What do MVC owners think of Abound?

[TravelTime]

You can only “move” points once- banking counts as a move so you can’t rent then and have them go into someone else’s account.
You could book a reservation for someone and rent that.

Great - thank you for this info!

 

[TravelTime]

I think it's far more risky for an owner to run a business *out of* timeshare units than a business of renting out their usage. Owners are granted the rights to rent out their usage in the governing docs but those same docs expressly state in a number of different places and using similar language that the units are for "residential purposes only." It's understandable because if Marriott allowed businesses to be run out of the units they'd effectively be a party to whatever the business might be *and* could potentially be held legally responsible if problems arise with such businesses.

Good point. It is a vacation unit, not a business unit.

 

[TravelTime]

My comment was more of a joke about how undefined "commercial use" is, Theoretically though, say someone was running a barber shop out of their unit. That would mean more traffic to the resort and more traffic in and out of the unit. Thus you also don't have any real knowledge of the people that are coming or going. Perhaps someone is running an import/export business. That too is a problem. The resort and HOA should care what someone does inside their unit, at least to a degree.

I did not think of this. I was thinking of a professional job but that is not running a business.

 

[SueDonJ]

The prevailing view on Tugg seems to be that the developer can get away with almost anything when the rules are vague, can be easily changed and they often mention things like the interpretation is in their "sole discretion".

You keep saying that the rules are vague and Marriott takes advantage of that, to the owners' detriment, in every which way possible. But you don't seem to have any MVW Public Offering Statements in which the rules are explained in detail, and you haven't proven any instances of Marriott mismanagement. Until you do, your escalating suspicion can't be taken seriously.

As for any prevailing view on TUG, you haven't been on TUG long enough to have discerned one! Yep, those of us who have read the POS that came with our timeshare purchases are fairly certain that there is far more protection in them for the developers/managers than for owners. But that doesn't mean we don't care about our ownerships or wouldn't bother questioning the developers/managers if blatant mismanagement were happening. Contrary to your insulting insinuation, it isn't that we're ignorant of our rights or how our timeshares should/do function - it's that we're cognizant of the facts that 1) the developers/managers *also* have rights and 2) them acting in ways that protect their rights/business does not automatically equate to the owners losing theirs.

 

[vol_90]

My comment was more of a joke about how undefined "commercial use" is, Theoretically though, say someone was running a barber shop out of their unit. That would mean more traffic to the resort and more traffic in and out of the unit. Thus you also don't have any real knowledge of the people that are coming or going. Perhaps someone is running an import/export business. That too is a problem. The resort and HOA should care what someone does inside their unit, at least to a degree.

May have to look at banning you for commercial use. Spending too much time running Destination Timeshare from Timeshare Units

One another note, I do believe many here are underestimating how difficult it is to "profit" from timeshares and there cannot be many mega-renters as the initial cost, maintenance fees, profit margins and payback is challenging with many better investment options out there. As of today we would likely be considered a mega renter. This is because we are accumulating a retirement timeshare portfolio while still working, have an income to support the purchases but limited by the number of vacation days per year. We still use ~12 weeks per year but the rest are used looking for high point value, high demand weeks to cover maintenance fees and yes profit. We expect to reduce our renting activities in 2025

 

[timsi]

You keep saying that the rules are vague and Marriott takes advantage of that, to the owners' detriment, in every which way possible. But you don't seem to have any MVW Public Offering Statements in which the rules are explained in detail, and you haven't proven any instances of Marriott mismanagement. Until you do, your escalating suspicion can't be taken seriously.

As for any prevailing view on TUG, you haven't been on TUG long enough to have discerned one! Yep, those of us who have read the POS that came with our timeshare purchases are fairly certain that there is far more protection in them for the developers/managers than for owners. But that doesn't mean we don't care about our ownerships or wouldn't bother questioning the developers/managers if blatant mismanagement were happening. Contrary to your insulting insinuation, it isn't that we're ignorant of our rights or how our timeshares should/do function - it's that we're cognizant of the fact that the developers/managers *also* have rights.

