What do MVC owners think of Abound?

[JIMinNC]

With respect, I understand all that. It is also unfair to harp on my requests for better resorts and season reservations - that's exactly why I spent my money for Marriott Vacations. Don't make excuses for MVC - do you work for them? MVC's inability to fill booking requests using points for better resorts coupled with little effort to add the better inventory is out in the open. Did you really buy into Vacation Club so you could compromise your requests for point reservations? And please don't blame this on the unwillingness of week owners to deposit their great weeks for points.

Of interest, I received an email from Redweek this morning showing rental additions for yesterday - 19 for Newport Coast and 6 for OceanWatch. MVC is probably sitting there wondering, where do all these weeks go and why?

No, I don't work for MVW. I am a shareholder, but a very small one. I just think it's unrealistic for us to expect MVW to overpay to ROFR prime weeks, just to get those weeks into the Trust. They do have an obligation to shareholders like me to spend their capital wisely and not overpay for inventory. Of course, I am an owner, and want my needs met, but I acknowledge they have a business to run.

I bought Destination Points to visit a variety of MVC locations, and since 2014, we have never failed to get exactly what we want whenever booking with points - multiple trips to Hawaii in whale season to supplement the two EOY weeks we own there, multiple spring and fall trips to Hilton Head before we bought our own condo there, Marco Island, Ocean Pointe, Desert Springs, and for the first time in a few weeks, Newport Coast. So I don't feel I've had to compromise at all. No, we don't have a desire to book prime summer school vacation weeks, but if we did, I recognize any exchange system - whether weeks or points based - is going to present challenges during those times.

I actually have found booking our deeded Hawaii weeks to often be more stressful than booking with points, since those weeks are so popular with owners who own to rent their weeks for cash flow rather than their own use. That's where many of the Redweek listings come from. If I have one big gripe about MVC, it's that they don't enforce their own prohibitions against owners running what are essentially commercial rental businesses using their weeks ownership. I have no issue with owners renting their units when they can't use them for some reason, but there are many MVC owners who amass large numbers of resale weeks and use them as a source of income.

 

[timsi]

No, I don't work for MVW. I am a shareholder, but a very small one. I just think it's unrealistic for us to expect MVW to overpay to ROFR prime weeks, just to get those weeks into the Trust. They do have an obligation to shareholders like me to spend their capital wisely and not overpay for inventory. Of course, I am an owner, and want my needs met, but I acknowledge they have a business to run.

I bought Destination Points to visit a variety of MVC locations, and since 2014, we have never failed to get exactly what we want whenever booking with points - multiple trips to Hawaii in whale season to supplement the two EOY weeks we own there, multiple spring and fall trips to Hilton Head before we bought our own condo there, Marco Island, Ocean Pointe, Desert Springs, and for the first time in a few weeks, Newport Coast. So I don't feel I've had to compromise at all. No, we don't have a desire to book prime summer school vacation weeks, but if we did, I recognize any exchange system - whether weeks or points based - is going to present challenges during those times.

I actually have found booking our deeded Hawaii weeks to often be more stressful than booking with points, since those weeks are so popular with owners who own to rent their weeks for cash flow rather than their own use. That's where many of the Redweek listings come from. If I have one big gripe about MVC, it's that they don't enforce their own prohibitions against owners running what are essentially commercial rental businesses using their weeks ownership. I have no issue with owners renting their units when they can't use them for some reason, but there are many MVC owners who amass large numbers of resale weeks and use them as a source of income.

By your standard, because I managed to book whale season in Maui, summer weeks in the Bahamas, or spring break in Cancun through Interval, does it mean that the inventory is good? No, it is very light, and you must judge a system by how fast the busiest weeks disappear, not just by finding some weeks sometime. Every year I find in Interval more (great) weeks than I can use. This does not help the vast majority of the Interval members and the reality is that the Interval inventory is not that great compared to VSN. I gather that many Tuggers have flexibility and compared to the average owner they may spend more time looking for deals (and they know when to look!) so they will inevitably find good trades. This is not necessarily an indication of abundance in one system or another. Plenty of people complain about the MVC inventory, and I have seen several reports that compared MVC to VSN and VSN seemed to be better, despite that the trading starts only 8 months before check in. (that will likely change with Abound unfortunately). How many times can you find Maui summer weeks in MVC 8 months before check in? Even if the MVC inventory was good, don’t you want Marriott to feel pressured and make it better?

The developer owns inventory that is worth few hundred million dollars (acquisition cost I assume so the resale value is a lot higher). It is not that they do not have more prime weeks to convey to the MVC trust, they may first apply a filter based on what they can do with those prime weeks, and they may think that they are better off renting them for a very nice profit. Because the trust is managed by the developer, I do not understand how they attempt to resolve the internal conflict and the kind of rules they have in place to make sure the interests of the trust owners are also taken care of. As far as I can tell they do not share with you guys how they do it. How they book their own inventory is another story altogether.

