[2010] Marriott is Destroying Value of Existing Deeds

I know people have dismissed a class action suit, but I do not understand why. (Granted I am not a lawyer, but I did read King of Torts. ) Whatever program Marriott introduced purposely devalued a deeded week. We bought into Marriott with the understanding from Marriott that we could trade into other comparable Marriott resorts - the benefit touted by salespeople for years - not to mention the value of a lock-off unit. Their new system makes this impossible. The comments that you should be happy to stay at your own resort do not address that this is not what was sold to us - just stay at your own resort. Why else would you pay higher prices for their timeshares? Now that the rules have been changed, we see the values of the timeshares approach the true value if you are buying into just one resort.

This, of course, is JMHO.

This still seems like mostly speculation, with a bias toward an expectation to be harmed.

However, in my opinion, if anything near what sales staff suggest happens, this will likely result in legal issues. Maybe AG based, not class action.

If using the product and deeds as originally sold falls apart, with much difficulty trading to other Marriotts, less access to even home resort, such as possible in the 13 month example, it would only take serious bona fide harm and complaints from a small percentage of non-enrolled owners to give them much grief.

Unfortunately for Marriott, they can't claim effects are unexpected, since the sales staff tell us that without enrolling, our weeks are devalued.

By excluding recent resales, they are changing the ability to transfer and sell existing weeks, as some new options - the DC program, they assert, are needed to maintain full value.

They keep recordings of most sales calls by phone, so finding inflammatory evidence should be easy.

Note - I am not a lawyer, just my opinion of risks they face.

-Dan

bump...

We thought our MVC weeks also would be devalued due to the new points system but we just bought two resale plat weeks at NCV for $21K. So it appears that resales have appreciated recently from $7K to $10K.

Cheers

scoccermom said:

bump...

We thought our MVC weeks also would be devalued due to the new points system but we just bought two resale plat weeks at NCV for $21K. So it appears that resales have appreciated recently from $7K to $10K.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Have these weeks cleared Marriott's Right of First Refusal yet ?

If not, you may need to hold off on celebrating as Marriott is buying back a lot of Platinum Weeks …..

Let's hope the sale is a done deal !





.

Yep, I just stopped a buyer for one of mine today after perusing Dioxide's site and reading a few threads here.

Scoccermom, is that number inclusive of all buyer costs or just the interval price itself? I ask because last year it seemed everything over ~8500 or so was clearing. Odd that Seth's brokerage was telling me at the same time they were doing 7500 deals and the list shows those as failing during that period.

Passed ROFR.

Prices for resale weeks have jumped up suddenly. Perhaps the points system isn't as attractive...I don't know.

Here's a recent one that sold on Ebay with 86 bids (Note that usage starts in 2016!):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MARRIOTT-03...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My purchase was two weeks together. Total including closing was about $21K.

Prior to that, I offered $9K to several sellers but either got no response or the week was already in escrow or sold.

I think there are two reasons why quality Marriott weeks have increased in price:

1) the economy is better
2) ROFR has increased

I know TUGgers have debated heavily the impact of ROFR previously (without conclusion) but I have certainly seen resale pricing impacted by ROFR in both HGVC system (2010/2011) and Marriott (2013/2014).

I think active ROFR is here to stay for Marriott, and that the days of inexpensive Platinum/High Quality Gold are over.

Looking back at this thread, I don't think Marriott destroyed the value of our resale weeks. If anything, we appreciate the value of those weeks even if they can't be enrolled.

I do think Marriott has impacted the value of resale points, by increasing those junk fees.

Best,

Greg

scoccermom said:

Passed ROFR.

Prices for resale weeks have jumped up suddenly. Perhaps the points system isn't as attractive...I don't know.

My purchase was two weeks together. Total including closing was about $21K.

Prior to that, I offered $9K to several sellers but either got no response or the week was already in escrow or sold.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I think I'll contact buyback and get some current numbers as Dioxide has no listings for NCV buybacks and crunch the numbers. I was getting a lot of lowballs last year. What a difference a year apparently makes. Good luck with your purchases. Been a NCV owner for a decade and positive results both as a user and landlord.

GregT said:

I think there are two reasons why quality Marriott weeks have increased in price:

1) the economy is better
2) ROFR has increased

I know TUGgers have debated heavily the impact of ROFR previously (without conclusion) but I have certainly seen resale pricing impacted by ROFR in both HGVC system (2010/2011) and Marriott (2013/2014).

I think active ROFR is here to stay for Marriott, and that the days of inexpensive Platinum/High Quality Gold are over.

Looking back at this thread, I don't think Marriott destroyed the value of our resale weeks. If anything, we appreciate the value of those weeks even if they can't be enrolled.

I do think Marriott has impacted the value of resale points, by increasing those junk fees.

Best,

Greg

Click to expand...

Greg,
I agree with your assessment. I think another important factor is the relative value of vacationing at a time share compared to hotels and resorts. Hotel prices have really escalated ($ and point requirements), as well as their taxes, resort fees, parking, and other incidentals. Additionally, food savings are substantial at a timeshare because meals can be enjoyed in the villa.

