or "priority lists" provisions contained in the contracts. I'm just not seeing how not keeping the points inventory separate from weeks (except insofar as the percentages of each correlate to what's been sold) and making all home resort reservations available first-come-first-served defeats that intent.

Have you considered that in either the current system or the points system, we are still talking about the same number of owners with a home resort priority trying to reserve the same number of days within their season? I think where we may be getting crossed up is in when exchangers are able to make reservations, and I'm assuming based on that survey that they will have a later window than owners.

Now when we start getting in to systems such as Diamond with no home resort priority, I am totally clueless how Marriott could manage things. But that doesn't mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, it just means somebody needs to tell us how and why Diamond works the way it does.

The bottom line is that the only way for things to be fair is for the percentage of reservations for each week to reflect the percentage of points versus week ownership; thus, for example, if a resort has 3 days for check-ins, and, for argument's sake, 240 villas, and if 50% convert to points, then 40 villas each day should be reserved for point reservations, regardless of whether that is for points owners using home resort priority or exchanging in, and 40 villas each day should be reserved for weeks owners booking in their own season according to the rules currently in effect.

 

[l2trade]

Is this an assumption or based on an official statement or leak?

Of course, this is not from an official statement, nor is it pure assumption.
I've done some legwork (and phone work) the past few weeks. While Marriott certainly does not want to equate their new system with Diamond, that is the best example I can come up with right now based on how the program has been described to me thus far.

By now, most salespeople know more about the new system than they did a week ago. They know to varying details depending on their need to know, and much more importantly, their ability to comprehend. While some questions to them yield elusive answers, it is rather easy to connect all the dots during long conversations. It is human nature to want answers. It is salesperson nature to do or say whatever necessary to close the deal today. I am sure Marriott knows that. That is why they kept the bulk of their sales staff (and, in turn, all of us) in the dark for so long.

 

[DanCali]

Maybe we're both saying similar things but getting confused in the details? I understand that the intent of the timeshare purchase needs to be protected - an owner must be able to actually reserve any time period within his purchased season on a reasonable basis. IOW, any weeks should be available to him on a rotating basis, whether that happens naturally through the reservation process with no help from Marriott or with Marriott's help by exercising their "lottery" or "priority lists" provisions contained in the contracts. I'm just not seeing how not keeping the points inventory separate from weeks (except insofar as the percentages of each correlate to what's been sold) and making all home resort reservations available first-come-first-served defeats that intent.

My point was that if exchangers have access to resorts, whether at 8 months or 12 months, owners can get locked out of their season much earlier than they could now. Even if all they care about is getting a random week. That's simply due to the fact that you give outsiders access to those weeks so there could be more requests for all the weeks in a season than there are owners.

 

[PerryM]

Hardball or softball - it does make a difference...

The bottom line is that the only way for things to be fair is for the percentage of reservations for each week to reflect the percentage of points versus week ownership; thus, for example, if a resort has 3 days for check-ins, and, for argument's sake, 240 villas, and if 50% convert to points, then 40 villas each day should be reserved for point reservations, regardless of whether that is for points owners using home resort priority or exchanging in, and 40 villas each day should be reserved for weeks owners booking in their own season according to the rules currently in effect.

Show me the word "Fair" in any deed or CCR?

Marriott will play the game according to the rules and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

That's part of the decision we must make when there is NO track record - Marriott will play by the rules so what would a lawyer advise Marriott to do in every situation we must guess Marriott's response.

You all know the answer - they will play hardball and not softball.

 

[DanCali]

Of course, this is not from an official statement, nor is it pure assumption.
I've done some legwork (and phone work) the past few weeks. While Marriott certainly does not want to equate their new system with Diamond, that is the best example I can come up with right now based on how the program has been described to me thus far.

Are we talking about this highly sought after product?

 

[tombo]

The bottom line is that the only way for things to be fair is for the percentage of reservations for each week to reflect the percentage of points versus week ownership; thus, for example, if a resort has 3 days for check-ins, and, for argument's sake, 240 villas, and if 50% convert to points, then 40 villas each day should be reserved for point reservations, regardless of whether that is for points owners using home resort priority or exchanging in, and 40 villas each day should be reserved for weeks owners booking in their own season according to the rules currently in effect.

