What do MVC owners think of Abound?

[hcarman]

I think I’m tired of hearing about the labor pains and want to see the baby.

I’m so worn out over the speculation and what the latest released tid-bit means for owners, or what some sales person told someone on an owner update, that my heads about ready to explode.

In the end nothing really matters. It’s going to be what it’s going to be and we can’t really begin to digest the program or dissect the nuances until we actually see it and can take it out for a test drive

I have to agree. I think for the last two years all I have been hearing about is being able to book Vistana properties with Destination Club points. First it was rolling out in April of 2021, then we were told June of 2022, then it was end of July, then September - all of those have come and gone. Guess we will believe it when we see it but I am sure website will crash for days when that day finally arrives.

 

[CPNY]

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.

This is what we are all being told. In reality, it’s no different than an owner using their ownership at their home resort. As of now the only way the VSN will be depleted of inventory is if MVW makes the abound program attractive to the VSN owner so they convert their ownership out of Vistana and into Abound that year.

 

[hcarman]

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.

A few months back I had a sales presentation where they encouraged me to buy more points and become Chairman’s Club - just so I could use these points for rentals to offset my fees. But I don’t subscribe to that - I don’t want to be dependent on rentals (just look at Covid times). But I am sure many do and they are able to then book at the 13 month window pretty much anything they want so they have prime weeks for rentals. Our other vacation club was having so many issues with lack of inventory due to rentals that they capped how much you could rent without paying guest fees and if they think you are a commercial renter they cancel reservation - but their contracts are set up differently. I am not taking a position one way or the other - just stating it is common practice for sales to encourage this and that some clubs have tightened up the rental policies due to owners complaining about too many big time renters and no inventory for owners that want to use the time themselves. I would guess there may be a lot of inventory that opens at the 60 day out mark due to rentals getting cancelled if not spoken for.

 

[Dean]

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?

It sounds like you're looking at this more from a personal and emotional perspective while I'd look at it as more of a black and white reality perspective. The reality and legalities are that there are no guarantees or even promises of availability, any assumptions otherwise simply reflect the lack of knowledge of how a floating system works. I'd be surprised if 75% of the membership as a whole get their first choice and skeptical that 75% get anything in their top 3 choices for points Or floating weeks through it's likely better for weeks than points. Part of it is understanding realities. I'm sure TUG members do far better than the overall membership. I think you're reading too much into this. Their main goal is simply profit whether it be sales or management. If the issues you bring up affect profit sufficiently, they will address it as best they can weighing cost vs potential benefit. One of the benefits a developer has selling points is that every buyer has options and timing in mind, usually which the system can't handle and MVC knows that up front yet they will still sell to you even when they know your plans are not realistic. Statistically for example, a buyer may be looking at HHI 4th of July but most won't get it or even the week before or after. The ones that learn the system, play the game and are proactive will do better than most but at the expense of everyone else. As long as systems like Westgate, Wyndham and Bluegreen can continue to sell at retail prices for something you can get almost free privately, I don't expect MVC, DVC, Hilton or the like to be overly limited due to the concerns you raise. Remember most timeshare are bought not sold. Would any of us advise a single person off the street to buy retail, the answer is no with extremely limited and specific examples to the contrary. Once sold, MVC really cares even less as they're going to get their fees and they've already made their money on that item.

This is what we are all being told. In reality, it’s no different than an owner using their ownership at their home resort. As of now the only way the VSN will be depleted of inventory is if MVW makes the abound program attractive to the VSN owner so they convert their ownership out of Vistana and into Abound that year.

In reality this is a series of systems linked together. Basically it's a user who owns X and uses X specific to what they own (such as a floating week) and it's limitations and if not, they are an exchanger, wether it's the FL club, elected points or trust points, etc. One of the problems with trust points is there is no home resort so they're in permanent exchange status and in many ways, one doesn't actually own anything. I know people look at it like they own across the system and should be treated the same, or almost the same, as an owner at a given resort but that is not reality IMO. Every member that moves from one category to another will affect demand along with availability so in theory the demand for each resort and option will roughly be the same before and after that person moves from one group to another (say weeks to points). But there may be some minor differences in demand as one moves from an owner to an exchanger within MVC.

A few months back I had a sales presentation where they encouraged me to buy more points and become Chairman’s Club - just so I could use these points for rentals to offset my fees. But I don’t subscribe to that - I don’t want to be dependent on rentals (just look at Covid times). But I am sure many do and they are able to then book at the 13 month window pretty much anything they want so they have prime weeks for rentals. Our other vacation club was having so many issues with lack of inventory due to rentals that they capped how much you could rent without paying guest fees and if they think you are a commercial renter they cancel reservation - but their contracts are set up differently. I am not taking a position one way or the other - just stating it is common practice for sales to encourage this and that some clubs have tightened up the rental policies due to owners complaining about too many big time renters and no inventory for owners that want to use the time themselves. I would guess there may be a lot of inventory that opens at the 60 day out mark due to rentals getting cancelled if not spoken for.

There has always been a disconnect between sales, usage and the actual legalities in place. Specific to this situation, if sales encourages purchases to rent and management labels that person a commercial rental, I would not be surprised and would feel the member should have better understood what they were getting into by reading the actual legal paperwork. I do not believe that anyone who gets to simply Chairman's club is going to be afoul of the commercial rental issue if they have any personal usage. But for those like myself, who own quite a bit more, we could easily get to that level if we routinely rented a significant portion of what we owned.