I really don't see how a family of four can afford to stay at a traditional resort for a week any more, but timeshare vacations are more affordable.

camachinist said:

Thanks for the information. I think I'll contact buyback and get some current numbers as Dioxide has no listings for NCV buybacks and crunch the numbers. I was getting a lot of lowballs last year. What a difference a year apparently makes. Good luck with your purchases. Been a NCV owner for a decade and positive results both as a user and landlord.

Click to expand...

Not sure I'm understanding correctly, if you're using "buyback" to mean Marriott exercising ROFR on Weeks resales or Marriott actually buying back Weeks from Owners, but figured just in case it might help to drop the link here for TUG's ongoing Marriott Buybacks thread:

Marriott is BUYING BACK TIMESHARES [2012 / Ongoing]

(It's not often the thread drops off the first page of the forum but it's been quiet for a few weeks.)

I think the TUG term might be 'repurchase' as opposed to 'broker', relevant to MVCI's various programs for owners wishing to sell. What I'm talking about is the quick close direct repurchase program. Dioxide has no contributions for NCV so I'll collect some data on my various ownerships there and contribute.

Edited to add that, indeed, I did read the entire linked thread before adding to this one. That's where I found out about Dioxide's various databases.

camachinist said:

I think the TUG term might be 'repurchase' as opposed to 'broker', relevant to MVCI's various programs for owners wishing to sell. What I'm talking about is the quick close direct repurchase program. Dioxide has no contributions for NCV so I'll collect some data on my various ownerships there and contribute.

Edited to add that, indeed, I did read the entire linked thread before adding to this one. That's where I found out about Dioxide's various databases.

Click to expand...

Yep, I had a feeling it was me being confused while you knew exactly what you were talking about. Thanks!

larue said:

It depends on who sells your week. See the following from the disclosure guide, Section VI, Miscellaneous Provisions:

a. Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid. Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.​

According to a points specialist with Marriott, citing the provision above, if you sell your week through Marriott, the new owner is in with payment of an initiation fee of $2,000 (or more if you are selling weeks worth more than 10 shares). If you sell through anyone else, according to this same person, the new owner can also join but will be limited to a 60 day advance booking option.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that the Trust has been set up to ignore the concept of justice and fairness, at least regarding the resale transactions. I am not claiming that the concept is black and white but still, a week (or the points) sold by an owner will have different features (and intrinsic values) than a week (or points) sold by the developer, even if the weeks or the points may have been acquired by both from an existing owner and were identical prior to the acquisition. In practice this means a perpetual economic advantage for one side.

"Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. "

Isn't true that the contracts sold by the developer have more value than the ones sold by the other owners just because of the unequal treatment?

Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?

jabberwocky said:

Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?

Click to expand...

Because someone really dislikes a certain dead horse (Abound), and wants to not only keep on beating it for weeks on end, but wants to do so in multiple locations (threads).

sponger76 said:

Because someone really dislikes a certain dead horse (Abound), and wants to not only keep on beating it for weeks on end, but wants to do so in multiple locations (threads).

Click to expand...

Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.

jabberwocky said:

Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.

Click to expand...

I just really wish I knew what they did to piss him off so much. I don't know how they could have, since they haven't actually opened up to do anything yet.

While the person is not on my ignore list, it is the same as ignore since I just skip a post immediately when I see who posted it.

jabberwocky said:

Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.

Click to expand...

It appears the message that dredged it up was moved or deleted by the moderator. You would see the post otherwise, even if they were ignored by you. The exact content would just require a click to reveal.

I read through a few posts. It is interesting that the fears of Marriott owners are similar to Vistana owners.

jabberwocky said:

Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?

Click to expand...

@TravelTime
It is indeed an old thread, I looked back to see the objections of the legacy Marriott owners in 2010 and I could not find anything related to the resort rules that prevented MVC to book 12 or 13 months before check in. Vistana is very different because the Abound rules may be in conflict with resort rules when it comes to the home resort reservation period.

I responded to a 12-year-old comment because it is still valid today and possibly show owners that unless they have something in writing and verifiable, they should not bank on the idea of fairness when it comes to our relationship with any developer, and that includes matters related to the inventory. Most owners know that already, but others seem to forget it all the time.

You can find more details about why I went back in my comment here:
How strong is the exclusive right of the Lagunamar owners to compete for the entire inventory during the Home Resort Reservation Period? | Page 3 | Timeshare Users Group Discussion Forums (tugbbs.com)

timsi said:

It is interesting that the Trust has been set up to ignore the concept of justice and fairness, at least regarding the resale transactions. I am not claiming that the concept is black and white but still, a week (or the points) sold by an owner will have different features (and intrinsic values) than a week (or points) sold by the developer, even if the weeks or the points may have been acquired by both from an existing owner and were identical prior to the acquisition. In practice this means a perpetual economic advantage for one side.

"Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. "

Isn't true that the contracts sold by the developer have more value than the ones sold by the other owners just because of the unequal treatment?