I never insinuated that you or others do not how your ownerships work (I know the opposite to be true) but it does seem many have overlooked the rental business of the developer and how it may impact the inventory because in the end they are also the ones in charge with the reservation system. For Lagunamar I put the numbers of the inventory owned by the developer (my understanding). I do not think I have seen similar comments about any other resort, but I may be wrong.


Concerning how vague some rules are, I guess you have not looked at the Abound Exchange Procedures in detail, it is 33 pages long and "sole discretion" appears 64 times.

When it comes to the inventory, "Exchange Company shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservations and use of the Accommodations and is authorized to demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Program Members through the Program in its sole discretion".

Maybe you can explain how exactly this is going to play out. Why do they need to anticipate, demand balance or rent when the deposits and the bookings are supposed to match perfectly and, we are told, not affect any week of inventory for the resort owners who will choose not to deposit in Abound. Why does it have to be in their sole discretion? If this is not written to avoid any accountability, I do not know what it is. I can find a lot more examples if you want.

 

[timsi]

My comment was more of a joke about how undefined "commercial use" is, Theoretically though, say someone was running a barber shop out of their unit. That would mean more traffic to the resort and more traffic in and out of the unit. Thus you also don't have any real knowledge of the people that are coming or going. Perhaps someone is running an import/export business. That too is a problem. The resort and HOA should care what someone does inside their unit, at least to a degree.

A barber shop or worse, a massage parlor.

 

[JIMinNC]

As a trust owner, do you get in your annual report a detailed view of the inventory?

No. Just the annual budget income/expense statements that are used to approve the annual budget and annual assessment amounts.

 

[winger]

A barber shop or worse, a massage parlor.

Oh similar type of 'business' opened up at a brand new condo complex in an up and coming area where we lived before. Ladies coming and going, with lots of guy 'friends' visiting at all times of the day. And so this with four blocks of police HQ!

 

[timsi]

You keep saying that the rules are vague and Marriott takes advantage of that, to the owners' detriment, in every which way possible. But you don't seem to have any MVW Public Offering Statements in which the rules are explained in detail, and you haven't proven any instances of Marriott mismanagement. Until you do, your escalating suspicion can't be taken seriously.

Are the rules vague or in conflict with other rules? Let's dive a bit deeper.

To demonstrate how well defined are the Abound rules, can you say with certainty that a deposit into Abound made by a WKV owner in October 2023 hasn’t already altered the inventory available few months before (in March 2023) to the resort owners who want to reserve a March 2024 week? In March 2023, 12 months before check in, a Marriott owner who uses banked points from 2022 can have access to the March 2024 inventory based on rights “borrowed” from WKV owners who have not even deposited yet and have 8 more months to do so. Remember, Abound would request inventory from Vistana based on ”anticipated future demand” and it is in its “sole discretion”. Surgical precision, no less.

How is this not in conflict with the Vistana rule: “The Home Reservation Period must permit a VOI Owner to request a reservation, without competition from anyone who does not own a Vacation Ownership Interest for a Vacation Unit that is the same type and season as the VOI Owner’s unit type and season”. You notice you have to own the VOI, not just to have the right to reserve the period or other rights that Abound may claim would be transmitted with a deposit.

 

[CPNY]

Are the rules vague or in conflict with other rules? Let's dive a bit deeper.

To demonstrate how well defined are the Abound rules, can you say with certainty that a deposit into Abound made by a WKV owner in October 2023 hasn’t already altered the inventory available few months before (in March 2023) to the resort owners who want to reserve a March 2024 week? In March 2023, 12 months before check in, a Marriott owner who uses banked points from 2022 can have access to the March 2024 inventory based on rights “borrowed” from WKV owners who have not even deposited yet and have 8 more months to do so. Remember, Abound would request inventory from Vistana based on ”anticipated future demand” and it is in its “sole discretion”. Surgical precision, no less.

How is this not in conflict with the Vistana rule: “The Home Reservation Period must permit a VOI Owner to request a reservation, without competition from anyone who does not own a Vacation Ownership Interest for a Vacation Unit that is the same type and season as the VOI Owner’s unit type and season”. You notice you have to own the VOI, not just to have the right to reserve the period or other rights that Abound may claim would be transmitted with a deposit.