 

[timsi]

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.)

You should look at the details of the resorts you own to see what I mean. At Westin Lagunamar, according to the auditor's report

"NOTE 9 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the amount of maintenance fees assessed to the Seller was
$5,396,116 and $4,804,051, respectively. "

I believe this is not very far from 25% of the resort budget. At other resorts, especially those that do not rent very well, the numbers may be different.

 

[JIMinNC]

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?

I can't argue with any of this, and customer satisfaction is key to any business's success. In their investor presentations, MVW regularly quotes customer satisfaction scores north of 95%.

As I've said repeatedly, I think acquiring attractive Trust inventory is one factor MVC considers when determining whether to reacquire inventory through ROFR, they just seem to have a maximum price they are willing to pay based on guidance from their finance people on Cost of Inventory targets.

If you look at the Trust conveyances that @dioxide45 kept track of in this thread (Recorded Trust Documents) from 2010 through 2016, you can see how one resort that is famously underrepresented in the Trust, Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head, grew in the Trust. In November 2010, there was almost none:

November 2010
Timberlodge...............11,022,750
Ko Olina......................9,208,750
Newport Coast Villas.....8,643,000
Crystal Shores.............8,021,250
Oceana Palms..............5,706,000
MOC-Sequel................4,352,070
Kalanipu'u...................3,529,500 (Kauai Lagoons)
Canyon Villas..............3,105,500
Willow Ridge................2,848,500
MOC..........................2,410,750
Shadow Ridge..............1,475,750
Grande Chateau...........1,378,250
Ocean Watch................992,000
Grand Vista...................774,750
DSV II..........................333,750
Harbour Lake.................238,000
Lakeshore Reserve..........153,750
Fairway Villas.................110,000
Cypress Harbour...............90,750
Ocean Point....................71,000
Barony Beach Club............69,750
Mountain Side..................68,500
Summit Watch.................45,000
Sunset Point...................44,250
Sabal Palms.....................39,000
Royal Palms.....................35,000
Manor Club Sequel............32,000
Manor Club.....................30,000
Harbour Club...................17,250
DSV I............................16,000
Doral.............................13,000
Grande Ocean.................. 9,000 (0.013%)
Heritage Club.................. 7,500

Grand Total....................64,892,320

Over the next six years, MVC obviously bought up a lot of Grande Ocean inventory, as you can see from how Grande Ocean rose in the rankings in this list from December 2016:

December 2016
Grand Chateau..........................52,703,750
Ko'Olina...............................30,045,750
Newport Coast..........................29,394,500
Oceana Palms...........................23,391,250
Grande Vista...........................19,272,750
Kalanipu'u.............................18,293,500
Timber Lodge...........................17,677,250
Shadow Ridge II........................13,429,500
Maui Ocean Club........................11,981,250
Ritz Carlton Club - Vail...............11,813,500
The Mayflower..........................10,748,750
Crystal Shores..........................9,598,250
Cypress Harbour.........................9,156,000
Maui Ocean Club Sequel..................8,773,500
Ocean Pointe............................8,588,000
Harbour Lake............................8,506,500
Shadow Ridge............................8,053,750
Desert Springs II.......................7,686,750
Canyon Villas...........................5,820,500
Kauai Beach Club........................5,204,250
Ocean Watch.............................4,656,250
Willow Ridge Lodge......................4,552,000
Waiohai.................................4,446,000
Grand Residence Lake Tahoe..............4,322,250
Desert Springs I........................4,299,000
BeachPlace Towers.......................3,734,000
Barony Beach Club.......................3,339,750
Grande Ocean............................3,159,250 (0.83%)
Fairway Villas..........................2,827,750
Ritz Carlton Club - San Francisco.......2,678,000
Frenchman's Cove........................2,553,750
Surfwatch...............................2,532,500
Villas at Doral.........................2,423,750
Mountain Side...........................2,249,250
Royal Palms.............................2,134,750
Lakeshore Reserve.......................2,021,000
Summit Watch............................1,996,000
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas...........1,841,250
Legends Edge............................1,588,500
Manor Club..............................1,558,500
Sabal Palms.............................1,545,500
Ritz Carlton Club - Lake Tahoe..........1,462,750
Mountain Valley Lodge...................1,248,750
Manor Club Sequel.......................1,083,000
Streamside..............................1,007,500
Monarch at Sea Pines......................995,750
Imperial Palms............................714,500
Harbour Pointe............................665,000
Harbour Club..............................303,750
Heritage Club.............................267,500
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas Suites......243,250
Sunset Pointe.............................159,500

Grand Total...........................378,749,500

Grande Ocean is still probably under-represented in the Trust versus demand, but in the six years from late 2010 to late 2016, MVC reacquired MGO weeks worth over 3,150,000 points. I'm not sure what the average point value of those reacquired weeks were for GO, but let's say it was 3,500 to 4,000. That would mean over six years, MVC reacquired around 800 MGO weeks. Could they have reacquired even more if they had been more aggressive at matching higher offers? Sure. But, as I've said repeatedly, they have to meet their inventory cost targets and they don't have unlimited dollars for ROFR. Those dollars also have to be spread all around the network.

Since no one has kept track of the conveyances since 2016, we don't know what the picture looks like today, but I suspect MGO has continued to grow in the Trust.

