This is an interesting move by MVW, "Marriott Vacations Worldwide Appoints Christian Alejandro Asmar to Board of Directors"

[Dean]

The Point model is broken. Maybe these guys can fix it

It may have limitations from a usage standpoint but it's a win from a sales standpoint. Effectively every point sold is for a high demand time frame but there are not enough rooms for all points to be reserved during the highest demand times. So in effect it allows them to oversell the resort from one point of view. It also allows them to sell lower demand resorts the same as higher demand resorts. This is the nature of a points system at seasonal resorts that don't have a home resort priority. I've seen the same issues at DVC, Bluegreen and Wyndham to some degree. I think the difference with MVC is that a points system is inherently inefficient from a reservation standpoint and converting weeks resorts to points highlights that issue as well as allowing them to effectively restructure the seasonality of some resorts. The more flexible it is the more inefficient it is. I'm not sure much can be done to "fix" anything at this point as they've created contractual obligations that would be almost impossible to change very much. What they could do is beef up some of the status benefits but that could, and likely would, create an even greater inequality across the various members.

 

[cubigbird]

Sales are likely slowing down since the developer Club Point has reached an astronomical height and MF/point is approaching $1/point. There's likely a buyer market limit and it may have reached that point.

 

[dioxide45]

It may have limitations from a usage standpoint but it's a win from a sales standpoint. Effectively every point sold is for a high demand time frame but there are not enough rooms for all points to be reserved during the highest demand times. So in effect it allows them to oversell the resort from one point of view. It also allows them to sell lower demand resorts the same as higher demand resorts. This is the nature of a points system at seasonal resorts that don't have a home resort priority. I've seen the same issues at DVC, Bluegreen and Wyndham to some degree. I think the difference with MVC is that a points system is inherently inefficient from a reservation standpoint and converting weeks resorts to points highlights that issue as well as allowing them to effectively restructure the seasonality of some resorts. The more flexible it is the more inefficient it is. I'm not sure much can be done to "fix" anything at this point as they've created contractual obligations that would be almost impossible to change very much. What they could do is beef up some of the status benefits but that could, and likely would, create an even greater inequality across the various members.

I think the only way to really fix it or make it better is to acquire more deeded weeks for the trust at resorts that are in high demand. The main problem is those peak seasons at legacy weeks based resorts are mostly used by weeks based owners vs. them electing for club points. We do see some reports disclosing 30% of the weeks are owned by the trust, but no real breakdown between the seasons. It seems that MVW was agressivly reaquiring deeded weeks, but based on the rise in fees they seemed to have been mainly lower season weeks where the MF per point is higher.

They could also look to build resorts in resort destinations where people want to travel. Sure, City Collection lets them build at a lower developer dollar per point, but those types of properties are rather niche. Year over year, more owners want to go to the traditional beach resort. They sell points that come from conveyances of the City Collection properties but those point buyers are starry eyed by the legacy resorts that are still primarily weeks based ownership.

 

[jp10558]

I think the only way to really fix it or make it better is to acquire more deeded weeks for the trust at resorts that are in high demand. The main problem is those peak seasons at legacy weeks based resorts are mostly used by weeks based owners vs. them electing for club points. We do see some reports disclosing 30% of the weeks are owned by the trust, but no real breakdown between the seasons. It seems that MVW was agressivly reaquiring deeded weeks, but based on the rise in fees they seemed to have been mainly lower season weeks where the MF per point is higher.

They could also look to build resorts in resort destinations where people want to travel. Sure, City Collection lets them build at a lower developer dollar per point, but those types of properties are rather niche. Year over year, more owners want to go to the traditional beach resort. They sell points that come from conveyances of the City Collection properties but those point buyers are starry eyed by the legacy resorts that are still primarily weeks based ownership.

I don't think there's a fix if the issue is prices are now at or beyond what the market will bear(unless they can somehow lower prices). I suppose we'll see but any time there's a recession looking like it's coming on - these sorts of purchases will dry up first IMHO.

 

[Dean]

I think the only way to really fix it or make it better is to acquire more deeded weeks for the trust at resorts that are in high demand. The main problem is those peak seasons at legacy weeks based resorts are mostly used by weeks based owners vs. them electing for club points. We do see some reports disclosing 30% of the weeks are owned by the trust, but no real breakdown between the seasons. It seems that MVW was agressivly reaquiring deeded weeks, but based on the rise in fees they seemed to have been mainly lower season weeks where the MF per point is higher.