 

[JIMinNC]

By your standard, because I managed to book whale season in Maui, summer weeks in the Bahamas, or spring break in Cancun through Interval, does it mean that the inventory is good? No, it is very light, and you must judge a system by how fast the busiest weeks disappear, not just by finding some weeks sometime. Every year I find in Interval more (great) weeks than I can use. This does not help the vast majority of the Interval members and the reality is that the Interval inventory is not that great compared to VSN. I gather that many Tuggers have flexibility and compared to the average owner they may spend more time looking for deals (and they know when to look!) so they will inevitably find good trades. This is not necessarily an indication of abundance in one system or another. Plenty of people complain about the MVC inventory, and I have seen several reports that compared MVC to VSN and VSN seemed to be better, despite that the trading starts only 8 months before check in. (that will likely change with Abound unfortunately). How many times can you find Maui summer weeks in MVC 8 months before check in? Even if the MVC inventory was good, don’t you want Marriott to feel pressured and make it better?

The developer owns inventory that is worth few hundred million dollars (acquisition cost I assume so the resale value is a lot higher). It is not that they do not have more prime weeks to convey to the MVC trust, they may first apply a filter based on what they can do with those prime weeks, and they may think that they are better off renting them for a very nice profit. Because the trust is managed by the developer, I do not understand how they attempt to resolve the internal conflict and the kind of rules they have in place to make sure the interests of the trust owners are also taken care of. As far as I can tell they do not share with you guys how they do it. How they book their own inventory is another story altogether.

“Good” inventory is in the eye of the beholder. For my usage and needs, yes, it’s been good enough. YMMV.

It’s not accurate to compare MVC availability in Maui at 8 months with VSN availability at 8 months. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Availability at any high demand place is driven by when reservation windows open. MVC windows open at 13 and 12 months, so that inventory gets booked then. VSN doesn’t open until 8 months, so that’s why that availability is still there then in VSN but not MVC.

 

[DRH90277]

There are those who tout the abundance of inventory to get our desired point reservations. So, try this sometime as I did this morning to test the abundance of available reservations. I tested the reservation system 12 and 13 months out for some better resorts and some lesser resorts to see if I could get 5-day reservations for points. Even I was surprised by the dismal inventory available. There is an inventory squeeze.

Incidentally, it is nearing the end of the time when week owners deposit weeks for points thereby enhancing available inventory for points. Is this really working and is it getting better or worse?

We are Chairman level and if I can't see available reservations, you can imagine what happens to the person with fewer points.

 

[GaryDouglas]

There are those who tout the abundance of inventory to get our desired point reservations. So, try this sometime as I did this morning to test the abundance of available reservations. I tested the reservation system 12 and 13 months out for some better resorts and some lesser resorts to see if I could get 5-day reservations for points. Even I was surprised by the dismal inventory available. There is an inventory squeeze.

Incidentally, it is nearing the end of the time when week owners deposit weeks for points thereby enhancing available inventory for points. Is this really working and is it getting better or worse?

We are Chairman level and if I can't see available reservations, you can imagine what happens to the person with fewer points.

If I compare and contrast this with what we were told during our last sales update at MOC, this is a far cry from what they allude to what is possible. Since we've been around the block a few times, we did not go forward with a purchase, but it took me more than a few hours to convince my wife that a purchase involved too much smoke a mirrors and wishful thinking.

 

[JIMinNC]

There are those who tout the abundance of inventory to get our desired point reservations. So, try this sometime as I did this morning to test the abundance of available reservations. I tested the reservation system 12 and 13 months out for some better resorts and some lesser resorts to see if I could get 5-day reservations for points. Even I was surprised by the dismal inventory available. There is an inventory squeeze.

Incidentally, it is nearing the end of the time when week owners deposit weeks for points thereby enhancing available inventory for points. Is this really working and is it getting better or worse?

We are Chairman level and if I can't see available reservations, you can imagine what happens to the person with fewer points.

I did as you suggest and looked at inventory available tonight around the 12 month point at a selection of MVC properties. Basically looked for Saturday September 30, 2023 check-in and several of the days right before and right after that date. I also looked at availability deeper into October 2023, between the 13 month and 12 month release dates. I looked at Aruba, California, Florida beaches, Hawaii, and South Carolina beaches. I didn't look at any ski resorts, since Sept/Oct is basically approaching mud season, and so isn't a good barometer of availability.