 

[JIMinNC]

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.

We keep going 'round-and-'round on these issues, but I think the big difference driving our perspectives is you seem to have a basic distrust of Marriott's motives whereas I don't. My experience with them over the last 8 years has been almost all positive, so I have no reason to think they are doing less honorable things with their inventory. If they are, it hasn't hurt me. I also consider pursuing a healthy profit margin to be an honorable motive, so it's logical that I would have fewer concerns than you do. We look at the current situation from different perspectives and through differing lenses.

 

[timsi]

I can't argue with any of this, and customer satisfaction is key to any business's success. In their investor presentations, MVW regularly quotes customer satisfaction scores north of 95%.

Have you seen the actual questions? Who knows, maybe 95% of the owners may be satisfied with the resorts rather than with the ownership.
95% satisfaction seems unusually high for anything, let alone timeshares. If the average delinquency rate is 2-4% (I can't imagine those who can't pay their bills are "happy with their ownerships), that would leave very few unhappy owners.

 

[timsi]

We keep going 'round-and-'round on these issues, but I think the big difference driving our perspectives is you seem to have a basic distrust of Marriott's motives whereas I don't. My experience with them over the last 8 years has been almost all positive, so I have no reason to think they are doing less honorable things with their inventory. If they are, it hasn't hurt me. I also consider pursuing a healthy profit margin to be an honorable motive, so it's logical that I would have fewer concerns than you do. We look at the current situation from different perspectives and through differing lenses.

I tried to stay away from characterizing your comments, but can I now say that yours are so unusually positive that someone thought you worked for Marriott? I know it is not the case.

 

[JIMinNC]

I tried to stay away from characterizing your comments, but can I now say that yours are so unusually positive that someone thought you worked for Marriott? I know it is not the case.

I'm positive because my experience as an owner has been largely positive. I have no reason to be suspicious, at least for now. If my experience changes, so will my perspective.

 

[JIMinNC]

Have you seen the actual questions? Who knows, maybe 95% of the owners may be satisfied with the resorts rather than with the ownership.
95% satisfaction seems unusually high for anything, let alone timeshares. If the average delinquency rate is 2-4% (I can't imagine those who can't pay their bills are "happy with their ownerships), that would leave very few unhappy owners.

Valid point, although since 60% to 70% of their Sales are to existing owners, that would imply generally high overall owner satisfaction. I think they understand unhappy owners won't buy more.

 

[timsi]

I can't argue with any of this, and customer satisfaction is key to any business's success. In their investor presentations, MVW regularly quotes customer satisfaction scores north of 95%.

As I've said repeatedly, I think acquiring attractive Trust inventory is one factor MVC considers when determining whether to reacquire inventory through ROFR, they just seem to have a maximum price they are willing to pay based on guidance from their finance people on Cost of Inventory targets.

If you look at the Trust conveyances that @dioxide45 kept track of in this thread (Recorded Trust Documents) from 2010 through 2016, you can see how one resort that is famously underrepresented in the Trust, Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head, grew in the Trust. In November 2010, there was almost none:

November 2010
Timberlodge...............11,022,750
Ko Olina......................9,208,750
Newport Coast Villas.....8,643,000
Crystal Shores.............8,021,250
Oceana Palms..............5,706,000
MOC-Sequel................4,352,070
Kalanipu'u...................3,529,500 (Kauai Lagoons)
Canyon Villas..............3,105,500
Willow Ridge................2,848,500
MOC..........................2,410,750
Shadow Ridge..............1,475,750
Grande Chateau...........1,378,250
Ocean Watch................992,000
Grand Vista...................774,750
DSV II..........................333,750
Harbour Lake.................238,000
Lakeshore Reserve..........153,750
Fairway Villas.................110,000
Cypress Harbour...............90,750
Ocean Point....................71,000
Barony Beach Club............69,750
Mountain Side..................68,500
Summit Watch.................45,000
Sunset Point...................44,250
Sabal Palms.....................39,000
Royal Palms.....................35,000
Manor Club Sequel............32,000
Manor Club.....................30,000
Harbour Club...................17,250
DSV I............................16,000
Doral.............................13,000
Grande Ocean.................. 9,000 (0.013%)
Heritage Club.................. 7,500

Grand Total....................64,892,320

Over the next six years, MVC obviously bought up a lot of Grande Ocean inventory, as you can see from how Grande Ocean rose in the rankings in this list from December 2016:

December 2016
Grand Chateau..........................52,703,750
Ko'Olina...............................30,045,750
Newport Coast..........................29,394,500
Oceana Palms...........................23,391,250
Grande Vista...........................19,272,750
Kalanipu'u.............................18,293,500
Timber Lodge...........................17,677,250
Shadow Ridge II........................13,429,500
Maui Ocean Club........................11,981,250
Ritz Carlton Club - Vail...............11,813,500
The Mayflower..........................10,748,750
Crystal Shores..........................9,598,250
Cypress Harbour.........................9,156,000
Maui Ocean Club Sequel..................8,773,500
Ocean Pointe............................8,588,000
Harbour Lake............................8,506,500
Shadow Ridge............................8,053,750
Desert Springs II.......................7,686,750
Canyon Villas...........................5,820,500
Kauai Beach Club........................5,204,250
Ocean Watch.............................4,656,250
Willow Ridge Lodge......................4,552,000
Waiohai.................................4,446,000
Grand Residence Lake Tahoe..............4,322,250
Desert Springs I........................4,299,000
BeachPlace Towers.......................3,734,000
Barony Beach Club.......................3,339,750
Grande Ocean............................3,159,250 (0.83%)
Fairway Villas..........................2,827,750
Ritz Carlton Club - San Francisco.......2,678,000
Frenchman's Cove........................2,553,750
Surfwatch...............................2,532,500
Villas at Doral.........................2,423,750
Mountain Side...........................2,249,250
Royal Palms.............................2,134,750
Lakeshore Reserve.......................2,021,000
Summit Watch............................1,996,000
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas...........1,841,250
Legends Edge............................1,588,500
Manor Club..............................1,558,500
Sabal Palms.............................1,545,500
Ritz Carlton Club - Lake Tahoe..........1,462,750
Mountain Valley Lodge...................1,248,750
Manor Club Sequel.......................1,083,000
Streamside..............................1,007,500
Monarch at Sea Pines......................995,750
Imperial Palms............................714,500
Harbour Pointe............................665,000
Harbour Club..............................303,750
Heritage Club.............................267,500
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas Suites......243,250
Sunset Pointe.............................159,500

Grand Total...........................378,749,500

Grande Ocean is still probably under-represented in the Trust versus demand, but in the six years from late 2010 to late 2016, MVC reacquired MGO weeks worth over 3,150,000 points. I'm not sure what the average point value of those reacquired weeks were for GO, but let's say it was 3,500 to 4,000. That would mean over six years, MVC reacquired around 800 MGO weeks. Could they have reacquired even more if they had been more aggressive at matching higher offers? Sure. But, as I've said repeatedly, they have to meet their inventory cost targets and they don't have unlimited dollars for ROFR. Those dollars also have to be spread all around the network.

Since no one has kept track of the conveyances since 2016, we don't know what the picture looks like today, but I suspect MGO has continued to grow in the Trust.

I do not think @DRH90277 was referring to a wonderful February week at the beach in South Carolina. Unless you know the breakdown per season, the numbers at Grande Ocean mean nothing and you can also find silver season in Interval.

 

[timsi]

Valid point, although since 60% to 70% of their Sales are to existing owners, that would imply generally high overall owner satisfaction. I think they understand unhappy owners won't buy more.

Many existing owners are told to buy to get access to better inventory at 13 months, to get access to the trust points inventory and for other reasons. It seems Marriott uses the inventory issues to their advantage. Do you like the resorts? Can you get what you need? If the answers are Yes and No you need to buy more! Actually you need to buy more regardless of the answers LOL.

We also have to make a distinction between % of sales and % of ownership. I guess the total number of sales per year is less than 6-10% of the total number of owners and 6-10% would include those who become owners for the first time.

 

[timsi]

I'm positive because my experience as an owner has been largely positive. I have no reason to be suspicious, at least for now. If my experience changes, so will my perspective.

I appreciate your comments and trust your judgement. We all have different views, thankfully.

 

[Dean]

We keep going 'round-and-'round on these issues, but I think the big difference driving our perspectives is you seem to have a basic distrust of Marriott's motives whereas I don't. My experience with them over the last 8 years has been almost all positive, so I have no reason to think they are doing less honorable things with their inventory. If they are, it hasn't hurt me. I also consider pursuing a healthy profit margin to be an honorable motive, so it's logical that I would have fewer concerns than you do. We look at the current situation from different perspectives and through differing lenses.

IMO anyone who is overly negative or distrustful should consider exiting, or better yet, simply avoid the system if they are not already involved in it. That's not to say one shouldn't strive for change or improvement but simply that we're not going to be able to "fix" the system and I'm not into beating my head against the wall. In reality timeshare change, we should all know that going in. When they change they will frequently change for the worse for a large % and basically always change for the worse for some segment of the membership. Personally I think MVC did as much or more than they should have for those affected negatively by Covid though I know some disagree. Regardless the events of the last 2.5 years should remind everyone of the type of things that can happen both with such systems and personally.

And no, I don't work for MVC, I've just read and understand the realities of the limitations, commitments and risks involved. For example, there are timeshare that were in the direct path of Ian, including Sanibel, and the reality is that those members may lose their timeshare completely with little to no compensation or they may simply have a year or 2 paying fees with no usage options including exchanges. That is the way the system works when we commit to a condo ownership which ultimately is what a timeshare is.

 

[JIMinNC]

I do not think @DRH90277 was referring to a wonderful February week at the beach in South Carolina. Unless you know the breakdown per season, the numbers at Grande Ocean mean nothing and you can also find silver season in Interval.

Clearly, you are correct, but we have no way to know the composition of ROFR. We have a few isolated data points on ROFR.net, but that's all, and as crowd-sourced data, ROFR.net is far from a scientific sample. We also don't know how many MGO weeks go on the resale market at any point in time, at what prices, from what season, what % get taken by MVC, and at what price. We look at the few nuggets we do have and try to draw some reasonable conclusions. Those conclusions may offer insight; maybe not.