They could also look to build resorts in resort destinations where people want to travel. Sure, City Collection lets them build at a lower developer dollar per point, but those types of properties are rather niche. Year over year, more owners want to go to the traditional beach resort. They sell points that come from conveyances of the City Collection properties but those point buyers are starry eyed by the legacy resorts that are still primarily weeks based ownership.

No doubt that improving the quality of the weeks in the trust can help with fees and availability as long as they don't try to price them above the existing weeks of the same demand. Even if they were able to convert the entire system, the improvement in demand and fees would be modest though noticeable. Still a points system with a free for all for every available week is a challenge for the members but a potential gold mine for the developer. I suspect they don't care much about the weeks they get as long as they can sell them for points.

I don't think there's a fix if the issue is prices are now at or beyond what the market will bear(unless they can somehow lower prices). I suppose we'll see but any time there's a recession looking like it's coming on - these sorts of purchases will dry up first IMHO.

This may be but this is not as much of a points issue as it is simply the economics and possibly greed on the sales side in general that would apply to weeks or points. Not all resorts are sold as points. If they made enrollment more reasonable there could be a decent amount of movement in favor of the points system through enrolled weeks elected for points. I have 3 or 4 weeks I'd enroll if the options were favorable enough.

 

[dioxide45]

I don't think there's a fix if the issue is prices are now at or beyond what the market will bear(unless they can somehow lower prices). I suppose we'll see but any time there's a recession looking like it's coming on - these sorts of purchases will dry up first IMHO.

I am not sure that price is really the issue. When they are pitching the product, very few are actually looking at the maintenance fee per point. Timeshares are usually bought on impulse. Sales also aren't in some kind of downward spiral. People are still buying the product there just isn't enough forecast growth for investors to get excited.

 

[pedro47]

To generate new sales, IMHO, MVC, needs to build new resorts somewhere between Virginia and South Carolina, the Caribbean and somewhere in Georgia. The Northeastern region population are moving South and out of the United States.

 

[billymach4]

Ladies and Gents.... This is starting to smell ominous for MVW VAC.

This firm Impactive Capital has a history of investing in Wyndham Hotels.

Recent and reputable sources confirm that Impactive Capital currently holds an investment in Wyndham Hotels. Lauren Taylor Wolfe, co-founder and Managing Partner of Impactive Capital, is repeatedly referenced as a Wyndham shareholder in 2024 discussions and interviews. For example, a September 2024 business breakdown explicitly introduces Wolfe as "co-founder and Managing Partner of Impactive Capital and a Wyndham shareholder," and the conversation centers on Impactive’s ongoing involvement with Wyndham’s business strategy and ESG initiatives

While earlier sources from 2019 and 2021 detail Impactive Capital's activist investment and continued advocacy for operational and sustainability improvements at Wyndham the 2024 source provides the most up-to-date confirmation of their current holding. There is no evidence in recent filings or reports suggesting that Impactive Capital has exited its Wyndham position as of May 2025.

Wyndham Hotels: Loyalty Matters - Colossus

Lauren Taylor Wolfe is the co-founder and Managing Partner of Impactive Capital. We cover Wyndham’s growth algorithm, its loyalty program, and the w

joincolossus.com

Wyndham Hotels: Loyalty Matters

Episódio do programa · Business Breakdowns · 01/09/2021 · 56 min

podcasts.apple.com

Lauren Taylor Wolfe - Wyndham Hotels: Loyalty Matters — Impactive Capital | Activist Investment Management

Lauren Taylor Wolfe is the co-founder and Managing Partner of Impactive Capital. We cover Wyndham’s growth algorithm, its loyalty program, and the ways in which green programs are helping to drive higher cash-on-cash returns for franchisees.

www.impactivecapital.com

Impact Capital Investing In Wyndham Hotels At Sohn For Esg | Investment News | Trusted Insight

Impactive Capital cofounder Lauren Taylor Wolfe told attendees at the Sohn Investment Conference that her firm is going to advocate for changes to Wyndham Hotels' energy use to increase the value of the hotel chains' stock. Wyndham, which includes brands like Days Inn and recently bought La...

www.thetrustedinsight.com

Wyndham timeshare business is not part of Wyndham Hotels & Resorts. In 2018, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation split into two independent, publicly traded companies: Wyndham Hotels & Resorts (which operates the hotel franchising and management business) and Wyndham Destinations (which took over the timeshare and vacation ownership business and is now known as Travel + Leisure Co.)