Agreed. Now find anywhere in any Marriott document that says anything other than you have access to a specific unit type during a designated season based on availability. Furthermore other than through court orders is there any documentation requiring Marriott to detail where inventory went? Only marriott will know for sure how they allocated inventory between the points and the weeks and we can't require them to provide us with that information.

If there are 100 villas at a resort and their platinum weeks float weeks 18 to 38, with weeks 20 to 30 being the prime hard to get weeks, then one half of the 2000 weeks are prime. Currently half of the 2000 platinum weeks owners will get a prime week each year. Here comes points. If 750 of the 2000 platinum owners convert to points, and if all of the 750 converted weeks placed into points inventory by Marriott are the most sought after prime weeks 20 to 30, then there will be 250 prime weeks left for the 1250 weeks owners who did not convert to points, and there will be 750 prime weeks available for the 750 owners who converted to points. Every point owner will be able to reserve a prime week while only 250 of 1250 deeded weeks owners will be successful in reserving a prime week, but ALL of the platinum owners will have access to weeks in their designated Platinum season subject to availability whether they swap to points or not. Marriott fulfilled their contract while making sure points members got prime inventory and weeks owners got what was left.

Before points (in the above example) 50% of the platinum deeded weeks owners would get a prime week each year. After marriott rolls out points, 100% of the points conversion members will get prime weeks while only 20% of the owners who didn't convert will be successful at snagging a prime week. This is how much of a difference Marriott's allocation of weeks between Points inventory and weeks inventory can make.

 

[PerryM]

But for all those upgrades you got someone had to be downgraded, or am I missing something? I have on occation been upgraded to a nicer resort, but generaly took a smaller unit. It seems in my mind that like for like (whatever that means) would be a more fair system, no?

ray

Not at all - that's a zero sum game and that's not what an exchange company runs.

I just reviewed my II account and EVERY exchange going back to 2000 is an "upgrade" - everyone of them.

There were many times I exchanged 4,000 WM credits to stay at Beachplace Towers in a 2BR at 59-days in II. I counted 4 of them; my son and his frat brothers had a great time. My MF for the WM credits was $200 + exchange fee and the MF for BPT was always around $1,000.

That was an upgrade and nobody wanted that exchange so I got it; and it was a hell of an upgrade.

This is but one example of exchanges just sitting out there and folks decided to pass the reservation by.

I remember reading that at least 15% of ALL timeshare units go unused in a year - they never even made it into an exchange system.

I see no reason to believe for a second that II is a 100% zero-sum game where all the upgrades I got were matched with an equal downgrades.

To prove that II or RCI or the new Marriott exchange system is a zero-sum game is way too subjective and thus can't stand on any logic or proof.

 

[BocaBum99]

Not at all - that's a zero sum game and that's not what an exchange company runs.

I just reviewed my II account and EVERY exchange going back to 2000 is an "upgrade" - everyone of them.

There were many times I exchanged 4,000 WM credits to stay at Beachplace Towers in a 2BR at 59-days in II. I counted 4 of them; my son and his frat brothers had a great time. My MF for the WM credits was $200 + exchange fee and the MF for BPT was always around $1,000.

That was an upgrade and nobody wanted that exchange so I got it; and it was a hell of an upgrade.

This is but one example of exchanges just sitting out there and folks decided to pass the reservation by.

I remember reading that at least 15% of ALL timeshare units go unused in a year - they never even made it into an exchange system.

I see no reason to believe for a second that II is a 100% zero-sum game where all the upgrades I got were matched with an equal downgrades.

To prove that II or RCI or the new Marriott exchange system is a zero-sum game is way too subjective and thus can't stand on any logic or proof.

It is not a zero sum game for the exchange companies. The way all successful exchange companies work is that FREE inventory is injected into the system by a resort developer or management company. That creates exchange cycle. Then, units are exchanged until units expire. Many of those units are rented as sell off inventory by the exchange company or offered as trade ups for dog weeks. That is how the exchange company business model works.

What RCI is trying to do is force equal or less trades thereby giving all trade up opportunities to themselves for rentals. That explains the drop in trading power over time. You can still get trade ups. But, RCI is siphoning off a lot of that value for themselves. That is why knowledgeable exchangers are ticked off at them.