Strange issues with inventory at 13 months out

[Hindsite]

I don't need to speculate as you've already indicated that you wouldn't condemn even the possibility of taking a disproportionate number of prime weeks for higher rental profits or keeping them for Abound (this would also mean higher profits as they yield more points per week than the average of the season). I'm not suggesting they engage in such practices, and I hope they don't, and IMO it would be wrong on many levels. Perhaps you're not at liberty to offer a more detailed opinion regarding this issue.

I feel no need to provide you with further information, all you do is make assertions to grandstand.

 

[Theseus]

I feel no need to provide you with further information, all you do is make assertions to grandstand.

What color is the kettle?

 

[daviator]

I think that allowing bookings of less than a week is not a model that works well as the points system becomes closer to being fully sold. Allowing short stays results in too many “broken” nights, usually in the middle of the week, which are never going to rent on their own.

Part of the beauty of the (inflexible) weeks system is that you pretty much never have broken nights. Properties can operate at nearly full utilization. That can’t really happen, or isn’t likely to, when short stays are allowed.

MVC has to have known this from the beginning, but it wasn’t an issue when they had a large percentage of points unsold as there was room for a lot of unsold nights to exist. But now that there are a lot more owners demanding reservations, they can’t afford those broken nights and have instituted minimum stays (which sometimes might be 7 days!) to reduce the breakage.

Basically what I’m saying is that the short stay aspect of the points system breaks down as more points are sold and it’s just not workable. I think the minimum stay policies are a reaction to that reality. But nobody told Sales…

 

[timsi]

I think that allowing bookings of less than a week is not a model that works well as the points system becomes closer to being fully sold. Allowing short stays results in too many “broken” nights, usually in the middle of the week, which are never going to rent on their own.

Part of the beauty of the (inflexible) weeks system is that you pretty much never have broken nights. Properties can operate at nearly full utilization. That can’t really happen, or isn’t likely to, when short stays are allowed.

MVC has to have known this from the beginning, but it wasn’t an issue when they had a large percentage of points unsold as there was room for a lot of unsold nights to exist. But now that there are a lot more owners demanding reservations, they can’t afford those broken nights and have instituted minimum stays (which sometimes might be 7 days!) to reduce the breakage.

Basically what I’m saying is that the short stay aspect of the points system breaks down as more points are sold and it’s just not workable. I think the minimum stay policies are a reaction to that reality. But nobody told Sales…

Is there any indication that the MVC currently holds more unsold inventory compared to five years ago? My understanding is that their strategy is to maintain inventory levels that can be sold within the next 12-18 months and rent at a profit.

The recent adjustments in minimum nights bookings at specific resorts seem to align more with their publicly stated goal of being able to sell more Explorer packages (no mention of acquiring more inventory at the same time) and they need a minimum number of nights for those.

 

[davidvel]

While this is technically true, keep in mind that for weeks owners, all they have to do is provide enough weeks in that season to cover the number of weeks owned.

For instance, let’s say MVC sold 500 of 1,000 weeks at a resort for a particular season. The other 500 have been placed in the trust. Marriott only has to provide 500 weeks in that season, even if they’re the least desirable weeks. This could mean that a weeks owner wanting to book a popular holiday week may be out of luck booking at the 12 month window should points members be allowed to book up the entire inventory for that week 13 months in advance. I’m not saying this happens, but it does appear to be a possibility.

Over time we’ve seen what I believe is this scenario playing out at one of our home resorts. Prior to the DC/Abound we had no issue booking a week in December. Over time it became more and more difficult until one year we couldn’t book our full unit using the weeks system when the 12 month window opened. What frustrated me was I could have book that unit using points. I know because I looked.

As stated above inventory control is much more complex than simplistic. From the outside it’s easier to speculate what’s happening than what is actually happening. The only thing we really know for certain is the results. One of those results is the inability to book partial weeks as far in advance as advertised at all Abound resorts.

This is 100% FALSE, in California at least, and I presume most other states. It would clearly violate the deeded CC&Rs as well as California case law. All members of (owners in) the HOA must be treated equally by the HOA, its Board and management. Nothing in the CC&Rs allows for allocation of the best inventory in a season to a particular owner.

