Why is Marriott Vacations struggling?

[TolmiePeak]

I think some people aren't happy unless they are unhappy.

 

[Venter]

I just had a soliciting email from VRBO. I clicked the link to Palm Springs and chose the second week of March to see what they had to offer. Nothing under $350 per day. I would rather stay at a resort and not be required to 'deep clean' before I leave for that price.

 

[Retired2025 aka AlmostRetired]

Listen, people are not going to start an "uprising" about their phone bills or their timeshare maintenance fees, and I think we can maintain a more serious discussion. Are you trying to say that absence of an "uprising", should be proof that owners are happy?

When I joined Tug it was the only place that one could go to learn how to get the most of my timeshare ownership. I found Tug by accident because I was seeing changes in my ownership that was making it more difficult for me to enjoy it. This is what Tug is best at because it offered a wealth of practical experience. I purchased a second Monarch fixed week based on what I learned. When I wanted to understand the pro's and con's of owning a floating week I did so from Tug. When my Resort World trader trading power went to *bleep* because of 15 years of the BOD managing MF increases impacted quality, I got opinions from Tug on replacement. BTW, in 1996 my Monarch and Resort World has similar MF of about 400. The Monarch is now close to 2000 and Resort World is close to 900. The Monarch I sold for more than I paid. Resort World I gave away (on Tug) and paid the first years MF. After having ignored the points program until a few years ago, I learned about renting points and using them from Tug. Last year I rented near 20,000 points. Some for use and some for renting the week I reserved.

Based on how I was helped and how I try and help, I started an II facebook group a few years ago help people get the most of II. It now has 16,000 members many of which are smarter than me on the subject.

What is frustrating about your posts for me is you are not looking for help, or discussion but confirmation. You have it, my MF has gone up more than I like. I still find ways to be happy with my ownership. With all the changes that has gone on in the industry and with Marriott since 1996, it is incumbent on me to figure it out based on how I like to vacation. For me this meant changing my portfolio completely 3 times. If you are actually looking for help and not confirmation, and you really do not trust MVCI Management, the only actionable item I would do is to sell.

When it comes to your own usage costs, the upfront capital is consistently overlooked. When you did mention it, it's justified as a better investment than Lehman Brothers. That sets quite a high bar, wouldn't you say?

I said it so again I think again, you are putting your spin on this. There is justification and there is recognition. The difference is as great as memorable and enjoyment. I have always purchased resale so overall I am at break even but I thought it relevant because they (Lehman and MCI) were solid companies whose value was destroyed by mismanagement that caused stakeholders to lose some or all of their upfront capital.
Please do not take any of this personal but you need to understand you came to a place that offers some discussion, but is better valued for what can be learned to help. Your BOD is the only help with MF and there can be consequences in doing this. Just ask any Resort World past owner. BTW, it is now a Legacy Brand, the 3rd or 4th management company since 1996.

You should get a book called "What to say when you talk to yourself". Many of us see the same MF increases as you do. How we think about them influences how we feel and how we feel influences our actions.

Uh, I didn't make the Lehman Brothers comment. You are confusing me with another MVC lap dog.

The is a woof (rough) way to be viewed. Sorry, I couldn't help it. My wife always reminds me that small things amuse small minds. I stand guilty as charged.

 

[JIMinNC]

Unlike some Vistana and Marriott owners, I don't subscribe to the notion of a high level conspiracy to deliberately escalate maintenance fees. I highly doubt that CEOs convene executive meetings with directives to boost management income by a specific percentage each year. However, it is possible that internal mechanisms and operational dynamics might inadvertently lead to such increases without explicit orders. It's conceivable that lower-ranking managers overseeing multiple resorts could be driven by self-interest—aiming for larger budgets to enhance their influence, expand their teams, expect promotions, and potentially earn bonuses by outperforming their peers. Even if they don’t take an active role in increasing the MF, they may be more sympathetic to proposals coming from resorts to spend on certain projects, and less inclined to actively see if they can do more with less. This is speculative of course but you may have encountered situations where decisions are influenced by factors not necessarily dictated from the top. We can't definitively know whether maintenance fees should be higher or lower, or if upper management actively pressures resort management to extract more revenue. However, what remains evident is that, without some owner pushback, there's a higher likelihood that maintenance fee increases will continue to surpass those of peers like HGVC.

In Orlando, not only is the 2024 increase higher, but the overall cost also appears to be 20-25% more than HGVC. This suggests that this year's surge isn't an isolated incident.