The anticipated future demand verbiage has been in the CCR’s well before Abound. I believe they can take inventory to put into Interval for anticipated demand. IIRC this takes place at 8 months, but I’m not certain. I’m assuming this anticipated demand is because Vistana owners have until 12/31 of that use year to bank in interval.

If Vistana inventory is put into Abound Exchange directly by an owner converting their unit before their home resort period and Marriott waits until 8 months to fund the Abound exchange based on anticipated demand then no rules have been broken. However, it has been stated that a vistana owner must elect to convert in order for a vistana unit to show up in Abound, so are we sure that Marriott will even fund the abound exchange in anticipation? If they over estimate and more vistana units are in Abound than Vistana owners that actually converted, then I’d say rules have been broken. Or at the very least, Marriott just flat out lied.

I understand your concern with regard to this verbiage. It is vague and allows Marriott to do what they want with inventory and use the “anticipated demand” as a reason to put a bit more into Abound than leaving in the VSN. But I wouldn’t worry too much yet, I’d wait to see what home resort period inventory brings before being concerned. I’d be more concerned with VSN inventory at 8 months. That may be decimated

We are seeing so much availability in the VSN at 8 months and less this past year. This is because Marriott is taking less inventory for their rental business and making it available to owners due to the COVID backup of star options. This will not continue and in the next year and beyond, inventory in the VSN will be much more competitive as it was pre COVID. Many will blame Abound, but in reality, it will be Marriott funding it’s rental business. This is why I don’t mind owners who are mega renters. Marriott themselves are the ultimate mega renter. Why is it ok for them to be a mega renter but not an owner who shelled out a ton of money to buy weeks/points?

 

[timsi]

The anticipated future demand verbiage has been in the CCR’s well before Abound. I believe they can take inventory to put into Interval for anticipated demand. IIRC this takes place at 8 months, but I’m not certain. I’m assuming this anticipated demand is because Vistana owners have until 12/31 of that use year to bank in interval.

If Vistana inventory is put into Abound Exchange directly by an owner converting their unit before their home resort period and Marriott waits until 8 months to fund the Abound exchange based on anticipated demand then no rules have been broken. However, it has been stated that a vistana owner must elect to convert in order for a vistana unit to show up in Abound, so are we sure that Marriott will even fund the abound exchange in anticipation? If they over estimate and more vistana units are in Abound than Vistana owners that actually converted, then I’d say rules have been broken. Or at the very least, Marriott just flat out lied.

I understand your concern with regard to this verbiage. It is vague and allows Marriott to do what they want with inventory and use the “anticipated demand” as a reason to put a bit more into Abound than leaving in the VSN. But I wouldn’t worry too much yet, I’d wait to see what home resort period inventory brings before being concerned. I’d be more concerned with VSN inventory at 8 months. That may be decimated

We are seeing so much availability in the VSN at 8 months and less this past year. This is because Marriott is taking less inventory for their rental business and making it available to owners due to the COVID backup of star options. This will not continue and in the next year and beyond, inventory in the VSN will be much more competitive as it was pre COVID. Many will blame Abound, but in reality, it will be Marriott funding it’s rental business. This is why I don’t mind owners who are mega renters. Marriott themselves are the ultimate mega renter. Why is it ok for them to be a mega renter but not an owner who shelled out a ton of money to buy weeks/points?

Did you notice the clever verbiage? Abound doesn’t merely have to anticipate deposits, anticipating demand is good enough to ask for more inventory during the home resort reservation period. In practice, if they allocate to Abound 100 units at 12 months and they are booked right away, that could be evidence they are in demand and good enough to ask Vistana for more units! This gives them such broad powers beyond anyone’s control, all done internally and without any public visibility, I do not see how they can claim this is not in violation of the Home Resort Reservation Period rule.

 

[Dean]

Are the rules vague or in conflict with other rules? Let's dive a bit deeper.