I freely admit I might feel differently about all of this if we had bought our MVC ownership to use in high-demand summer vacation time, spring break, Christmas, etc. I honestly can't recall our specific bookings the first two use years we owned MVC in 2015 and 2016, but I don't think we had ever booked our current Marriott or Hilton timeshares in June, July, or August until just recently when we booked a week at the HGVC timeshare in Tuscany, Italy for next June. We did use our previous ownership at what is now Kaanapali Beach Club (Diamond) several times in the summer and for spring/summer trades to Orlando (easy trade) when we had school aged children, but even then, we booked Hawaii right when our 12 month booking window opened and focused our trades on easy Orlando trips. We never had a problem. We sold KBC and bought MVC and Hilton just before our youngest went off to college, and I did a lot of research on TUG before we bought. We bought MVC and HGVC because I knew we didn't need to (or want to) compete for those prime summer weeks. Having reasonable expectations going in can result in higher satisfaction levels as an owner.

 

[timsi]

Clearly, you are correct, but we have no way to know the composition of ROFR.

You are correct, without knowing the composition of ROFR and foreclosures as well as the conveyed weeks and the weeks the developer would keep for renting it is impossible to know for sure.

 

[TravelTime]

I would rate my customer satisfaction at 90%+. I still have gripes. I think #1 is limiting rentals like someone mentioned in a post above that their club does. It bothers me that people buy weeks just to game the system especially when they are bragging about it. I think using your points or weeks effectively in the MVC system is the goal. Just my opinion since I bought to use.

 

[TravelTime]

I can't argue with any of this, and customer satisfaction is key to any business's success. In their investor presentations, MVW regularly quotes customer satisfaction scores north of 95%.

As I've said repeatedly, I think acquiring attractive Trust inventory is one factor MVC considers when determining whether to reacquire inventory through ROFR, they just seem to have a maximum price they are willing to pay based on guidance from their finance people on Cost of Inventory targets.

If you look at the Trust conveyances that @dioxide45 kept track of in this thread (Recorded Trust Documents) from 2010 through 2016, you can see how one resort that is famously underrepresented in the Trust, Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head, grew in the Trust. In November 2010, there was almost none:

November 2010
Timberlodge...............11,022,750
Ko Olina......................9,208,750
Newport Coast Villas.....8,643,000
Crystal Shores.............8,021,250
Oceana Palms..............5,706,000
MOC-Sequel................4,352,070
Kalanipu'u...................3,529,500 (Kauai Lagoons)
Canyon Villas..............3,105,500
Willow Ridge................2,848,500
MOC..........................2,410,750
Shadow Ridge..............1,475,750
Grande Chateau...........1,378,250
Ocean Watch................992,000
Grand Vista...................774,750
DSV II..........................333,750
Harbour Lake.................238,000
Lakeshore Reserve..........153,750
Fairway Villas.................110,000
Cypress Harbour...............90,750
Ocean Point....................71,000
Barony Beach Club............69,750
Mountain Side..................68,500
Summit Watch.................45,000
Sunset Point...................44,250
Sabal Palms.....................39,000
Royal Palms.....................35,000
Manor Club Sequel............32,000
Manor Club.....................30,000
Harbour Club...................17,250
DSV I............................16,000
Doral.............................13,000
Grande Ocean.................. 9,000 (0.013%)
Heritage Club.................. 7,500

Grand Total....................64,892,320

Over the next six years, MVC obviously bought up a lot of Grande Ocean inventory, as you can see from how Grande Ocean rose in the rankings in this list from December 2016:

December 2016
Grand Chateau..........................52,703,750
Ko'Olina...............................30,045,750
Newport Coast..........................29,394,500
Oceana Palms...........................23,391,250
Grande Vista...........................19,272,750
Kalanipu'u.............................18,293,500
Timber Lodge...........................17,677,250
Shadow Ridge II........................13,429,500
Maui Ocean Club........................11,981,250
Ritz Carlton Club - Vail...............11,813,500
The Mayflower..........................10,748,750
Crystal Shores..........................9,598,250
Cypress Harbour.........................9,156,000
Maui Ocean Club Sequel..................8,773,500
Ocean Pointe............................8,588,000
Harbour Lake............................8,506,500
Shadow Ridge............................8,053,750
Desert Springs II.......................7,686,750
Canyon Villas...........................5,820,500
Kauai Beach Club........................5,204,250
Ocean Watch.............................4,656,250
Willow Ridge Lodge......................4,552,000
Waiohai.................................4,446,000
Grand Residence Lake Tahoe..............4,322,250
Desert Springs I........................4,299,000
BeachPlace Towers.......................3,734,000
Barony Beach Club.......................3,339,750
Grande Ocean............................3,159,250 (0.83%)
Fairway Villas..........................2,827,750
Ritz Carlton Club - San Francisco.......2,678,000
Frenchman's Cove........................2,553,750
Surfwatch...............................2,532,500
Villas at Doral.........................2,423,750
Mountain Side...........................2,249,250
Royal Palms.............................2,134,750
Lakeshore Reserve.......................2,021,000
Summit Watch............................1,996,000
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas...........1,841,250
Legends Edge............................1,588,500
Manor Club..............................1,558,500
Sabal Palms.............................1,545,500
Ritz Carlton Club - Lake Tahoe..........1,462,750
Mountain Valley Lodge...................1,248,750
Manor Club Sequel.......................1,083,000
Streamside..............................1,007,500
Monarch at Sea Pines......................995,750
Imperial Palms............................714,500
Harbour Pointe............................665,000
Harbour Club..............................303,750
Heritage Club.............................267,500
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas Suites......243,250
Sunset Pointe.............................159,500

Grand Total...........................378,749,500

Grande Ocean is still probably under-represented in the Trust versus demand, but in the six years from late 2010 to late 2016, MVC reacquired MGO weeks worth over 3,150,000 points. I'm not sure what the average point value of those reacquired weeks were for GO, but let's say it was 3,500 to 4,000. That would mean over six years, MVC reacquired around 800 MGO weeks. Could they have reacquired even more if they had been more aggressive at matching higher offers? Sure. But, as I've said repeatedly, they have to meet their inventory cost targets and they don't have unlimited dollars for ROFR. Those dollars also have to be spread all around the network.

