Is 2019 the 'Year of the Timeshare'? [Marriott/Vistana/Hyatt in the DC speculation]

[Ken555]

In my opinion, this is the key challenge Marriott Vacations Worldwide will face in designing a cross-brand exchange system, and may be the single biggest impediment to ever completely abandoning VSN.

Agreed.

I personally don't think they are that dumb.

Agreed.

So, they probably would value WKV more than Canyon Villas in the DC, but it probably won't be enough to book comparable space in Hawaii. If they valued WKV high enough to book Hawaii in the DC, that would be hard to rationalize with the other DC point values.

Therein lies the problem.

That situation is the best life insurance policy VSN probably has. As long as VSN owners can still get the same value as always in VSN, it doesn't matter as much if the exchange ratios into the DC are different for the MVC locations.

Yes. This also diminishes the value of enrolling my week into the DP program. On the other hand, I am very interested to discover what they offer for my SDO weeks, which I exclusively use now to trade in II (and SFX, but they haven't done as well).

 

[sjsharkie]

It wouldn’t shock me if Marriott devalued many resorts.

Devaluing through point inflation wouldn't shock me. Devaluing through decrease in points would.

Ryan

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[CPNY]

Devaluing through point inflation wouldn't shock me. Devaluing through decrease in points would.

Ryan

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Do you mean changing the SVN point calendar value and increasing the amount of options to book resorts in Maui, thereby devaluing others or the way they may convert in the DC program, if as many are speculating the VSN resorts are rolled in? I Hope they would leave the star options chart alone.

 

[SteelerGal]

I can see that Canyon Villas on Redweek rents for about $2400-$2700ish during those same weeks. So maybe a 25% to 50% is not far off per Dioxide's post.

-ryan

W/ it being Spring Training, it completely makes sense. Even SDO rents for much higher. Arz has soo many sporting and auto events, occupancy remains high.

 

[JIMinNC]

I have a couple questions for those folks who did the deep-dive into the Destination Club CCRs when it was announced almost 10 years ago...

1) I understand that the docs say something about the total number of points required to book can't change and that an increase in points required to book in one part of the point chart has to be offset by a decrease elsewhere. Can those adjustments be made between resorts or just within a given resort?
2) Since the points assigned to enrolled weeks are somewhat tied to the points required to book those weeks (the booking cost less the "Skim"), what freedom does Marriott Vacation Club have to change the points assigned to enrolled weeks? In other worlds, can they decide to change the election value of a Maui Ocean Club 2BR OV from 5825 points to 5200 or 6500? It would seem a change like that would trigger the need to adjust booking costs as well, which would then run into the restriction that increases in one part of the chart need to be offset elsewhere.

I ask this because the discussion a page or two earlier in this thread about the low point values assigned to Caribbean resorts, made me wonder to what extent MVC could use any re-do of the DC system (to incorporate participation by the Vistana/Hyatt networks) to also adjust or rectify any point value imbalances that may have been uncovered in the first decade of the DC?

 

[Fasttr]

I have a couple questions for those folks who did the deep-dive into the Destination Club CCRs when it was announced almost 10 years ago...

1) I understand that the docs say something about the total number of points required to book can't change and that an increase in points required to book in one part of the point chart has to be offset by a decrease elsewhere. Can those adjustments be made between resorts or just within a given resort?
2) Since the points assigned to enrolled weeks are somewhat tied to the points required to book those weeks (the booking cost less the "Skim"), what freedom does Marriott Vacation Club have to change the points assigned to enrolled weeks? In other worlds, can they decide to change the election value of a Maui Ocean Club 2BR OV from 5825 points to 5200 or 6500? It would seem a change like that would trigger the need to adjust booking costs as well, which would then run into the restriction that increases in one part of the chart need to be offset elsewhere.