To demonstrate how well defined are the Abound rules, can you say with certainty that a deposit into Abound made by a WKV owner in October 2023 hasn’t already altered the inventory available few months before (in March 2023) to the resort owners who want to reserve a March 2024 week? In March 2023, 12 months before check in, a Marriott owner who uses banked points from 2022 can have access to the March 2024 inventory based on rights “borrowed” from WKV owners who have not even deposited yet and have 8 more months to do so. Remember, Abound would request inventory from Vistana based on ”anticipated future demand” and it is in its “sole discretion”. Surgical precision, no less.

How is this not in conflict with the Vistana rule: “The Home Reservation Period must permit a VOI Owner to request a reservation, without competition from anyone who does not own a Vacation Ownership Interest for a Vacation Unit that is the same type and season as the VOI Owner’s unit type and season”. You notice you have to own the VOI, not just to have the right to reserve the period or other rights that Abound may claim would be transmitted with a deposit.

Anticipated demand is normal for such situations including reservations, rentals and even II deposits. It guards against last minute decisions affecting the systems as dramatically and allows for better overall planning. We have to trust they don't do so beyond the limits of what will end up being needed in the end and they don't take all the best spots up front. I can understand concern in this area but haven't seen evidence MVC is abusing this option historically. Ultimately we don't have any way of checking up on it though.

Am I understanding your point on reservation for MX that you feel the rights to those weeks cannot be transferred to MVC by election of points by those members and the potential reservations for any remaining weeks cannot be made during the priority period? That would basically leave weeks sitting there unused during that time frame. From what you posted on the thread you referenced above, I do not think one can definitely make that statement if this is what you're saying. In addition, it's extremely likely there is wording in the documents that says the management company has complete control over the reservation process.

 

[JIMinNC]

This is why I don’t mind owners who are mega renters. Marriott themselves are the ultimate mega renter. Why is it ok for them to be a mega renter but not an owner who shelled out a ton of money to buy weeks/points?

The obvious answer to your question is because the program terms and conditions are clear that the developer/program manager has the explicit right to rent inventory they either build or reacquire in some way, until it is resold. The developer/program manager can't use their inventory to take a vacation. Rental (or using the inventory for preview packages to boost sales) is how they can generate a return on that invested capital until they convert it into a sale.

On the other hand, while owners who purchase VOIs are allowed to rent or use, they are expressly prohibited by the CCRs from running anything that could reasonably be construed as a commercial enterprise. So a mega renter who rarely, if ever, uses most of the weeks they own would clearly be running afoul of the rules - if MVC chose to enforce those prohibitions. I don't rent my ownership, but I have no issue with owners who do so when they can't use their week or to offset their fees on other weeks they use. In those cases, the rental can reasonably be construed as being incidental to their primary purpose of owning for vacations.

Admittedly, all the information we know about the existence of mega renters is anecdotal, with the possible exception of a handful of TUGgers who are specifically known to own a lot of weeks primarily for rental purposes. So how big of a problem is this practice, really? We don't truly know. All I know is there is a perception among owners in Maui and Aruba that it does increase competition for prime weeks and views. The reason we Maui owners are often more concerned with mega renters than the weeks MVC rents, is there usually seems to be a lot more prime Maui weeks available for rent on Redweek than there is on Marriott.com.

 

[timsi]

Anticipated demand is normal for such situations including reservations, rentals and even II deposits. It guards against last minute decisions affecting the systems as dramatically and allows for better overall planning. We have to trust they don't do so beyond the limits of what will end up being needed in the end and they don't take all the best spots up front. I can understand concern in this area but haven't seen evidence MVC is abusing this option historically. Ultimately we don't have any way of checking up on it though.

Am I understanding your point on reservation for MX that you feel the rights to those weeks cannot be transferred to MVC by election of points by those members and the potential reservations for any remaining weeks cannot be made during the priority period? That would basically leave weeks sitting there unused during that time frame. From what you posted on the thread you referenced above, I do not think one can definitely make that statement if this is what you're saying. In addition, it's extremely likely there is wording in the documents that says the management company has complete control over the reservation process.

We must look at the existing rules, not just at what is convenient for the developer and what suits their business model. A simple principle is that new rules cannot conflict with the existing ones. If they do not like the existing rules, they can go through the regular processes and change them. If they can’t even do that when they are building a new program, I do not see how they can ask anyone for trust, especially knowing what is happening in the sales meetings. Sales, inventory management, their own rentals, exchange services are all in the hands the same company.