As has generally been my experience when actually trying to book our reservations, inventory inside the 13 month point up to the 12 month date, is indeed spotty. That is why I have generally waited until the 12-month release to book our trips, since it seems a lot more inventory gets loaded then than at 13 months. So, when I looked at dates around that 12-month point - 9/30/2023 - I saw plenty of availability for 5 night stays with points at these properties for many, if not most check-in dates around that point:

Aruba Surf Club
Aruba Ocean Club
Newport Coast
Desert Springs I
Ocean Pointe
Oceana Palms
Crystal Shores (some views NA)
Waikoloa Ocean Club
Maui Ocean Club Original
Maui Ocean Club Sequel
Waiohai Beach Club
Ocean Watch
Surf Watch (mainly garden views)
Grande Ocean (ocean side only)
Barony Beach Club

That seems to be a pretty good cross-section of the MVC network, and except for Crystal Shores, Surf Watch, and Grande Ocean, it looked like almost every unit size and view was available at most of these places. To me, that availability looked very acceptable, and I could have booked a multitude of 5 night vacations if I had been so inclined. I'm not sure what specifically you were looking for that resulted in your dismal availability, but what I saw was far from dismal. Granted, late-September/October is a shoulder season, so availability should be good, but I was trying to replicate your test, so that's what I looked for.

 

[timsi]

It’s not accurate to compare MVC availability in Maui at 8 months with VSN availability at 8 months. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Availability at any high demand place is driven by when reservation windows open. MVC windows open at 13 and 12 months, so that inventory gets booked then. VSN doesn’t open until 8 months, so that’s why that availability is still there then in VSN but not MVC.

If the MVC inventory is depleted as early as you say and if there isn't much left after 4 months, it means that at 8 months there will not be any good inventory left in VSN when Abound is up and running. This is in clear contrast with Marriott telling us that everything will remain the same and that Abound is “just an option” for the Vistana owners. I do not know how they can say that with a straight face.

 

[TravelTime]

My gripes with Marriott are:
1) They do not enforce the rules for commercial use so a large majority of the weeks for rent are being used to make a profit. Tuggers promote renting out your week and use the profit for something more cost effective. I forget all the “get rich quick” schemes I hear on TUG.
2) They allow desirable, low cost weeks to pass ROFR instead of buying them back. Tuggers are always bragging about what a great deal they got with weeks that passed ROFR. So why is Marriott not buying these weeks back when they are in desirable locations?

 

[JIMinNC]

If the MVC inventory is depleted as early as you say and if there isn't much left after 4 months, it means that at 8 months there will not be any good inventory left in VSN when Abound is up and running. This is in clear contrast with Marriott telling us that everything will remain the same and that Abound is “just an option” for the Vistana owners. I do not know how they can say that with a straight face.

The only inventory that will be depleted by Abound bookings is the inventory that gets elected for Abound. That shouldn't impact the Vistana inventory that doesn't elect for Abound and will remain available for VSN bookings at 8 months. I do suspect that Vistana Abound inventory will go quickly when it hits the Abound Exchange.

 

[JIMinNC]

My gripes with Marriott are:
1) They do not enforce the rules for commercial use so a large majority of the weeks for rent are being used to make a profit. Tuggers promote renting out your week and use the profit for something more cost effective. I forget all the “get rich quick” schemes I hear on TUG.

Agree 100%.

2) They allow desirable, low cost weeks to pass ROFR instead of buying them back. Tuggers are always bragging about what a great deal they got with weeks that passed ROFR. So why is Marriott not buying these weeks back when they are in desirable locations?

Because they have limits on what they are willing to pay to exercise ROFR. They are exercising ROFR to reacquire weeks to resell as points. So the acquisition cost per point is the most important criteria. Why pay more for a higher demanded week if they can fill their points pipeline with cheaper ROFR targets? Having said that, I do suspect getting good inventory to improve booking availability is a secondary criteria, but their primary goal is to get points to resell at the lowest cost. If they can meet their needs for points inventory without paying to ROFR at higher costs per point, that is what they will do. If they can get attractive, demanded inventory at an attractive price, they will, but they shouldn't over pay for that inventory any more than you or I should when buying a resale week.

 

[timsi]

The only inventory that will be depleted by Abound bookings is the inventory that gets elected for Abound. That shouldn't impact the Vistana inventory that doesn't elect for Abound and will remain available for VSN bookings at 8 months. I do suspect that Vistana Abound inventory will go quickly when it hits the Abound Exchange.

Currently on the Marriott side you have the Marriott home owners and MVC that deplete the inventory in the first 4 months. There is no reason to believe that it will be any different on our side when we will have the Vistana home owners and Abound booking for four months. What will be left for VSN?

To make it worse, Marriott will decide the Abound inventory based on "anticipated demand" and in its "sole discretion" as we both know. Maybe you can tell me what inventory is drawn from when a Sheraton flex owner deposits 20,000 Options into Abound.

 

[TravelTime]

Because they have limits on what they are willing to pay to exercise ROFR. They are exercising ROFR to reacquire weeks to resell as points. So the acquisition cost per point is the most important criteria. Why pay more for a higher demanded week if they can fill their points pipeline with cheaper ROFR targets? Having said that, I do suspect getting good inventory to improve booking availability is a secondary criteria, but their primary goal is to get points to resell at the lowest cost.