 

[Dean]

This is 100% FALSE, in California at least, and I presume most other states. It would clearly violate the deeded CC&Rs as well as California case law. All members of (owners in) the HOA must be treated equally by the HOA, its Board and management. Nothing in the CC&Rs allows for allocation of the best inventory in a season to a particular owner.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. All members are not treated equally with MVC or most timeshares. Obviously they should, and hopefully are, following the prescribed procedures for reserving the weeks/points they control. Even then they likely have an advantage over you and I in reserving. Even if they were subverting the reservation system I doubt we'd know it. IMO participating in timesharing requires a certain amount of trust and faith in the managing entity and those that don't have the belief they are doing so appropriately should exit.

 

[dannybaker]

Welcome to the smoke and mirrors of the points Club. This is why they changed to points. Rules say:
- minimum days may be required
- not all resorts guaranteed for all dates, and of course,
- we can change anything we want at our discretion at any time.

Welcome to the "Club."

People clamor to pay $20,000, $50,000, and even $70,000 to be part of this Club for the flexibility. So sad.

really is sad that the lies continue. We went to an owners update and after we said no the manager came to swoop in to save the day. She expressly talked about the benefits of points and thirteen months. We told her that it wasn’t true . I believe she called us a liar.

 

[davidvel]

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. All members are not treated equally with MVC or most timeshares. Obviously they should, and hopefully are, following the prescribed procedures for reserving the weeks/points they control. Even then they likely have an advantage over you and I in reserving. Even if they were subverting the reservation system I doubt we'd know it. IMO participating in timesharing requires a certain amount of trust and faith in the managing entity and those that don't have the belief they are doing so appropriately should exit.

While I've read a lot of posts about it on TUGBBS I've never seen any documented evidence of the bucket theory. Within the DC Club yes, but not as to actual weeks reservations (which the Club must do to get its inventory.) Either way, it would be illegal to do so.

I can't disagree that given the level of obscurity and control that MVC exerts as manager it would be next to impossible to know barring a lawsuit and discovery.

 

[Dean]

While I've read a lot of posts about it on TUGBBS I've never seen any documented evidence of the bucket theory. Within the DC Club yes, but not as to actual weeks reservations (which the Club must do to get its inventory.) Either way, it would be illegal to do so.

I can't disagree that given the level of obscurity and control that MVC exerts as manager it would be next to impossible to know barring a lawsuit and discovery.

I'm not completely sure I understand the specifics of your point but I do know for certain that the weeks are not distributed evenly across any given season. I also know that all owners and exchangers (as all points reservation are) are not treated equally by the nature of the VIP status on the Points side and the 12/13 months rules on the weeks side.

 

[davidvel]

I'm not completely sure I understand the specifics of your point but I do know for certain that the weeks are not distributed evenly across any given season. I also know that all owners and exchangers (as all points reservation are) are not treated equally by the nature of the VIP status on the Points side and the 12/13 months rules on the weeks side.

My point is that so many people have said they are "certain" that the bucket theory is in play, but I've seen nothing to support this. If the CC&Rs were being followed, the Club would have to reserve its weeks just like me, you or any other owner. It then can do what it wants with those weeks in its Club. But I doubt they are following the docs.

 

[Dean]

My point is that so many people have said they are "certain" that the bucket theory is in play, but I've seen nothing to support this. If the CC&Rs were being followed, the Club would have to reserve its weeks just like me, you or any other owner. It then can do what it wants with those weeks in its Club. But I doubt they are following the docs.

By bucket theory are you saying that all weeks go in the bucket and they may be pulled out at different rates. While I do not have formal proof, I have discussed this issue sufficiently over years, including with corporate, to be certain that is is the case. Put another way, they do not hold back any weeks for one group or the other except based on the total number of weeks in a season. There are other ways they could control the weeks but I've seen zero indication any of the other methods are in play.

 

[dioxide45]

I think that allowing bookings of less than a week is not a model that works well as the points system becomes closer to being fully sold. Allowing short stays results in too many “broken” nights, usually in the middle of the week, which are never going to rent on their own.

Part of the beauty of the (inflexible) weeks system is that you pretty much never have broken nights. Properties can operate at nearly full utilization. That can’t really happen, or isn’t likely to, when short stays are allowed.

MVC has to have known this from the beginning, but it wasn’t an issue when they had a large percentage of points unsold as there was room for a lot of unsold nights to exist. But now that there are a lot more owners demanding reservations, they can’t afford those broken nights and have instituted minimum stays (which sometimes might be 7 days!) to reduce the breakage.