The rules are in place to protect owners (the little protection we have left). No, it is not normal to base the inventory on “demand” if that conflicts with other rules, but they can “anticipate” all the demand they want when the home resort reservation period ends.

 

[Fasttr]

We must look at the existing rules, not just at what is convenient for the developer and what suits their business model. A simple principle is that new rules cannot conflict with the existing ones. If they do not like the existing rules, they can go through the regular processes and change them. If they can’t even do that when they are building a new program, I do not see how they can ask anyone for trust, especially knowing what is happening in the sales meetings. Sales, inventory management, their own rentals, exchange services are all in the hands the same company.

The rules are in place to protect owners (the little protection we have left). No, it is not normal to base the inventory on “demand” if that conflicts with other rules, but they can “anticipate” all the demand they want when the home resort reservation period ends.

What’s your end game? Just whine about it here, or do you have plans beyond that?

 

[timsi]

Admittedly, all the information we know about the existence of mega renters is anecdotal, with the possible exception of a handful of TUGgers who are specifically known to own a lot of weeks primarily for rental purposes. So how big of a problem is this practice, really? We don't truly know. All I know is there is a perception among owners in Maui and Aruba that it does increase competition for prime weeks and views. The reason we Maui owners are often more concerned with mega renters than the weeks MVC rents, is there usually seems to be a lot more prime Maui weeks available for rent on Redweek than there is on Marriott.com.

How big is the rental business of the developer? I showed the numbers I had for Lagunamar, everyone can ask for the auditor's reports for the resorts they own. That does not mean that we do not know a lot already, according to the public disclosures, the company has inventory of about 700 million dollars (2021). At Lagunamar, the "seller" (developer) pays about 5 million dollars in maintenance fees for a total resort budget of 23 millions. That is very significant. I do not know what it means for the other resorts but if you multiply 5 millions by 100 (resorts) you will get a number that is not far from the one they disclosed for the entire company. What other details do you need to realize that what we do not know does not change the magnitude of their rental business?

 

[timsi]

What’s your end game? Just whine about it here, or do you have plans beyond that?

Shouldn’t matter more to you if the company we are giving thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year could not (allegedly) follow its own rules?

 

[TravelTime]

My numbers may be wrong but could it be that 19% to 21% of MOC weeks are being rented out?

396 rental weeks MOC
249 rental weeks MOC Lahaina/Napili
645 total rental weeks (data from Redweek, could be more but I only included 2 of the rental categories on Redweek bc I want sure if it the other listings were included in these totals)

Assumpiton 1
x7000 points per week (assumption for average?)
Approx 4.5 million rental points (approx?)

Assumption 2
X6000 points per week
3.9 Million

Total points according to Jim’s chart
Maui Ocean Club........................11.9 million
MOC-Sequel................8.7 million (I do not know what sequel means but including it in total, otherwise % rentals goes up)
21 million points (approx?)

19% to 21% rentals (approx ?)

If my numbers are correct, regardless of whether it is a mega renter, occasional owner rental, Marriott rental or repeat owner rental for weeks never used, 19% to 21% (or thereabouts) is a large percentage of Maui Ocean Club weeks/points taken off the rentals for Abound points.

1) Are my assumptions close to correct?
2) If so, what do folks think about the reduction in points/weeks available for MOC points in Abound?
- I know first response will be these are owner weeks and they are entitled to rent them. But any other thoughts?

 

[ocdb8r]

How is this not in conflict with the Vistana rule: “The Home Reservation Period must permit a VOI Owner to request a reservation, without competition from anyone who does not own a Vacation Ownership Interest for a Vacation Unit that is the same type and season as the VOI Owner’s unit type and season”. You notice you have to own the VOI, not just to have the right to reserve the period or other rights that Abound may claim would be transmitted with a deposit.

Please stop just making things up. The fact you put this in quotation marks (as if it is a direct quotation from the "rules:") and BOLDED a word that does not exist in the Lagunamar bylaws just proves how totally out of control you are with these arguments. I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you repeatedly make it clear you have no interest in a balanced and honest discussion of what the actual words written actually mean.