See my highlight above. You continue to call for owner pushback (an "uprising") without specifying how you would do that. Just posting complaints on a message board is a bit like farting in a hurricane. How about running for a Board seat in one of your HOAs on a maintenance fee platform?

For me, I just don't worry all that much about maintenance fees as long as the relative cost versus using hotels is still very favorable, but if you are successful with your crusade, we'll all benefit.

Concerning your own usage value, you acknowledge that you may never break even with what you bought retail. Unfortunately this is probably the case for most retail owners, especially those who have bought more recently. Even a hybrid solution should take into account all the upfront costs, and not ignore the more expensive part when conveniently so.

I'm certainly not ignoring the upfront cost of the more expensive retail purchase. We definitely factored that in when we bought them. For example:

1. I have the annual usage value of the points we bought, and having those points allows us to supplement our owned weeks to get more time in Hawaii or visit other MVC locations. Those points still offer savings/benefits versus using hotel rooms, just not as much savings as our owned weeks do. We wanted points for their flexibility to supplement our weeks and the ability to avoid II trading, which we were willing to pay more to avoid. Over time, we'll probably gradually recoup most (if not all) of the upfront cost.
2. We could have saved about half the upfront cost of our points by buying resale points, but we opted to buy them retail from MVC, so as to enroll our two Hawaii weeks in what is now called Abound. Doing it that way probably cost us about an extra $15,000 to $17,000, but we view enrollment as sort of an insurance policy that provides more flexible options to use our more inflexible weeks. At our age, we would expect to get at least 15 years (hopefully quite a few more) of quality usage from these points, so I think of that $15k to $17k "Retail Premium" as paying $1,000 or so per year for an insurance policy. We sleep better at night knowing we have options, but like all insurance, a dollar-for-dollar recoupment of the premium cost may depend on whether we have an unexpected situation in the future where that added flexibility saves our bacon.

Remember, an upfront expenditure can sometimes help you save money over time, but that's not the only benefit. Sometimes it may not explicitly save you money in the future, but instead it adds value or benefits that the purchaser feels are worth that cost.

 

[Dean]

I have been told numerous times to either sell or remain silent

I don't think that's accurate and it's not an accurate representation of what I've posted. What I've stated in reference to your posts is that if someone is as unhappy with the system as you seem to be, it makes no sense to me that they could continue to participate, esp for something that's completely optional and therefore they should consider moving on for their sake and sanity. Otherwise I can only assume one of a limited set of situations. They are not as unhappy with the system as they portray, they enjoy (or at least can't help) complaining and/or they are just rattling the chains possibly some combination of those. I don't get the sense it's the latter of the 3 though.

 

[JIMinNC]

When my Resort World trader trading power went to *bleep* because of 15 years of the BOD managing MF increases impacted quality, I got opinions from Tug on replacement. BTW, in 1996 my Monarch and Resort World has similar MF of about 400. The Monarch is now close to 2000 and Resort World is close to 900. The Monarch I sold for more than I paid. Resort World I gave away (on Tug) and paid the first years MF.

I'm glad you posted this. People are quick to complain about maintenance fee increases, but there's also the flip side where a Board becomes too focused on keeping increases low and lets quality suffer. That's a huge benefit of branded programs like MVC and HGVC that have mandated brand standards which force the boards to maintain the properties to a certain level, even if it means fees must rise.

We own a beach condo in Hilton Head where a previous board regime that predated our ownership focused on keeping homeowners fees low and let the quality of the common areas decline. About the time we bought our unit in 2019, an owners uprising had resulted in the old board being ousted and a new board elected with a goal of drastically improving the property, even if it meant costs would need to rise. Almost five years later, we have hired a new management company, the property is being maintained much better, and over the next couple of months we're wrapping up an almost $3 million pool upgrade project that cost each owner over $16k in special assessments. Our board hired the same contractor that did the major pool renovation at Marriott's Grande Ocean, and the results are going to be great.

 

[jp10558]

Listen, people are not going to start an "uprising" about their phone bills or their timeshare maintenance fees, and I think we can maintain a more serious discussion. Are you trying to say that absence of an "uprising", should be proof that owners are happy?

Fair enough, companies may not share their satisfaction rate. However, this is not the case here as Marriott brags about it, so putting some meat on the bone would make sense.