If they want to sell points, then they need to have the inventory people want or no one will buy more points. It seems like it goes against shareholder value to buy back junk and let the inexpensive desirable inventory slip by. If they do not care about inventory, then why are they trying to get Westin Maui owners to deposit their weeks? You can’t have a crappy product (and I do not mean that MVC is a crappy product) if you want to create shareholder value. Does Marriott not see the points system as a product? If they see it as a product, then they need to meet customer demand. You seem to be implying that they just want to sell, sell, sell without regard for the product.

 

[timsi]

My gripes with Marriott are:
1) They do not enforce the rules for commercial use so a large majority of the weeks for rent are being used to make a profit. Tuggers promote renting out your week and use the profit for something more cost effective. I forget all the “get rich quick” schemes I hear on TUG.
2) They allow desirable, low cost weeks to pass ROFR instead of buying them back. Tuggers are always bragging about what a great deal they got with weeks that passed ROFR. So why is Marriott not buying these weeks back when they are in desirable locations?

Marriott has accumulated a lot of rental inventory, up to 25% at some resorts. I am afraid that a selective enforcement of that rule would expose them to legal action.

 

[timsi]

Agree 100%.


Because they have limits on what they are willing to pay to exercise ROFR. They are exercising ROFR to reacquire weeks to resell as points. So the acquisition cost per point is the most important criteria. Why pay more for a higher demanded week if they can fill their points pipeline with cheaper ROFR targets? Having said that, I do suspect getting good inventory to improve booking availability is a secondary criteria, but their primary goal is to get points to resell at the lowest cost.

We do not know what Marriott actually owns for its rental business, you concluded a while ago that it makes business sense to keep some of the best weeks and to delay conveying them to the trust. A clear indication is the Vistana inventory conveyed to the MVC trust so far even if they own much better weeks (we know that because we have reports from owners that they have been offered for sale such weeks)

 

[DRH90277]

Agree 100%.


Because they have limits on what they are willing to pay to exercise ROFR. They are exercising ROFR to reacquire weeks to resell as points. So the acquisition cost per point is the most important criteria. Why pay more for a higher demanded week if they can fill their points pipeline with cheaper ROFR targets? Having said that, I do suspect getting good inventory to improve booking availability is a secondary criteria, but their primary goal is to get points to resell at the lowest cost.

Where are you getting this information? I hope MVC would not deliberately dumb down the quality of the inventory while at the same time touting the quality of the vacation experience.

Please run this by the upper management of VAC and see what they say. The MVC Investor Relations person may also have a comment.

 

[JIMinNC]

If they want to sell points, then they need to have the inventory people want or no one will buy more points. It seems like it goes against shareholder value to buy back junk and let the inexpensive desirable inventory slip by. If they do not care about inventory, then why are they trying to get Westin Maui owners to deposit their weeks? You can’t have a crappy product (and I do not mean that MVC is a crappy product) if you want to create shareholder value. Does Marriott not see the points system as a product? If they see it as a product, then they need to meet customer demand. You seem to be implying that they just want to sell, sell, sell without regard for the product.

Where are you getting this information? I hope MVC would not deliberately dumb down the quality of the inventory while at the same time touting the quality of the vacation experience.

Please run this by the upper management of VAC and see what they say. The MVC Investor Relations person may also have a comment.

I'm not saying that they ROFR "junk" weeks, and am sorry if that's the impression I gave. To the contrary, many of those junk weeks pass ROFR at very low prices, probably because most of those junk weeks are worth very few points anyway, so it's not worth their while to ROFR a week that's only worth, let's say, 1500 points.

They would rather pay a reasonable price for a Maui Ocean Club Napili tower 2 BR OF week that adds 7475 points to the Trust. What I'm saying is that they seem to have a maximum price they are willing to pay for any given week, and just getting that inventory for booking purposes is not a motivator for them to overpay much above their target price. If someone sells MOC Napili OF for $30K, that's about $4 per point, and based on ROFR.net, that's likely to get bought back by MVC. At $35K or $40K ($4.68-$5.35/point), they'll probably let it go to the buyer. Also from ROFR.net from this year, a Grande Ocean Platinum OF worth 5075 points was ROFR'd by MVC for $17k, but they let another $20k sale go through. So, they bought back at $3.35/point but let a $3.94/point sale go through.

So, I'm not saying they ROFR junk - and I have no special insight into their specific ROFR strategies - but logic says they would want to buy good weeks at a good price because those are worth more points, and they are also bookable weeks for their owners. But I'm sure they do have a maximum price they are willing to pay for any given week. They make it very clear in their quarterly earnings calls that they view low cost reacquired inventory as a key component of their inventory pipeline, and they tout that using reacquired inventory in lieu of building new resorts frees up capital and lowers their average product cost. I'm not saying that getting attractive inventory in the Trust for us owners to book isn't important to them - it is - it's just secondary to getting inventory to resell at the price they are willing to pay.