I know I'm wasting my breath here. You will do as you have continued to do for months....find another thread to post the SAME tired arguments or start a new one when people get too bored to even bother reading or responding.

 

[TravelTime]

Maybe we should ignore responding to Timsi and block him (like I have). I only glance at the replies and it seems like folks think what he says is bogus and repetitive comments.

 

[ocdb8r]

My numbers may be wrong but could it be that 19% to 21% of MOC weeks are being rented out?

Couldn't your numbers be rather skewed if a significant portion of the Redweek rentals are not weeks reserved using points, but weeks owners renting the actual weeks they own? I think the total points according to Jim's chart is just that - total weeks in the trust valued for points (so using it as the denominator would be skewed by weeks not in the trust...). I could be wrong, but that was my first reaction to the overall math.

 

[ocdb8r]

Maybe we should ignore responding to Timsi and block him (like I have). I only glance at the replies and it seems like folks think what he says is bogus and repetitive comments.

Agreed and I've tried....but now his posts litter threads all over the Vistana and MVC Boards. Hard to weed through them to get to a reasonable conversation to be had.

 

[TravelTime]

Couldn't your numbers be rather skewed if a significant portion of the Redweek rentals are not weeks reserved using points, but weeks owners renting the actual weeks they own? I think the total points according to Jim's chart is just that - total weeks in the trust valued for points (so using it as the denominator would be skewed by weeks not in the trust...). I could be wrong, but that was my first reaction to the overall math.

Good point. Maybe it is skewed. It was just an attempt to get at the total pointsrented. I do not know what the true denominator is. The correct denominater would be the total points attributed to weeks owned, not points in the trust. It could by more or less than 20%. Does anyone know how many total weeks exist outside of the trust?

 

[JIMinNC]

How big is the rental business of the developer? I showed the numbers I had for Lagunamar, everyone can ask for the auditor's reports for the resorts they own. That does not mean that we do not know a lot already, according to the public disclosures, the company has inventory of about 700 million dollars (2021). At Lagunamar, the "seller" (developer) pays about 5 million dollars in maintenance fees for a total resort budget of 23 millions. That is very significant. I do not know what it means for the other resorts but if you multiply 5 millions by 100 (resorts) you will get a number that is not far from the one they disclosed for the entire company. What other details do you need to realize that what we do not know does not change the magnitude of their rental business?

Yes they are a big company and own a lot of inventory, so they have a big rental business. What would you prefer they do with the inventory on their books? Just sit on it and have underutilized capital?

Here are two slides from their June 2002 Investor Day. The first shows Rentals contribute 15% of their total EBITDA. So it's a significant slice, but the two pieces of EBITDA related to Sales - Development and Financing make up almost half of EBITDA, and Management and Exchange contributes a little over a third. And as I'll get into a little later in the third slide below, not all of that 15% might come from rental of timeshare VOIs:

It's also important to note that they currently have much more inventory on their books than even THEY want. They acquired a lot through the acquisitions of ILG and Welk and are trying to reduce the inventory they carry over the next few years. They currently have over $1.1 billion of unsold inventory, which represents about 5 years of sell-through. Their goal is to reduce that to around $760-790 million by 2025, representing their target of 1.5-2 years of inventory on hand. They have existing commitments for $175 million in new-build inventory (Waikiki and maybe a few other projects where they still have not taken all the inventory their development partner has built), and they plan to reacquire $595-640 million annually to fund the Trusts.

You also have to consider that a possibly significant portion of their corporate rental revenue (the 15% in the first slide above) may not come from the timeshare inventory they own. They also generate rental income through Interval International (Getaways and other affiliate rental programs that Interval has with business partners and affinity groups) and through MVW's ownership of Aqua-Aston Hospitality that manages 27 resort hotel properties, many in Hawaii, including some Marriott and Hilton resort hotels. I do need to note that I'm not 100% sure whether that rental revenue is accounted for as a part of Management and Exchange EBITDA (the 36% in slide #1) or is consolidated into the Rental category along with rental of VOIs. That info may be broken out in their annual 10-K, but I haven't tried to dig through those numbers to find out. I'm already spending way too much time on this conversation!