Justice and Fairness

An introduction to the justice approach to ethics including a discussion of desert, distributive justice, retributive justice, and compensatory justice.

www.scu.edu

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the term fairness and timeshare should be used in the same paragraph, timeshare systems in general are inherently unfair though some more than others. They are heavily weighted in the favor of the developer plus the various VIP programs, also to benefit the developer in many ways, create an unequal footing between different members. We can complain, we can choose not to participate or we can put ourselves in the best situation possible. Many, if not most, of us have taken the latter approach. In many ways the Trust is inherently more fair than the weeks system if looked at globally if one is looking at resale vs retail. However, when one purchases retail or otherwise, there are contractual obligations and there's fluff. For MVC and weeks, the points system add on option is fluff and is not contractual to the original retail purchaser or any resale buyer. One should understand these issues before buying as they are obvious if one reads the legal documents of any timeshare I've ever looked at and does even limited investigation. Actually your quote above could be used to argue the other side as resale buyers and retail buyers are inherently unequal as "they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved". ALL MVC owners entered into a contract with MVC, or in some cases, with a previous company that then sold those rights to MVC and that includes language that states that to resell they are at a disadvantage. For resort MVC is ultimately only the managing agent and such resorts could chose to leave the system or the system could exclude the resort. It's happened before I think 9 times with MVC if I'm counting correctly. So one way to approach this issue if one were so inclined, would be to work toward exiting the system. I'm not aware of any resort that's voluntarily left the system. I am aware of a couple that decided not to spend the money to be able to continue in the system but the rest were simply dropped because they didn't fit in.

Fundamentally though why would one continue to participate with a system they thought was truly inappropriate? Not aimed at you, unless it applies directly to how you got here, but I'm always amazed at how otherwise bright and diligent people can get taken by timeshare sales and do essentially no investigation before handing over tens of thousands of $$$ or more. IMO that situation puts the blame squarely on the buyer and the words "the timeshare salesperson said" are not a valid out. We see it routinely here and elsewhere that people make assumptions that are near best case scenario and ignore many of the risks of both the system and their own personal situation when looking at possibly purchasing. I personally don't buy the concept that companies are inherently bad or that they have no right to protect themselves currently and going forward.

And the truth is that if one decides not to do business with companies that treat different people differently, they'd have to go off the grid completely because there probably isn't a company in the world that can hold up to that standard.

Isn't true that the contracts sold by the developer have more value than the ones sold by the other owners just because of the unequal treatment?

Click to expand...

I would ague it is not true. Every resale buyer has all the contractual options that the original buy had for that timeshare option.

I just saw a Marriott's Ko Olina ocean view 2 bedroom go for just over $11,000 on eBay, annual use. I may have bid on that one. It's a good seller that I used for a Willow Ridge week I bought for a song. I didn't want to see Ko Olina go cheaply, yet it did because I wouldn't bid more on something that I may not be able to use most years. It's too rich for the kids' blood in MF's. I would have to rent it about 2 of three years. I wasn't willing to take the chance. It would be an expensive II deposit.

So Marriott may be devaluing deeded weeks, but that has happened with DP. Suddenly Marriott resales were cheaper than before. So it's true, but it's a good thing for those of us who wouldn't pay the high prices, anyway. Each to his own.

rickandcindy23 said:

I just saw a Marriott's Ko Olina ocean view 2 bedroom go for just over $11,000 on eBay, annual use. I may have bid on that one. It's a good seller that I used for a Willow Ridge week I bought for a song. I didn't want to see Ko Olina go cheaply, yet it did because I wouldn't bid more on something that I may not be able to use most years. It's too rich for the kids' blood in MF's. I would have to rent it about 2 of three years. I wasn't willing to take the chance. It would be an expensive II deposit.

So Marriott may be devaluing deeded weeks, but that has happened with DP. Suddenly Marriott resales were cheaper than before. So it's true, but it's a good thing for those of us who wouldn't pay the high prices, anyway. Each to his own.

Click to expand...

Because price discovery is so difficult and fragmented in the timeshare resale market, just because one sale was made on eBay at a very low price, may not be directly reflective of what most similar weeks sell for elsewhere. I don't follow KoOlina resale values, so I have no idea how good of a deal/low of a price that $11k eBay sale really is, but if it's significantly below the average, then I would expect there would be a very good chance Marriott might take it back with ROFR once it's presented to them by the closing agent.

JIMinNC said:

Because price discovery is so difficult and fragmented in the timeshare resale market, just because one sale was made on eBay at a very low price, may not be directly reflective of what most similar weeks sell for elsewhere. I don't follow KoOlina resale values, so I have no idea how good of a deal/low of a price that $11k eBay sale really is, but if it's significantly below the average, then I would expect there would be a very good chance Marriott might take it back with ROFR once it's presented to them by the closing agent.

Click to expand...

True. I was going to bid more and thought better of it. I saw an annual week with the same view go for a much lower price on RW than I thought it should. It was around the price I bid. But I was outbid by $100. Who knows how high it would have gone?

I just didn't ask Rick before I bid, so I would have to explain it after, when I ask him to sign the contract. The conversation is always, "Lucy, you have some splaining to do." This is truly how some conversations start around here. For all of the younger folks, my name is not Lucy. The older people will understand.