 

[JIMinNC]

Currently on the Marriott side you have the Marriott home owners and MVC that deplete the inventory in the first 4 months. There is no reason to believe that it will be any different on our side when we will have the Vistana home owners and Abound booking for four months. What will be left for VSN?

To make it worse, Marriott will decide the Abound inventory based on "anticipated demand" and in its "sole discretion" as we both know. Maybe you can tell me what inventory is drawn from when a Sheraton flex owner deposits 20,000 Options into Abound.

Again, I refuse to speculate/worry about what "might" happen in the inventory management arena. We've never had transparency into that area in MVC and I don't expect that to change. We call inventory management a "black box" for a reason. The only way I can judge, is "can I get the reservations I want?" Since 2017, I've been able to book the following:

• Maui Ocean Club; 1BR OF Lahaina/Napili Villas; 7 nights; Mar 2023
• Desert Springs I; 1 BR; 7 nights; Oct 2022
• Newport Coast; 2 BR; 3 nights; Oct 2022
• Maui Ocean Club; 1BR OF Napili Villas; 7 nights; Feb 2022
• Grande Vista; 2BR and a Studio; 1 night; May 2021
• Pulse South Beach; Studio; 1 night; Mar 2021
• Ocean Pointe; Studio; 7 nights; Mar 2021
• Crystal Shores; 2 BR Gulf Side; 6 nights; Nov 2020
• Maui Ocean Club; 1 BR OV Original; 7 nights; Feb 2020
• Waiohai Beach Club; 2 BR IV; 7 nights; Feb 2019
• Grande Ocean; 2BR OS; 7 nights; April 2018
• Grand Chateau; 2BR; 3 nights; Oct 2017
• Heritage Club; 2BR; 1 night; Apr 2017
• Barony Beach Club; 2 BR OF; 7 nights; Apr 2017

As long as that experience continues, the inner-workings of the black box mean nothing to me. If that changes at some point, I will either adjust my strategy or adjust my ownership.

 

[JIMinNC]

Marriott has accumulated a lot of rental inventory, up to 25% at some resorts. I am afraid that a selective enforcement of that rule would expose them to legal action.

We do not know what Marriott actually owns for its rental business, you concluded a while ago that it makes business sense to keep some of the best weeks and to delay conveying them to the trust. A clear indication is the Vistana inventory conveyed to the MVC trust so far even if they own much better weeks (we know that because we have reports from owners that they have been offered for sale such weeks)

Except that the program terms and conditions expressly authorize the Program Manager (MVW) to rent inventory they control while prohibiting owners from running a commercial rental enterprise. Since it's outlined in the program t&c's, unless someone could prove that provision infringes some other external legal or constitutional right, I don't see on what basis legal action could succeed, but I'm not a lawyer. I take no issue with MVW renting what they control, but based on the very limited prime time timeshare inventory I usually see on Marriott.com, the owner rentals I see on Redweek cause me more concern. That IS inventory that MVC allocated for owner use and instead it's being used by some owners to run a prohibited business.

 

[TravelTime]

I'm not saying that they ROFR "junk" weeks, and am sorry if that's the impression I gave. To the contrary, many of those junk weeks pass ROFR at very low prices, probably because most of those junk weeks are worth very few points anyway, so it's not worth their while to ROFR a week that's only worth, let's say, 1500 points.

They would rather pay a reasonable price for a Maui Ocean Club Napili tower 2 BR OF week that adds 7475 points to the Trust. What I'm saying is that they have a maximum price they are willing to pay for any given week, and just getting that inventory for booking purposes is not a motivator for them to overpay much above their target price. If someone sells MOC Napili OF for $30K, that's about $4 per point, and based on ROFR.net, that's likely to get bought back by MVC. At $35K or $40K ($4.68-$5.35/point), they'll probably let it go to the buyer. Also from ROFR.net from this year, a Grande Ocean Platinum OF worth 5075 points was bought by MVC for $17k, but they let another $20k sale go through. So, they bought back at $3.35/point but let a $3.94/point sale go through.

So, I'm not saying they ROFR junk - and I have no special insight into their specific ROFR strategies - but logic says they would want to buy good weeks at a good price because those are worth more points, and they are bookable weeks for their owners. But I'm sure they do have a maximum price they are willing to pay for any given week. They make it very clear in their quarterly earnings calls that they view low cost reacquired inventory as a key component of their inventory pipeline, and they tout that using reacquire inventory in lieu of building new resorts frees up capital and lowers average product cost. I'm not saying that getting attractive inventory in the Trust for us owners to book isn't important to them - it is - it's just secondary to getting inventory to resell.

I never said they should overpay but they should not let attractive low cost inventory to get by. I am speaking from a customer perspective. When I say attractive, I mean Hawaii, Marco Island (maybe not now), Caribbean, Hilton Head and other places people most want to visit. Orlando is a dime a dozen. They can let that and similarly unattractive destinations pass by.