It just seems to me like if you find the ongoing price uncompetitive, it would make sense to get out. Marriott isn't that hard to sell, and HGVC for instance isn't that hard to buy. Nor are other systems, so swap to one that's cheaper IMO. I didn't buy Marriott because it was too expensive for what I thought I'd get from it - if HGVC or Wyndham or whatever gets too expensive, I'll exit those. As a consumer, that's really the only thing you *can* do - and if there's really a bunch of other people who find the price too high, they'll leave too and eventually one expects the company to pay attention or go out of business.

 

[timsi]

Who's telling you to remain silent?

This is the kind of comment I was referring to . While it's possible that the first time was subject to misinterpretation, the recurring nature of such remarks from the same person leaves me with a clear impression: either cease expressing my opinions or exit. It's worth noting that various individuals have made similar comments. My concern lies not with any specific person like Dean, but rather with the possibility that this kind of attacks over the years may have driven away dissenting voices from this forum. This, in turn, could result in an overrepresentation of those who are “happy”, potentially skewing the overall perspective.

Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

Just received this. Glad to see they are at least having conversations on the issue. If a fair representation of their conversations, it looks like they are now only about $400K to $500K apart. According to the Board, the Manager’s position is that the 2024 Budget approved by the Board is at...

tugbbs.com

 

[DRH90277]

Well, enough of this back and forth opinionated stuff. This goes nowhere. My question, is anyone enlightened by this?

 

[Hindsite]

potentially skewing the overall perspective.

There's no doubt that those that find their way to TUG are a skewed perspective relative to the volume of owners who just get on however they get on. I know MVC/MVW don't act based on social media commentary alone, speak to your tame GM and you'll find that out. They have a broad range of metrics used across their businesses, they may use social media content as input to wider decision-making, just as they would a focus group. There have been, and will be, occasions where changes made are campaigned for/against by TUG members and adjustments made, but that will only be done where there are additional inputs and drivers identified by the business or an unintended consequence surfaced. TUG may provide a spotlight and/or influence but it does not drive their business. Its useful to them to have a collective of commentators to catch things that might have unintended adverse consequences and/or errors, or that give them wider market signals that they can't find elsewhere.

Your choice of messaging style and content sits well with some and not with others, if you choose to comment publicly in any platform, that is what happens. You do consistently come across, to me, as having a high level of dissatisfaction with the brand, and it is natural for people to advise that a way out of your dissatisfaction is for you to exit, your ownership, why would someone continue to participate when they have so many concerns and objections? You have not made it clear what you are going to do to move things forward, making the argument somewhat puzzling.

 

[timsi]

There's no doubt that those that find their way to TUG are a skewed perspective relative to the volume of owners who just get on however they get on. I know MVC/MVW don't act based on social media commentary alone, speak to your tame GM and you'll find that out. They have a broad range of metrics used across their businesses, they may use social media content as input to wider decision-making, just as they would a focus group. There have been, and will be, occasions where changes made are campaigned for/against by TUG members and adjustments made, but that will only be done where there are additional inputs and drivers identified by the business or an unintended consequence surfaced. TUG may provide a spotlight and/or influence but it does not drive their business. Its useful to them to have a collective of commentators to catch things that might have unintended adverse consequences and/or errors, or that give them wider market signals that they can't find elsewhere.

Your choice of messaging style and content sits well with some and not with others, if you choose to comment publicly in any platform, that is what happens. You do consistently come across, to me, as having a high level of dissatisfaction with the brand, and it is natural for people to advise that a way out of your dissatisfaction is for you to exit, your ownership, why would someone continue to participate when they have so many concerns and objections? You have not made it clear what you are going to do to move things forward, making the argument somewhat puzzling.

I appreciate your feedback. My intention was to convey that my comments might stand out in this forum due to what I perceive as a certain bias displayed by many members (the same you perceive I am biased!) . To clarify, my "dissatisfaction" is not extreme, and I would rate the management a 6 or 6.5 out of 10. As mentioned before, not all comments are without merit. Some have brought changes, such as the fact that Marriott covers the cost of daily cleaning for their guests. This could potentially be a significant cost-saving for our resort budgets.

Owners were concerned about the fairness of resorts covering the expenses of Marriott's daily housekeeping, whether for Bonvoy or sales tour reservations. Similarly, week owners should not pay for the additional costs related to Abound short term stays. Now, I am tempted to ask: do owners, in general, benefit more from the critique, or from the defensive positions that some regularly adopt?