Since no one has kept track of the conveyances since 2016, we don't know what the picture looks like today, but I suspect MGO has continued to grow in the Trust.

While the total may have grown tremendously, my favorite resorts have grown by a much smaller percentage. I guess this is because I enjoy the ones that would be more expensive for them to buy back.

Even though my satisfaction is high at 90%+, I still have my gripes. If I did this all over again, I would not buy timeshares because then I feel obligated to “use it or lose it.”

The plus of the money I supposedly “save” over the long run is offset by the negative of being limited to about 10 resorts I may want to visit and then I am stuck re-visiting them. I am already bored of one resort I have visited twice. I never liked the specific weeks I purchased so I enrolled them. Sort of a mistake bc now it is not cost effective to re-sell them.

I guess once I feel I have broken even, if I really feel bored of the Marriott resorts, I can re-sell MVC. At this point, to get to Chairman’s Club level including the enrollment of my Vistana week, I have spent over $80,000 and this is purchasing all resale at an average cost per point of $5. Was this a good decision? Hmm hard to say. I might be able to get half back if I am lucky. I am still way ahead of the average MVC owner who bough retail.

So I guess once I get to $40,000 or so in savings, I am at break even. If I compare to retail, then I have passed break even. But others have said I should be comparing to the rental rate. I should calculate to see if I am at break even. Maybe I am.

I am glad my satisfaction is high. I am glad that if I book at the 13/12 mark I have gotten everything I want. I am glad we can use points to get into the Ritz Carlton. I am glad we get Titanium level and a higher level on United. There are probably more things I like.

I am not thrilled that I have to book that early and if things happen where I need to change my reservations, then there is nothing left to book for the original dates. There are other things I like and some I do not like so much.

I really dislike renting what I can’t use myself but glad there is a mechanism for us regular owners who bought to use. I do not like II and doubt I will use it after my previous trials of it. I have not gotten good II exchanges. Even if I did, I would not get the views I want.

In spite of this, I much prefer the MVC/Abound system over Vistana and thrilled MVC has offered resale mandatory enrollment at not cost. That is really shocking and a free gift.

So even though My satisfaction is high at 90%+, I still would not recommend timeshares to my friends and family. I also will never buy more points again. So the negatives of me buying more points or encouraging anyone who does not already own timeshares to buy MVC is not really consistent with their main goal of selling more points.

The above is why I do not think they are not truly creating shareholder value. I define a stellar product as creating a product that people want to buy again and again, that people will recommend to others and that people will not stop using. I guess they can always find fresh meat to buy retail points and meet their financial goals. But we all know a short term vision that drives stock in the short term could cause the stock price to crash in the long term. I hope I am wrong because then the product will certainly decline.

BTW, one more thing to add, unlike most Tuggers, I am happy if I get 2-3 excellent vacations per year out of my points. If I can get 1-2 weeks with 2BR OF views during peak seasons and another week off season in 2BR OF, I am happy. I need to calculate how much I pay in annual MFs but I bet my total cost is the same as what I am paying for a one week vacation in a one room OF hotel. So I guess it is worth it in the end. I still end up taking other weeks outside of the MVC universe which are very expensive. The low cost in MFs is why my satisfaction is 90% if I ignore the $80K+ in upfront fees.

 

[daviator]

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.

To characterize every rental on RedWeek as “commercial use” is (maybe) not an accurate characterization.

For example, I sometimes have a WKORV rental listing there, when I decide to lock off one of my units and use one side and rent the others to recoup all or part of my maintenance fees. Doing this was touted by sales people when I bought my units and indeed it can be a good strategy. But I wouldn’t call this ”commercial use.”

On the other hand, there are people who own a whole bunch of VOIs which are largely used as rentals. Some of them may have tens of listings on RedWeek and elsewhere. They’ve made a business out of their ownerships, and I’d indeed characterize that as commercial use.

I have no idea what percentage of RedWeek listings are onesy-twosey listings from owners who mostly use what they own themselves and occasionally rent something, vs. owners who have made a business out of it. And maybe the difference is unimportant – if Marriott bans all rentals, then all of these owners are in violation. But if they only ban “commercial use” then I think you need to figure out how to define that.

Vistana allows rental of bookings at your home resort (or resorts, in the case of Flex owners) but prohibits rental of weeks booked with StarOptions at other resorts. But once somebody elects Abound and makes a reservation that way, I actually don’t know what’s allowed. It sounds like you’re saying that MVC prohibits all rentals (or all “commercial use”, which isn’t necessarily the same.)

 

[DRH90277]

I can't argue with any of this, and customer satisfaction is key to any business's success. In their investor presentations, MVW regularly quotes customer satisfaction scores north of 95%.