I do not know the details of how easy it is to acquire the good stuff but it seems like they are letting a lot good stuff slip by. If I were a shareholder (and I probably am, I need to look), I would want Marriott to focus equally on selling points and creating the best possible product so people want to buy more points. The best product possible means attractive destinations that you can actually reserve. It also means having some options if you need to cancel and reschedule when life happens like this hurricane. I actually do not care as much about price when it comes to maintenance fees and number of points to reserve and all of that.

I have always gotten what I want at 12/13 months but when life happens and you need to change, it is really hard after that to find good places to go.

Right now, I have 11 nights booked in Crystal Shores 2BR Gulf front for next June. I am likely to go if the resort and local area are built back enough. However, I was exploring some options of what to do next June in case we decide to cancel Marco given the state of SW FL after the hurricane. Basically, there is very little I can book now at 8 months in advance for those dates. So my choices are to go or cancel but not rebook for any place else in the Marriott universe. When this happens, I end up with way too many extra points. So the few times I go to sales presentations, it is hard for them to sell me more points if I can‘t find ways to use my existing points.

Another example, I booked 2BR Maui OF for next April. It cost 8550 points for 1 week. I can afford to splurge because I still have a lot of 2023 points for some odd reason. I am going on fewer but more “expensive” vacations so I can find a way to use all my excess points right now. I am also going on longer vacations to use my points. I have been trying to make a few changes to my Maui trip but it is hard to get what I want. I did find a few days before and after my MOC week but it is not exactly what I want and entails staying in 3 different units in the two buildings over 11 nights. This is just an example of what happens when you want to adjust plans.

BTW, I am double booked at the moment for Maui with my Westin week first and the MOC week second. So it is not like I did some poor planning at the 12/13 month mark. But I checked airfare and it is more than double to fly Sat-Sat than Th-Mon so that is mainly why I am trying to change some things around. I am thinking I might deposit the Westin week in Abound and switch things around.

So my point is that if there is not good inventory that is actually bookable, people at Presidential and Chairman’s level are going to have challenges using their points. Then they can‘t sell them more points. Currently, I only have 11,600 points per year and I am challenged to use them. Thank goodness I get 18 months extra to bank. I am looking forward to Chairman’s level (due to the enrollment of my Vistana week) simply for the 2 year banking window. Hopefully I can use my points up with more time.

 

[JIMinNC]

I never said they should overpay but they should not let attractive low cost inventory to get by. I am speaking from a customer perspective. When I say attractive, I mean Hawaii, Marco Island (maybe not now), Caribbean, Hilton Head and other places people most want to visit. Orlando is a dime a dozen. They can let that and similarly unattractive destinations pass by.

I do not know the details of how easy it is to acquire the good stuff but it seems like they are letting a lot good stuff slip by. If I were a shareholder (and I probably am, I need to look), I would want Marriott to focus equally on selling points and creating the best possible product so people want to buy more points. The best product possible means attractive destinations that you can actually reserve. It also means having some options if you need to cancel and reschedule when life happens like this hurricane. I actually do not care as much about price when it comes to maintenance fees and number of points to reserve and all of that.

I have always gotten what I want at 12/13 months but when life happens and you need to change, it is really hard after that to find good places to go.

Right now, I have 11 nights booked in Crystal Shores 2BR Gulf front for next June. I am likely to go if the resort and local area are built back enough. However, I was exploring some options of what to do next June in case we decide to cancel Marco given the state of SW FL after the hurricane. Basically, there is very little I can book now at 8 months in advance for those dates. So my choices are to go or cancel but not rebook for any place else in the Marriott universe. When this happens, I end up with way too many extra points. So the few times I go to sales presentations, it is hard for them to sell me more points if I can‘t find ways to use my existing points.

Another example, I booked 2BR Maui OF for next April. It cost 8550 points for 1 week. I can afford to splurge because I still have a lot of 2023 points for some odd reason. I am going on fewer but more “expensive” vacations so I can find a way to use all my excess points right now. I am also going on longer vacations to use my points. I have been trying to make a few changes to my Maui trip but it is hard to get what I want. So I did find a few days before and after my week but it is not exactly what I want and entails staying in 3 different units in the two buildings over 11 nights. This is just an example of what happens when you want to adjust plans.

So my point is that if there is not good inventory that is actually bookable, people at Presidential and Chairman’s level are going to have challenges using their points. Then they can‘t sell them more points. Currently, I only have 11,600 points per year and I am challenged to use them. Thank goodness I get 18 months extra to bank. I am looking forward to Chairman’s level (due to the enrollment of my Vistana week) simply for the 2 year banking window. Hopefully I can use my points up with more time.

I can't argue with any of what you wrote, and as I said, I do suspect that getting good inventory into the Trust for booking purposes is something that in some way factors into their decision on whether to ROFR or not. I just feel like, based on everything I've heard them say in their earnings calls, that getting it at the right price is very important to them. It seems their ROFR threshold floats in and around that $4/point price point, but we can only guess how much weight booking demand has on the price they are willing to pay.