 

[Hindsite]

Now, I am tempted to ask: do owners, in general, benefit more from the critique, or from the defensive positions that some regularly adopt?

Neither. This is social media, people express their perspective, we are all bias, MVC/MVW don't hang on every word said here. Exec bonuses are not tied to TUG approval ratings. If you are seeking to provide balance on the nature of the influence TUG has over MVC/MVW you are overestimating that level of influence.

I can't see a way for differentiation of enrolled vs unenrolled weeks owners paying for Abound short-term stays. The maint fees are the same, there may be an element of club dues that makes its way through, but probably not. Unless it can be demonstrated as material for a given resort I can't see why it is an issue. Conversely II guests often get less housekeeping than owner stays, so it may all balance out. Ask your tame GM if you need to know the detail for your ownership.

 

[Ken555]

I’m confused. Did Marriott really agree to accept a significant reduction in the annual total payment and agree that reduced amount would cover all necessary expenses?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[timsi]

I can't see a way for differentiation of enrolled vs unenrolled weeks owners paying for Abound short-term stays. The maint fees are the same, there may be an element of club dues that makes its way through, but probably not. Unless it can be demonstrated as material for a given resort I can't see why it is an issue. Conversely II guests often get less housekeeping than owner stays, so it may all balance out. Ask your tame GM if you need to know the detail for your ownership.

A week deposited with Abound can be split into up to 7 reservations, requiring 8 deep cleanings. Why would a week owner, who only receives one light mid-week cleaning, pay for the Abound reservations? When Abound was launched, they bragged about the extra housekeeping for the short term stays being 'free' for owners. If it is indeed free, they should pay for it, rather than making resort owners cover those costs.

The sales tours receive daily cleaning. Why should week owners pay for the Marriott guests? If Marriott wants to offer to their prospects daily cleaning, they should cover the cost.

Bonvoy reservations also include daily cleaning, and the higher prices MVC receives reflect a higher level of service. Why should resort owners, pay for those as well? It's not our job to calculate how many additional cleanings they want but rather their duty to pay for the additional resort resources they use. The Interval reservations get the same cleaning as the week owners.



@Ken555 This is a new note in the 2024 WLR budget:

“(1) Certain operating expenses are presented in the budget net of funds estimated to be reimbursed to the Association in 2024, including but not limited to: (i) funds received from MVC Exchange Company to account for housekeeping expenses necessitated by nightly use of accommodations by Abound by Marriott Vacations Exchange Program members, and (ii) fees paid to the Association by transient guests who
voluntarily elect to receive a daily room cleaning.”

I don't know if this has been resolved at other resorts. Additionally, it’s unclear for now how they calculate and how much they pay for the Bonvoy, sales tours, Abound, and VSN reservations, as they conveniently only mention the NET housekeeping cost. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction and the details will come out.

 

[Fasttr]

Per the Trust budget found here..... https://image.email1.marriott-vacat.../m/1/e2216b95-8604-486c-b0ec-f985c907c816.pdf

See Component Services line item totaling $2,562,603 for 2024. (which is not a lot when spread across all the resorts)

And the footnote that describes it.
4) Component Services include the incremental costs of services provided in connection with Beneficiaries' nightly use of Accommodations which are not otherwise included in the Component Expenses. These services may include, but are not limited to, housekeeping, engineering, loss prevention and front desk services necessitated by nightly use of Accommodations.

Its anybody's guess how it is calculated.

As for Enrolled Owners, since they pay based on their underlying week MFs, they theoretically get a free ride when using points, as their incremental short stay usage is theoretically included in the above number, one would assume. .

 

[Hindsite]

Why would a week owner, who only receives one light mid-week cleaning, pay for the Abound reservations?

Abound enrolled weeks owners can elect for points, book individual days in Abound and therefore can cause additional cleaning cost to resorts.

How do you propose that they "pay" for that additional cost? Do you know that the club dues they pay contributes to the additional cleaning costs at resorts?

 

[timsi]

Abound enrolled weeks owners can elect for points, book individual days in Abound and therefore can cause additional cleaning cost to resorts.

How do you propose that they "pay" for that additional cost? Do you know that the club dues they pay contributes to the additional cleaning costs at resorts?

How about the unenrolled week owners? Why should they pay for a service they don't benefit from?