Wyndham Hotels & Resorts focuses on hotel franchising and does not operate the timeshare business. The timeshare business, including Club Wyndham and related vacation ownership programs, is managed separately by Travel + Leisure Co., even though both companies continue to use the "Wyndham" name under licensing arrangements

 

[billymach4]

The major investors in Travel + Leisure Co. are predominantly large institutional asset managers and investment firms. As of April 2025, the largest shareholders include:

• Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co.: 15.55%
• BlackRock Advisors LLC: 9.63%
• Invesco Advisers, Inc.: 5.31%
• GMT Capital Corp.: 3.99%
• State Street Corp.: 3.29%
• Copeland Capital Management LLC: 2.29%
• CapitalatWork SA: 2.19%
• AQR Capital Management LLC: 2.14%
• DFA Australia Ltd.: 2.04%
• Citadel Securities GP LLC: 1.75%

Institutional investors collectively own a significant majority of the company, with estimates ranging from approximately 75% to over 85% of outstanding shares The top 13 shareholders control more than half of the company’s equity Individual investors, governments, and other entities hold smaller stakes.
No single investor has a controlling majority, but the influence of these large institutional investors is substantial in shaping company decisions and governance

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/VAC/institutional-ownership/
The primary investors in Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation (VAC) are large institutional asset managers and investment firms. As of May 2025, the top shareholders are:

Investor Name	% Ownership	Shares Held
Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co.	9.17%	3,200,971
Impactive Capital LP	8.77%	3,061,847
BlackRock Advisors LLC	8.26%	2,883,565
JWM Family Enterprises, Inc.	5.74%	2,002,797
DFA Australia Ltd.	5.37%	1,873,396

Additional details:

• Institutional investors collectively own over 95% of VAC’s outstanding shares, with the top 10 institutions holding more than half of the company’s equity
• Notably, Impactive Capital is a significant shareholder and has a representative, Christian Alejandro Asmar, on the company’s board of directors

Other notable institutional investors include Dimensional Fund Advisors LP, Senvest Management LLC, Fuller & Thaler Asset Management Inc., and Hotchkis & Wiley Capital Management LLC.
Insider ownership is comparatively small, at under 3% of shares outstanding.
In summary, VAC is primarily owned by major institutional investors, with Vanguard, Impactive Capital, and BlackRock among the largest holders.

 

[pedro47]

To billymach4, thanks for sharing the above information. This is very interesting there are some major players, IMHO, that do not want Wyndham or Marriott to fail.

 

[billymach4]

To billymach4, thanks for sharing the above information. This is very interesting there are some major players, IMHO, that do not want Wyndham or Marriott to fail.

Very Welcome. Had some time last night to take a deep dive into this subject.

 

[TSCurious1925]

Yes sales is certainly the biggest factor- particularly when you listen to the earning calls and investor events. They are always focused on the sales piece. I don't know if I have ever heard them talk about the management fee revenue or F&B revenue. Interval revenue does come up sometimes as well.

If they did not care about making money off of managing the resorts, they could cut their management fee at each resort to lower MF for both points owners and legacy owners. I do not think they are managing these resorts at cost. Their SEC filings suggest that the revenue stream from management contracts is important to them. Either way, given the volume of both legacy owners and points owners walking away, it does appear that MF at many properties and on points are higher than the market will bear.

I am not sure that price is really the issue. When they are pitching the product, very few are actually looking at the maintenance fee per point. Timeshares are usually bought on impulse. Sales also aren't in some kind of downward spiral. People are still buying the product there just isn't enough forecast growth for investors to get excited.

The volume of existing owners, both legacy and points, deeding back whichever product they purchased suggests that the MF are higher than the market will bear. VAC does not appear to be transparent about net inventory transactions. Can anyone tell whether deedbacks and defaults are outpacing new sales? Last I checked, there had been a decrease in sales, but that is only half the picture. What is the number of deedbacks and defaults relative to new sales?

 

[TSCurious1925]

Also, many of the deedbacks are at properties where MF paid by legacy owners are even higher than MF paid by points owners. Conveying those interests into the trust would raise already-high MF on points for all points owners. If the points product has tipped, they need to find a new sales vehicle or liquidate as the burden the developer bears carrying deedbacks and defaults increases.