Based on the resale transactions I've been involved in, I was told by a broker that they make ROFR decisions once per week. This is only an educated guess, but perhaps they have a ROFR budget/target for each weekly ROFR decision. So, they might look at the weeks they have available to them that week and prioritize based on cost/point, booking demand, or whatever other factors might factor in. We can only guess what those criteria are. Once their budget is used up, they let the others go. Maybe they have some ability to spend more or less based on how attractive/unattractive the opportunities are in any given week, but that's just a guess. That would, however, explain why some weeks get snapped up by MVC at the same price they had let go through at another time. It might depend on what the other opportunities were at any given time. They also try not to keep too much unsold inventory on their books, so that limits how much they can ROFR.

 

[TravelTime]

I was just giving some more thought to my comments. Maybe the real problem for having more available inventory is not ROFR. It is not cracking down on commercial use of weeks. I do not mean the occasional rentals when an owner can’t use a week.

I just looked on Redweek and there are 398 rentals at MOC, 552 rentals at Ko Olina, 407 at WKOVR, 492 at Crystal Shores, etc. To me, these are big numbers and lost inventory that they might be able to keep in the points or weeks system if they cracked down on rentals.

In the end, it is probably a combination of both factors: more buy back of attractive low priced inventory and cracking down on commercial use.

 

[Dean]

You are right about my posts and the repeated emphasis, but it is absolutely true the trust does suffer a lack of the better inventory. Why hasn't MVC been exercising the ROFR and buying up the better "in demand" resale weeks for 10+ years. Is MVC deliberately dumbing down the quality of available resorts for point owners? Are they trying to redirect us toward the outsourced stuff?

One excuse, they are relying on week owners to deposit the better weeks for points. This could be pretty stupid, why would they expect me to deposit my 6 Ocean Watch weeks for points so I can spend them on lower end resorts such as Grand Chateau, Pulse Mayflower in DC, etc. (just my opinion). So, what happens, those with better owned weeks are renting them out, depositing in Interval, etc. Week owners do have the option of renting out weeks for cash and renting what they want - the "cash" alternative to the points program. Is it good or bad that I might have better access to good reservations thru rentals on Redweek than by using points?

MVC's latest venture with the Westin/Sheraton properties is going to be slow to access. It might help a bit, but it won't solve the shortage in available reservations for the best resorts. And the current MVC inventory will be subjected to a whole new population of users.

IMO this comes down to understanding the system and how it works including from the developers side. There is no incentive to for them to go out and get weeks at this point. The only incentive is if they feel they can make money because they do so. That may be by taking a week cheaply on ROFR and then reselling it as points or by creating issues and uncertainties on the ROFR side to limit resales somewhat. They currently have no problems selling points related to any real or perceived inventory limitations since the information is not transparent.

With respect, I understand all that. It is also unfair to harp on my requests for better resorts and season reservations - that's exactly why I spent my money for Marriott Vacations. Don't make excuses for MVC - do you work for them? MVC's inability to fill booking requests using points for better resorts coupled with little effort to add the better inventory is out in the open. Did you really buy into Vacation Club so you could compromise your requests for point reservations? And please don't blame this on the unwillingness of week owners to deposit their great weeks for points.

Of interest, I received an email from Redweek this morning showing rental additions for yesterday - 19 for Newport Coast and 6 for OceanWatch. MVC is probably sitting there wondering, where do all these weeks go and why?

The reality is that MVC made no promises of availability related to retail purchases and certainly not for resale buyers, with the exception of fixed week/unit options. Actually quite the contrary, they made it clear there were limitations and there no guarantees of availability.

My gripes with Marriott are:
1) They do not enforce the rules for commercial use so a large majority of the weeks for rent are being used to make a profit. Tuggers promote renting out your week and use the profit for something more cost effective. I forget all the “get rich quick” schemes I hear on TUG.
2) They allow desirable, low cost weeks to pass ROFR instead of buying them back. Tuggers are always bragging about what a great deal they got with weeks that passed ROFR. So why is Marriott not buying these weeks back when they are in desirable locations?

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of the commercial restriction. Specifically it's not a restriction on renting including the amount of profit or the desirability of the week but rather on more of a business restriction. Now there are those who make a business out of it but they are few and far between from what I've seen. We will all vary on our definition of commercial which is part of the problem, there isn't a clear definition but what it is not, is profit based, but volume based.

For points availability it does come down to Legacy owners electing points to generate availability. Anyone deciding to participate in the points system either knew or should have known up front this would be the case. And ultimately it comes down to competition between owners for both floating weeks and points so it's you against me so to speak.