A bit of history, pre-Abound the Vistana owners were paying for the additional cleanings at the resort so it was fair for both. When Abound was launched, they charged higher network fees, but one of the advertised benefits was no additional cleaning costs for short term stays. I assume they did all their homework in terms of costs and revenue.

 

[timsi]

Per the Trust budget found here..... https://image.email1.marriott-vacat.../m/1/e2216b95-8604-486c-b0ec-f985c907c816.pdf

See Component Services line item totaling $2,562,603 for 2024. (which is not a lot when spread across all the resorts)

And the footnote that describes it.
4) Component Services include the incremental costs of services provided in connection with Beneficiaries' nightly use of Accommodations which are not otherwise included in the Component Expenses. These services may include, but are not limited to, housekeeping, engineering, loss prevention and front desk services necessitated by nightly use of Accommodations.

Its anybody's guess how it is calculated.

As for Enrolled Owners, since they pay based on their underlying week MFs, they theoretically get a free ride when using points, as their incremental short stay usage is theoretically included in the above number, one would assume. .

Out of curiosity, do you know how much was in 2023?

 

[Hindsite]

How about the unenrolled week owners? Why should they pay for a service they don't benefit from?

I don't think they should, I asked what your proposal was for addressing the issue.

 

[Fasttr]

Out of curiosity, do you know how much was in 2023?

$2.27M for 2023
$1.74M in 2022
$1.61M in 2021

 

[jabberwocky]

We often hear about how we should be putting pressure on the individual HOA boards to keep costs low. Have we ever considered that maybe we are targeting the wrong board?

Perhaps putting pressure on the VAC board to focus on long term sustainability by continuing to provide compelling value for vacations rather than focusing on short-term revenues would be a better tactic?

As a VAC shareholder I’ve been disappointed lately, but as a Vistana TS owner I believe the share price does fully price the “skilled management” in place at VAC. Say what you will, they’ve destroyed a lot of value relative to HGVC in the past year- and I believe much of it has to do with MF and how they’ve botched the Vistana integration.

 

[dioxide45]

As for Enrolled Owners, since they pay based on their underlying week MFs, they theoretically get a free ride when using points, as their incremental short stay usage is theoretically included in the above number, one would assume. .

I don't think the above number includes anything for enrolled week point based stays. IIRC we saw some big increases fairly early on in the DC program in those same areas. It was surmised that they were increasing those costs because of enrolled point stays. I don't think there is any reimbursement to the resorts for enrolled point stays to cover those Component Expenses.

 

[daviator]

The one comment that comes to mind after reading the most recent messages here is that there is almost certainly a direct connection between owner satisfaction and MVW sales figures. If owners are highly satisfied, they will (as a group) be much more likely to purchase additional VOIs. If they are unsatisfied, they are unlikely to buy more.

Sales were down significantly in 2023, and one might ask whether owner satisfaction, or lack thereof, was a significant factor in the lower sales figures. I would guess the answer is yes, though there were certainly other factors as well.

I see far fewer owners in recent years who are so enamored with their ownership that they are clamoring to buy more. That's a problem for MVW.

 

[dioxide45]

The one comment that comes to mind after reading the most recent messages here is that there is almost certainly a direct connection between owner satisfaction and MVW sales figures. If owners are highly satisfied, they will (as a group) be much more likely to purchase additional VOIs. If they are unsatisfied, they are unlikely to buy more.

Sales were down significantly in 2023, and one might ask whether owner satisfaction, or lack thereof, was a significant factor in the lower sales figures. I would guess the answer is yes, though there were certainly other factors as well.

I see far fewer owners in recent years who are so enamored with their ownership that they are clamoring to buy more. That's a problem for MVW.

They seemed to pin a lot of their late 2023 troubles on the Maui fires. We will have to see what they report later this month. I suspect sales numbers won't be pretty. They will probably tout big revenue increases in resort management.

 

[Fasttr]

I don't think the above number includes anything for enrolled week point based stays. IIRC we saw some big increases fairly early on in the DC program in those same areas. It was surmised that they were increasing those costs because of enrolled point stays. I don't think there is any reimbursement to the resorts for enrolled point stays to cover those Component Expenses.

If that’s the case, then unenrolled owners (and enrolled owners who don’t use short stays) are picking up the tab for enrolled owners who use short stays. If the Trust number above is truly representative of the actual incremental costs for Trust owners short stay usage, it’s only 89 cents per Beneficial Interest, so it’s not a ton of money, which perhaps tells us that points users likely travel in week long increments anyhow.