Basically what I’m saying is that the short stay aspect of the points system breaks down as more points are sold and it’s just not workable. I think the minimum stay policies are a reaction to that reality. But nobody told Sales…

The skim simply isn't big enough to cover breakage.

 

[timsi]

While I've read a lot of posts about it on TUGBBS I've never seen any documented evidence of the bucket theory.

100%. When Marriott has the ability at any given time to shuffle any given week between buckets based on their "anticipated demand"—and they can do so without our awareness either during the process or after—it renders the bucket theory futile. It's a convenient narrative for explaining the inventory management to those unfamiliar with timeshares, presenting an image of diligence that may not accurately reflect reality.

 

[timsi]

The skim simply isn't big enough to cover breakage.

Vistana does not have a skim and the inventory was quite good, at least before Marriott/Abound. HGVC does not have a skim either. Skim is nothing but a fee under the disguise of inventory management.

 

[Dean]

Vistana does not have a skim and the inventory was quite good, at least before Marriott/Abound. HGVC does not have a skim either. Skim is nothing but a fee under the disguise of inventory management.

All points systems have to allow for the possibility of orphaned rights and/or tie the inventory directly to the underlying weeks. For example, DVC has the skim it was just never noticed because they started as a points system and it was not obvious but it's there. Wyndham ties their inventory directly to the underlying weeks as does Bluegreen to a degree.

 

[timsi]

All points systems have to allow for the possibility of orphaned rights and/or tie the inventory directly to the underlying weeks. For example, DVC has the skim it was just never noticed because they started as a points system and it was not obvious but it's there. Wyndham ties their inventory directly to the underlying weeks as does Bluegreen to a degree.

I am confused; isn't the inventory in Abound also directly connected to specific weeks, either through the trust (based on the underlying weeks) or legacy week deposits? Essentially, isn't it virtually identical to how VSN/HGVC work, and they function well without the skim?

 

[Dean]

I am confused; isn't the inventory in Abound also directly connected to specific weeks, either through the trust (based on the underlying weeks) or legacy week deposits? Essentially, isn't it virtually identical to how VSN/HGVC work, and they function well without the skim?

I can't speak for VSN or HGVC. In abound the inventory is not limited to specific weeks for reservation purposes but simply to a season with the total number of nights in the trust plus elected. For example, with Bluegreen and Wyndham a reservation is tied directly to the underlying fixed week. Now if the system were set up to only reserve the UNDERLYING fixed week there would be no need for a skim. Basically anything that's a points system from the go will account for such loses upfront and owners will never see the drain. Abound had to account for those loses mid stream. I personally think they went overboard at times in the ir allowances.

 

[Superchief]

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. All members are not treated equally with MVC or most timeshares. Obviously they should, and hopefully are, following the prescribed procedures for reserving the weeks/points they control. Even then they likely have an advantage over you and I in reserving. Even if they were subverting the reservation system I doubt we'd know it. IMO participating in timesharing requires a certain amount of trust and faith in the managing entity and those that don't have the belief they are doing so appropriately should exit.

I had a lot of trust in MVC for many years, but some of their recent practices and management philosophies have caused me to lose my trust. I would never buy today, but will continue to try to get the most value from what I own. There are definitely signs recently that they are only out for corporate and care little about owners.

 

[bazzap]

The Asia Pacific (AP) Points system may be different, although it is aligned to the Abound Points system.
For Phuket Beach Club though:
initially it was Weeks only then when AP was introduced all unsold Weeks were conveyed to AP
now when any Weeks are revoked / delinquent they are conveyed to AP, but only when they make up a full years worth of that Week.

 

[Hindsite]

By bucket theory are you saying that all weeks go in the bucket and they may be pulled out at different rates. While I do not have formal proof, I have discussed this issue sufficiently over years, including with corporate, to be certain that is is the case.

I'm trying to refine the analogy I used to help me understand and set expectations about what is reasonable.
The separate buckets for the different inventory booking channels works as its easy to see that the same inventory isn't available via the various reservation systems. Beyond that is there some form of metadata tagging on inventory that might determine where or who it goes to for reservations?
Do requests or waitlist influence the flow of inventory between buckets?
I'm sure there's many parameters involved and some judgement applied in reality, but any clarification is appreciated.