 

[jwalk03]

If they did not care about making money off of managing the resorts, they could cut their management fee at each resort to lower MF for both points owners and legacy owners. I do not think they are managing these resorts at cost. Their SEC filings suggest that the revenue stream from management contracts is important to them. Either way, given the volume of both legacy owners and points owners walking away, it does appear that MF at many properties and on points are higher than the market will bear.

The volume of existing owners, both legacy and points, deeding back whichever product they purchased suggests that the MF are higher than the market will bear. VAC does not appear to be transparent about net inventory transactions. Can anyone tell whether deedbacks and defaults are outpacing new sales? Last I checked, there had been a decrease in sales, but that is only half the picture. What is the number of deedbacks and defaults relative to new sales?

I didn't say they didn't care about the management fee revenue. Its a significant sum of money to the bottom line. I just said its not the biggest factor. I don't recall it ever being discussed with the investors on the quarterly earnings calls. They focus on Sales, and occasionally talk about other revenue stream like Interval and selling non-core assets.

 

[TSCurious1925]

In their SEC filings they give a fair amount of lip service to the negative effect that decisions by component sites to exercise their contractual right to terminate the management agreement could have on their bottom line. With their influence on component site HOA boards they stave off attempts to terminate the management contract as well as oversight of cost control by insisting that the high costs are necessary to maintain brand standards. They may well be being honest about that, but when the overall cost of a timeshare product approaches or exceeds the cost that the consumer can get the accommodations for on the open market (without 13-month plan ahead or ongoing commitment), existing owners will walk.

 

[TSCurious1925]

From what I can gather from the disclosure entities directly related to the Marriott family or main corp control 5.8% (2 million shares).

Activist investors have their place. They keep management honest in some respects. It doesn’t seem like there was any fight for a board seat - so the board caved.

The Support Agreement accompanying the board seat appointment suggests that there was indeed a fight that was resolved by the parties' lawyers behind the scene with the "standstill provisions" by which the activist investor agrees to refrain from all takeover efforts and public discourse. See the May 27 8-K notifying the market of an unscheduled material event.

 

[rthib]

Ladies and Gents.... This is starting to smell ominous for MVW VAC.

So what's ominous or what is your concern?

 

[amycurl]

They could also look to build resorts in resort destinations where people want to travel. Sure, City Collection lets them build at a lower developer dollar per point, but those types of properties are rather niche. Year over year, more owners want to go to the traditional beach resort. They sell points that come from conveyances of the City Collection properties but those point buyers are starry eyed by the legacy resorts that are still primarily weeks based ownership.

Building new resorts in places where people want to go?!? I mean, what a novel idea! It's not like that was the ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS MODEL. But I'm not an owner (or an investor, I don't think,) so I have no skin in this game.

 

[jp10558]

Building new resorts in places where people want to go?!? I mean, what a novel idea! It's not like that was the ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS MODEL. But I'm not an owner (or an investor, I don't think,) so I have no skin in this game.

I swear in general in the US companies have moved en masse (at a slowly increasing rate, maybe an early victim was IBM) to financializition where instead of doing the "hard work" of building things or investing in the more traditional sense in a business or appealing with a good product to customers, they instead move to squeeze all value (including ever more petty amounts of value) out of all sides - with some sort of idea that "well, where are the customers going to go?".

Sometimes this is a detestable but functional business model (See Google say), but often it's self destructive. Of course I think private equity etc intend this a la Joann Fabrics. Anything for a quick buck today, "there'll always be another company" tomorrow. Where it makes less sense to me is in competitive markets, a la Southwest. Sure, no one else had value like "free" checked bags anymore, but make Southwest like "every other airline" and why do the masses have an interest in flying them specifically? I've never flown Southwest because they don't have the lowest or competitive prices on routes I've been looking for. I don't know if that's because of outdated infrastructure making running costs higher, them just not flying routes, the "drip pricing" catching me from other airlines or something else - but what I will say is when you're offering a commodity - you basically can only compete in price. This is why you want to try and differentiate somehow, but it seems like MBAs think the only valid differentiator is lowest price. Rarely is a company making massive changes also in a strong enough position to undercut competitors who've already "blazed the path" you're now seeking to follow. Last mover is pretty much always a disadvantage.