As I've said repeatedly, I think acquiring attractive Trust inventory is one factor MVC considers when determining whether to reacquire inventory through ROFR, they just seem to have a maximum price they are willing to pay based on guidance from their finance people on Cost of Inventory targets.

If you look at the Trust conveyances that @dioxide45 kept track of in this thread (Recorded Trust Documents) from 2010 through 2016, you can see how one resort that is famously underrepresented in the Trust, Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head, grew in the Trust. In November 2010, there was almost none:

November 2010
Timberlodge...............11,022,750
Ko Olina......................9,208,750
Newport Coast Villas.....8,643,000
Crystal Shores.............8,021,250
Oceana Palms..............5,706,000
MOC-Sequel................4,352,070
Kalanipu'u...................3,529,500 (Kauai Lagoons)
Canyon Villas..............3,105,500
Willow Ridge................2,848,500
MOC..........................2,410,750
Shadow Ridge..............1,475,750
Grande Chateau...........1,378,250
Ocean Watch................992,000
Grand Vista...................774,750
DSV II..........................333,750
Harbour Lake.................238,000
Lakeshore Reserve..........153,750
Fairway Villas.................110,000
Cypress Harbour...............90,750
Ocean Point....................71,000
Barony Beach Club............69,750
Mountain Side..................68,500
Summit Watch.................45,000
Sunset Point...................44,250
Sabal Palms.....................39,000
Royal Palms.....................35,000
Manor Club Sequel............32,000
Manor Club.....................30,000
Harbour Club...................17,250
DSV I............................16,000
Doral.............................13,000
Grande Ocean.................. 9,000 (0.013%)
Heritage Club.................. 7,500

Grand Total....................64,892,320

Over the next six years, MVC obviously bought up a lot of Grande Ocean inventory, as you can see from how Grande Ocean rose in the rankings in this list from December 2016:

December 2016
Grand Chateau..........................52,703,750
Ko'Olina...............................30,045,750
Newport Coast..........................29,394,500
Oceana Palms...........................23,391,250
Grande Vista...........................19,272,750
Kalanipu'u.............................18,293,500
Timber Lodge...........................17,677,250
Shadow Ridge II........................13,429,500
Maui Ocean Club........................11,981,250
Ritz Carlton Club - Vail...............11,813,500
The Mayflower..........................10,748,750
Crystal Shores..........................9,598,250
Cypress Harbour.........................9,156,000
Maui Ocean Club Sequel..................8,773,500
Ocean Pointe............................8,588,000
Harbour Lake............................8,506,500
Shadow Ridge............................8,053,750
Desert Springs II.......................7,686,750
Canyon Villas...........................5,820,500
Kauai Beach Club........................5,204,250
Ocean Watch.............................4,656,250
Willow Ridge Lodge......................4,552,000
Waiohai.................................4,446,000
Grand Residence Lake Tahoe..............4,322,250
Desert Springs I........................4,299,000
BeachPlace Towers.......................3,734,000
Barony Beach Club.......................3,339,750
Grande Ocean............................3,159,250 (0.83%)
Fairway Villas..........................2,827,750
Ritz Carlton Club - San Francisco.......2,678,000
Frenchman's Cove........................2,553,750
Surfwatch...............................2,532,500
Villas at Doral.........................2,423,750
Mountain Side...........................2,249,250
Royal Palms.............................2,134,750
Lakeshore Reserve.......................2,021,000
Summit Watch............................1,996,000
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas...........1,841,250
Legends Edge............................1,588,500
Manor Club..............................1,558,500
Sabal Palms.............................1,545,500
Ritz Carlton Club - Lake Tahoe..........1,462,750
Mountain Valley Lodge...................1,248,750
Manor Club Sequel.......................1,083,000
Streamside..............................1,007,500
Monarch at Sea Pines......................995,750
Imperial Palms............................714,500
Harbour Pointe............................665,000
Harbour Club..............................303,750
Heritage Club.............................267,500
Ritz Carlton Club - St Thomas Suites......243,250
Sunset Pointe.............................159,500

Grand Total...........................378,749,500

Grande Ocean is still probably under-represented in the Trust versus demand, but in the six years from late 2010 to late 2016, MVC reacquired MGO weeks worth over 3,150,000 points. I'm not sure what the average point value of those reacquired weeks were for GO, but let's say it was 3,500 to 4,000. That would mean over six years, MVC reacquired around 800 MGO weeks. Could they have reacquired even more if they had been more aggressive at matching higher offers? Sure. But, as I've said repeatedly, they have to meet their inventory cost targets and they don't have unlimited dollars for ROFR. Those dollars also have to be spread all around the network.

Since no one has kept track of the conveyances since 2016, we don't know what the picture looks like today, but I suspect MGO has continued to grow in the Trust.

I suspect these are aggregate point values owned for a year for each resort. Is this true?

If this is the case, then let me see what this means for an easy one like Harbour Lake. The number above is 8,506,500 points. This would equate to Trust ownership of about 64 yearly villas out of 312 total villas (2 Bdrm) or say 18% are in the Trust. The math (8,506,500 points/2,570 points per week = 3,310 weeks. So, 3,310 weeks/52 = 64 yearly villas. Now 64 yearly villas/ 312 total annual villas at the resort = 18% in the Trust).

Keep in mind week ownership includes all weeks in a year. Peak season weeks would vary by resort and the 18% would be lower for the most used times of the year.