 

[Dean]

I'm trying to refine the analogy I used to help me understand and set expectations about what is reasonable.
The separate buckets for the different inventory booking channels works as its easy to see that the same inventory isn't available via the various reservation systems. Beyond that is there some form of metadata tagging on inventory that might determine where or who it goes to for reservations?
Do requests or waitlist influence the flow of inventory between buckets?
I'm sure there's many parameters involved and some judgement applied in reality, but any clarification is appreciated.

I hope I'm understanding correctly. There is overlap between the buckets in the sense that a given week could be booked by either points or the weeks side. As I stated, I've delved into this issue directly over time. What I have been able to piece together is that the limitation is only on the number of weeks able to be reserved by each side across the entire season and there does appear to be assumed inventory in some situations. For sake of discussion, let's assume 10 units and 10 weeks in the season for 100 bookable weeks. Let's further assume 25% are in the trust and 25% of the weeks owners elect that year so that the total week units available are 50 each. In theory any given week could be booked completely by one group or the other until that group had used their allotment (which could change if additional elections happen later). So in this example, the first 50 week units could all be booked by points OR weeks. In reality it wouldn't happen because of the reservation system that puts both sides in competition for reservations ongoing. Now there are other ways this could be done and probably some that would be more fair to both sides in different situations but would likely require more IT manipulation and we all know how that goes with MVC. Personally I feel they should run them completely independently rather than commingle them and should tie points reservations to the actual base weeks involved but each possible approach would have it's own issues.

 

[Hindsite]

I hope I'm understanding correctly.

Thanks, all input from you experience is appreciated.
I believe that the reservation and allocations experience varies a lot based on what you own and how you use it.
Thankfully our use is relatively straightforward and doesn't require compensation for high demand dates and locations so is easier to get what we want.

 

[timsi]

I can't speak for VSN or HGVC. In abound the inventory is not limited to specific weeks for reservation purposes but simply to a season with the total number of nights in the trust plus elected. For example, with Bluegreen and Wyndham a reservation is tied directly to the underlying fixed week. Now if the system were set up to only reserve the UNDERLYING fixed week there would be no need for a skim. Basically anything that's a points system from the go will account for such loses upfront and owners will never see the drain. Abound had to account for those loses mid stream. I personally think they went overboard at times in the ir allowances.

Is there any evidence indicating that the skim is intended to prevent system overload, rather than simply allowing Marriott to rent out the 6% left on the table? My understanding is that the Abound inventory is entirely based on weeks as Marriott conveys weeks to the trust, which are then converted into points for sale. Similarly, the exchange inventory is also based on weeks. I am not quite sure I understand the point.

As I mention before, HGVC and VSN have functioned well without a skim and this should not come as a surprise. An argument can be made that without the skim, the inventory should be more abundant. This is because more week owners would feel incentivized to deposit more often as they receive greater value, instead of primarily booking their own weeks.

Possibly questions about the skim were commonly raised during sales meetings when you worked there, and salespeople crafted talking points to address these concerns. To me, there is nothing to suggest that the talking points regarding the skim are true.

 

[Dean]

Is there any evidence indicating that the skim is intended to prevent system overload, rather than simply allowing Marriott to rent out the 6% left on the table? My understanding is that the Abound inventory is entirely based on weeks as Marriott conveys weeks to the trust, which are then converted into points for sale. Similarly, the exchange inventory is also based on weeks. I am not quite sure I understand the point.

As I mention before, HGVC and VSN have functioned well without a skim and this should not come as a surprise. An argument can be made that without the skim, the inventory should be more abundant. This is because more week owners would feel incentivized to deposit more often as they receive greater value, instead of primarily booking their own weeks.

Possibly questions about the skim were commonly raised during sales meetings when you worked there, and salespeople crafted talking points to address these concerns. To me, there is nothing to suggest that the talking points regarding the skim are true.

I don't think there's any evidence that there was intent to generate excess for profit. My interactions would suggest it's not for nefarious reasons and if I truly thought it was, I'd sell out and move on. I do believe they over compensated, much like Disney did with the studio vs 1 BR points setup.

 

[Dean]

Thanks, all input from you experience is appreciated.
I believe that the reservation and allocations experience varies a lot based on what you own and how you use it.
Thankfully our use is relatively straightforward and doesn't require compensation for high demand dates and locations so is easier to get what we want.

I think both systems work fairly well for those that understand it and are proactive with a few areas of challenge for each side.

ETA: Both systems (points and floating weeks) establish unreasonable expectations for many buyers though more so points than the floating weeks system.