 

[DRH90277]

Please just take a step back and view this points program from the perspective of a participant who buys expensive points with the expectation of getting the reservations they want. Does the participant get the reservations they desire say 75% of the time? If not, there is something wrong with the interworking's of the model, system, or available inventory. We can speculate about what causes this forever, but it is up to MVC to deliver or disappoint their customers. Disappointing customers is not good for business and word gets around. Are customers buying the hype or the product? Will I advise my children to buy this product? Will I refer my friends?

What are MVC's options:
1. Increase ownership of desired weeks in the Trust - Buy up more desired weeks under the ROFR. MVC has had 12 years to build trust inventory. The unsold inventory placed in the trust at the outset of the points program did not include very many weeks from the better resorts. Beef up the inventory of the good stuff.
2. Motivate owners to deposit their owned weeks - enrolled or not - Please don't blame owners for renting out their weeks. This might be a defensive move to get the vacations they want by renting from others. It might also be a move to gather cash to pay maintenance fees.
3. Stop or limit pilfering inventory for rentals, etc. - Having the right to divert inventory from Interval or the Trust may be detrimental to access by points program participants.
4. Improve the MVC experience now - The Weston/Sheraton purchase is ok but what will it really do for us over the next three years? It's tough to get too excited about what is being added. Will this addition just add more demand for the already limited access to good inventory?

What can or will MVC do to improve your customer experience?

 

[timsi]

Except that the program terms and conditions expressly authorize the Program Manager (MVW) to rent inventory they control while prohibiting owners from running a commercial rental enterprise. Since it's outlined in the program t&c's, unless someone could prove that provision infringes some other external legal or constitutional right, I don't see on what basis legal action could succeed, but I'm not a lawyer. I take no issue with MVW renting what they control, but based on the very limited prime time timeshare inventory I usually see on Marriott.com, the owner rentals I see on Redweek cause me more concern. That IS inventory that MVC allocated for owner use and instead it's being used by some owners to run a prohibited business.

It is possible that the exception for commercial use was intended to prevent an absurd situation where the developer could not rent any part of the resort it had just built, it is obvious they could not sell overnight 100% of the ownership interests. Was the intention to provide the developer with the opportunity to buy pre-owned deeds for next to nothing, rent them or sell them in a way that it is not allowed to the regular owners? I do not know. A second intend was to make sure that the developer would be able to run restaurants, shops etc. but to prevent owners from setting up lemonade stands in their units or at the pool which would lead to chaos of course. When it comes to rentals, what constitutes a commercial activity and where do you draw the line? I do not think it is defined in the resort documents, instead they mention that owners can rent their units. If regular owners manage to make a profit every year, is that commercial or not? Are all the listings referred to by @TravelTime commercial? Which ones are, which ones aren't and by what standard?

Regardless, when it comes to the entities that can perform commercial activities you do not have to look just at the MVC trust documents, but at every resort to see if the “developer” is indeed allowed to rent those units. At Lagunamar for example, according to the Bylaws: “Members and other Occupants […] may not use a Vacation Unit for any commercial purpose.” but “This Section does not apply to and shall not limit the Founding Member or the Property Association.” According to the same Bylaws, “Founding Member means the Westin Cancun SVO Mexico, Inc., a Florida corporation.” Could an entity that is not Westin Cancun SVO Mexico or the Property Association benefit from that exception? You will probably say no. If that is the case, do we know if MVW owns all its Lagunamar Interests through Westin Cancun SVO Mexico? How about the Interests in the Westin Aventura if they are not owned through Westin Cancun SVO Mexico, Inc.? Can they rent those units at a commercial scale? How come the “CONSENT TO MVCD/VSN MASTER AFFILIATION AGREEMENT” signed on August 3rd,2022 is not signed by Westin Cancun SVO Mexico, Inc. but it is signed by VISTANA AVENTURAS, INC.? What is that telling us?

If you look at the notices to convey Westin Mission Hills, Westin Princeville and SVV St Augustine units to the MVC trust you will notice that they were conveyed by "MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation" on behalf of the "developer". At those resorts, is Marriott Ownership Resorts Inc. allowed to perform commercial activities? Maybe yes, maybe not, I do not have access to those documents.

It is also possible that the “developer” doesn’t want too many questions about its rental business and the process used to book the units it controls if it is not done in a manner that is consistent to what is available to the other owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

Marriott has accumulated a lot of rental inventory, up to 25% at some resorts. I am afraid that a selective enforcement of that rule would expose them to legal action.

What do you mean by "Marriott has accumulated ... up to 25%" rental inventory? It can't be that you think Marriott Vacations Worldwide flat-out owns all that inventory because they'd be on the hook for all those MF's. I think that they do gain control of inventory that they don't flat-out own, but, they don't gain that control until/unless the actual owners make it available to Marriott. That can happen if/when owners don't pay their MF's and other financial obligations, or, when owners don't comply with the rules for reserving, or, when owners specifically choose on an annual basis to deposit their inventory into Marriott's rental program. (Granted, none of those are economically-advantageous to the owner but they happen far more often than TUGgers want to believe.)