Please check my approach and advise.

 

[Dean]

I suspect these are aggregate point values owned for a year for each resort. Is this true?

If this is the case, then let me see what this means for an easy one like Harbour Lake. The number above is 8,506,500 points. This would equate to Trust ownership of about 64 yearly villas out of 312 total villas (2 Bdrm) or say 18% are in the Trust. The math (8,506,500 points/2,570 points per week = 3,310 weeks. So, 3,310 weeks/52 = 64 yearly villas. Now 64 yearly villas/ 312 total annual villas at the resort = 18% in the Trust).

Keep in mind week ownership includes all weeks in a year. Peak season weeks would vary by resort and the 18% would be lower for the most used times of the year.

Please check my approach and advise.

I'm not seeing where it matters. IMO the real number would be the breakdown of the number of each season that are in the trust combined with the number of owners who are enrolled and then elect points broken down by season. Certainly the enrolled owners might elect points after the 12 or 13 month window which would affect who gets the unit but not the overall principles. Of course it varies by resort depending on it's seasonality points structure and ultimate demand as well as major swings in trust vs weeks at a given resort.

If I rent weeks it's not because I bought to rent them but rather I feel many of my weeks are more valuable in terms of $$$ than they are for points. In a sense it's like we tend to recommend for trading through II. I always want to be trading up in II in at least 2 of 3 areas (unit size, demand, resort quality) and preferably in all 3. But that means that for that situation one is taking more than they are giving. That's one of the reasons it has to be volume based and over several years because intent is a major component of a timeshare commercial restriction, esp when the system itself is renting as most do.

 

[AlmostRetired]

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?

1 - What rules are not being enforced that if they were, would prevent an owner from renting out their owner week? Marriott just manages the property and is paid by the HOA. Why would Marriott have a say?
2 - Based on your profile, you purchase resales. Did you purchase them because you think you got a bad deal or a good deal? Would you rather Marriott have exercised ROFR on them? What you pay for a timeshare is only a small part of what a great deal is. How you use it makes it the great deal. Example, I purchased a 3 br Grand Chateau. I use it to trade and love it. If you told me I had to only use it in Las Vegas, getting it for free would be too much to pay.

What I am really trying to under is how an owners choice of renting, using or trading impacts anyone else to the extent that one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to rent?

 

[JIMinNC]

I suspect these are aggregate point values owned for a year for each resort. Is this true?

If this is the case, then let me see what this means for an easy one like Harbour Lake. The number above is 8,506,500 points. This would equate to Trust ownership of about 64 yearly villas out of 312 total villas (2 Bdrm) or say 18% are in the Trust. The math (8,506,500 points/2,570 points per week = 3,310 weeks. So, 3,310 weeks/52 = 64 yearly villas. Now 64 yearly villas/ 312 total annual villas at the resort = 18% in the Trust).

Keep in mind week ownership includes all weeks in a year. Peak season weeks would vary by resort and the 18% would be lower for the most used times of the year.

Please check my approach and advise.

Yes, the point values are the annual points assigned to the weeks in the Trust as of that date. Your math is basically correct process-wise, with the only caveat being the 2570 points you used as a denominator. That number will depend on the actual mix of weeks in the Trust. It looks like Gold weeks are worth 1950 and Platinum weeks are 2550 based on Steven Ting's spreadsheet he has online. There are also apparently Platinum Plus weeks that would raise the average, but Steven's list doesn't have that data. Based on all that, I would expect the average is less than 2570.

 

[JIMinNC]

1 - What rules are not being enforced that if they were, would prevent an owner from renting out their owner week? Marriott just manages the property and is paid by the HOA. Why would Marriott have a say?

What I am really trying to under is how an owners choice of renting, using or trading impacts anyone else to the extent that one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to rent?

I don't think anyone is disputing that owners have a right to rent an owned week. The question is when do those rental activities rise to the level of being a commercial enterprise or practice. Here is what the Exchange Procedures say about that:

B. Residential Use and Prohibition on Commercial Use. Accommodations, Base Exchange Benefits, Base Plus Exchange Benefits, Special Benefits, and Use Periods may not be used for any commercial purpose. This prohibition on commercial use includes, but is not limited to, any illegal activity or a pattern of occupancy, rental, leasing, or use by a Program Member that Exchange Company, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. In the event a Program Member is determined to be reserving or using the Accommodations, Base Exchange Benefits, Base Plus Exchange Benefits, Special Benefits or Use Periods for any commercial purpose Exchange Company may immediately cancel any current reservation(s) made by such Program Member and may impose such additional penalties or restrictions as determined by Exchange Company, in its sole discretion, from time to time. The restrictions of this paragraph do not apply to Exchange Company or its affiliates or designees.

That is from the Points Exchange procedures, so is not directly applicable to a weeks owner renting a week. But the terms and conditions for weeks deeds contain substantially similar language. I just don't have a PDF handy of any of our weeks documents.

I think it's common knowledge on TUG that there are some owners who own many weeks, primarily for the purposes of rentals. Maui Ocean Club and the Aruba resorts are the ones I hear mentioned the most, with maybe Grande Ocean also sometimes mentioned. How many of the rentals that appear on Redweek are from these "mega-renters"? How much do these mega-renters actually reduce availability for regular owner use? No one knows the answer, but MVC doesn't seem to care to try to enforce that provision, as some other Developers apparently have.