And here's the problem for MVC IMHO - they're pricing themselves out of the market with little to differentiate themselves from anyone else - pretty much except for the people on TUG, the company getting the potential owner is whoever managed to get the person to the presentation - "no one in the masses" is comparing TS systems or even different timeshares in one system - they're getting emotionally excited in a razzle dazzle and signing on the bottom line. On the front end I don't think there's any marketing they're doing that's going to drive more people to their gift based presentations than Wyndham, Hilton, insert TS here. The other lines have some more headroom however, usually being at lower MFs for ongoing owners. And I still maintain that most people (at least if you believe the reporting) drop out of MFs simply because they get too high. If the MFs had fixed at $500 a year for the last 20 years, I bet almost no one would even be thinking about it much, but as they grow, more and more make decisions, and again, if you spiral badly the resort goes under.

 

[Dean]

Building new resorts in places where people want to go?!? I mean, what a novel idea! It's not like that was the ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS MODEL. But I'm not an owner (or an investor, I don't think,) so I have no skin in this game.

They also have to find good spots to build them that make sense financially as well as be cognizant of the volume they need to sell. I too wish for great resorts in great areas and I'm not thrilled with the more recent offerings.

 

[billymach4]

So what's ominous or what is your concern?

@rthib The precedent set by the likes of Wyndham, BlueGreen by having tight control grip on owners renting.
Also knowing that I can rent Destination points from other owners is comforting. The new investor on the Board may want to change those rules if they think more profit can be squeezed out?

But nobody has a Crystal Ball. Even the new Investor Impactive Capital may take time to assess the landscape. Their own plans and goals to influence the business may backfire? Nobody knows. Time will tell. Give it a few years?

 

[goodbadugly]

It may have limitations from a usage standpoint but it's a win from a sales standpoint. Effectively every point sold is for a high demand time frame but there are not enough rooms for all points to be reserved during the highest demand times. So in effect it allows them to oversell the resort from one point of view. It also allows them to sell lower demand resorts the same as higher demand resorts. This is the nature of a points system at seasonal resorts that don't have a home resort priority. I've seen the same issues at DVC, Bluegreen and Wyndham to some degree. I think the difference with MVC is that a points system is inherently inefficient from a reservation standpoint and converting weeks resorts to points highlights that issue as well as allowing them to effectively restructure the seasonality of some resorts. The more flexible it is the more inefficient it is. I'm not sure much can be done to "fix" anything at this point as they've created contractual obligations that would be almost impossible to change very much. What they could do is beef up some of the status benefits but that could, and likely would, create an even greater inequality across the various members.

They could also add value to the point system with better deals with their third party providers (cruises, tours and etc.). 35% plus plus premiums over point MF's is ugly!

 

[Dean]

They could also add value to the point system with better deals with their third party providers (cruises, tours and etc.). 35% plus plus premiums over point MF's is ugly!

I don't think that's realistic given the way the system works. For any option that takes points and turns them into cash to pay for the underlying option, it's inherently inefficient. There are loses on options that go unused. Marriott.com likely take a commission and they will have to pay retail rates or at best a minimally discounted retail rate. They do not have access to short term specials for this type of option. I have had more direct information for DVC in this area over the years and last I heard, the reservation system commission for DVC was something like 40%. DVC is likely in a stronger position to play hardball and push for larger discounts but they have never shown an interest in doing so. To be fair, to take that approach means being willing to walk away and not offer those options if unsuccessful. One might ask "why even offer those options at all" and I think that's a legitimate question but the answer is likely in the use as a marketing tool.

 

[jp10558]

One might ask "why even offer those options at all" and I think that's a legitimate question but the answer is likely in the use as a marketing tool.

It is vaguely useful as an answer to "what can I do with points I can't use at MVC". So a sales pitch, but also a last ditch "better lose 40% of value than 100% of value" in some situations right?

 

[Dean]

It is vaguely useful as an answer to "what can I do with points I can't use at MVC". So a sales pitch, but also a last ditch "better lose 40% of value than 100% of value" in some situations right?

No doubt it has the potential to be a last ditch effort but the problem is that even having the option suggests to many members that it's a reasonable value. Many people will just assume it's reasonable and proceed or they get clay feet and use points for convenience or comfort not even thinking if they just let the points expire and paid cash they'd come out ahead financially, have far more flexibility and more options up front and later on. We have 3 cruises booked next year for a total of 9 cabins and I've worked the prices down about $2000 total across all cabins, something that would not have been an option using points.