@Dean is one of the more respected, knowledgeable users on this board. You can disagree without being disrespectful.
What you're missing though is that if they acquire a Silver week and sell points against that week, those points cannot just magically be used to reserve Platinum or Gold inventory that isn't owned by the trust. Inventory owned by weeks owners can only be used by weeks owners unless an owner converts their usage into points, at which time inventory corresponding to what they converted is dumped into the points pool. The same amount of inventory as if they had reserved their weeks usage outright and used it as normal. So net-net, there is no loss of availability for other Platinum/Gold owners at that resort in their respective seasons that is being lost to points that are based on a Silver week or at some other less desirable resort.
Its how it has always been and is built into the purchase contracts. We really, really don't know if there is a flow of money back to the HoA if MVW managed to monetise the units that they may take at 60 days. We also don't know how many, if any, they take and how many the take and then have to provide a replacement week for. My sense is that its not a high volume no matter what happens, but we just don't know how many owners pay up and never use, they do pop up with surprising regularity on FB, which I'm staggered at. There are (have been) also some commercial organisations that do own weeks and do have a client base that they use them for, and they may also take an approach whereby they just let go any weeks that they don't use. Those organisations may also have a different contract with MVC from individual owners. Lots and lots that we don't actually know....
Praise be. An analytical brain in the mix.@ocdb8r, I was with you until point number 4, excerpted above for convenient reference: Where do you get the idea that there is an audit by an independent entity? And, as an HOA member, have you ever requested production of that essential HOA business record? Please report back after you have. Transparency is there as a matter of law if you know what questions to ask. Note that I don't think you will take the time because the system is working for you, but you are sharp and clearly have legal training, so please be mindful not to mislead others. I have no doubt that you are here to help and that what I view as misleading was not intentional.
I believe you are a European owner; don't know if you are also a Trust owner. Trust owners and domestic legacy week owners have mechanisms to "know" the "unknowns" you identify; no idea whether you fall into either of those camps, so you really may have no way to "know."
I apologize to Dean. @davidvel pointed out above where Dean was incorrect. Not everyone agreed to what Dean says everyone agreed to.
Accepted. If you are referring to the 100% unilateral control for floating time, that is accurate. Obviously there are expectations of appropriateness though.
What of the unknowns that I raise do you know of?
Nice info thanks, I'll try and find a way to rephrase the issue to reflect that there isn't information at a system level that is readily available.
MVC publishes a Disclosure Guide on the prgram every year. At the end it indicates the operations are audited independently - the report never seems to be included in the public links though. I wasn't intending to be misleading and I stand by what I said (and note I explicitly mentioned the scope of the audit is unclear and that there is still transparency lacking here).
Always fun when you get a set of audit results and have no idea what the methodology for conducting the audit is
Crowe, LLP audits the financials of the Trust Owners Association if that helps you any.
Wow - Kabuki theater with respect to audit of the financials reinforces any suspicion that audit of the exchange program is a complete joke.
I just say I don't know, not that I want to know. People can make presumptions one way or another and my point is that there is a lot that goes on that is not publically available or at a system level.
The point is not a mathmatical "net-net" loss, it's a realistic demand impact. When you own a floating week, you sometimes skip a year — illness, schedules, life, forgetfulness to book at 12 months out. That natural slack is what lets less-aggressive planners still find decent inventory closer to their travel date. Weeks held in the trust don't skip years, though: the trust pools demand from thousands of points-owners who'll happily claim any platinum week available the second it is available, so essentially 100% of trust-held weeks get booked the moment they're released. Even taking only its fair proportional share, the trust quietly eliminates the cushion the floating-week system relied on — and the more weeks it holds, the less cushion is left. As remaining owners catch on and start booking earlier to protect themselves, the mid-window availability collapses and everyone gets pushed into a 12-month booking stampede.
I guess since MVC has a direct computer pipeline to the reservation system, no other owner "can get connected faster" than the trust club. Not fair in my book.
This. I know that most timeshare systems have screwed a lot of people, MVW included. But ... really everyone should have known walking in that ALL timeshare systems are intentionally designed to benefit them at your expense. #2 and #3 are very clearly the only questions people should be asking themselves. We very clearly get value from our weeks, but we also bought them for dirt cheap and I like to plan and learn so it works for me. I'm only reading these types of threads to education myself and see how any changes affect my answer to #2.