I ask this because the discussion a page or two earlier in this thread about the low point values assigned to Caribbean resorts, made me wonder to what extent MVC could use any re-do of the DC system (to incorporate participation by the Vistana/Hyatt networks) to also adjust or rectify any point value imbalances that may have been uncovered in the first decade of the DC?

The second paragraph of this excerpt from the Exchange Docs seems to apply to your second question.

Exchange Members. Each calendar year, an Exchange Member may Deposit Use Periods associated with the Exchange Member’s Interest with the Exchange Company during the applicable Deposit Window. Exchange Members are required to Deposit Use Periods in 7-consecutive evening increments (in 3 526828-17 (eff. 10.31.17) accordance with the governing documents associated with the Exchange Member’s Component). Lock-off portions of an Accommodation are not eligible to be deposited. Deposits may only be made during the Deposit Window for the Use Period that the Exchange Member desires to Deposit. With respect to an Exchange Member who owns an alternate year Interest, unless the Exchange Member banks or borrows Exchange Points as may be permitted by these Exchange Procedures, such Exchange Member will be entitled to Deposit Use Periods associated with his or her Interest for usage of Exchange Points only during the calendar year in which such Exchange Member’s use rights occur, and will be required to use their Exchange Points during the same calendar year; provided, however, such Exchange Member will be assessed Exchange Company Dues on an annual basis (as applicable).

For administrative convenience in the operation of the Program and for determination of the respective rights of Exchange Members to enjoy the benefits of the Program, the Exchange Company will assign a Distribution of Exchange Points to each Exchange Member for Use Periods Deposited by the Exchange Member for exchange each Use Year. The number of Exchange Points in a Distribution for a particular Use Period is based on various factors such as relative daily and seasonal demand, Accommodation capacity, size, view, and furnishings, and other valuation parameters established by the Exchange Company and may vary periodically by such factors. The number of Exchange Points in a Distribution is not in any way intended to be reflective of the economic value of any Interest and may vary from year to year based on the forgoing factors.

 

[kds4]

I have a couple questions for those folks who did the deep-dive into the Destination Club CCRs when it was announced almost 10 years ago...

1) I understand that the docs say something about the total number of points required to book can't change and that an increase in points required to book in one part of the point chart has to be offset by a decrease elsewhere. Can those adjustments be made between resorts or just within a given resort?
2) Since the points assigned to enrolled weeks are somewhat tied to the points required to book those weeks (the booking cost less the "Skim"), what freedom does Marriott Vacation Club have to change the points assigned to enrolled weeks? In other worlds, can they decide to change the election value of a Maui Ocean Club 2BR OV from 5825 points to 5200 or 6500? It would seem a change like that would trigger the need to adjust booking costs as well, which would then run into the restriction that increases in one part of the chart need to be offset elsewhere.

I ask this because the discussion a page or two earlier in this thread about the low point values assigned to Caribbean resorts, made me wonder to what extent MVC could use any re-do of the DC system (to incorporate participation by the Vistana/Hyatt networks) to also adjust or rectify any point value imbalances that may have been uncovered in the first decade of the DC?

Great question. I think we've been seeing this already based on how they have been adjusting point requirements for holiday weeks (with a supposed adjustment elsewhere on that resort's point calendar).

 

[Fasttr]

I have a couple questions for those folks who did the deep-dive into the Destination Club CCRs when it was announced almost 10 years ago...

1) I understand that the docs say something about the total number of points required to book can't change and that an increase in points required to book in one part of the point chart has to be offset by a decrease elsewhere. Can those adjustments be made between resorts or just within a given resort?
2) Since the points assigned to enrolled weeks are somewhat tied to the points required to book those weeks (the booking cost less the "Skim"), what freedom does Marriott Vacation Club have to change the points assigned to enrolled weeks? In other worlds, can they decide to change the election value of a Maui Ocean Club 2BR OV from 5825 points to 5200 or 6500? It would seem a change like that would trigger the need to adjust booking costs as well, which would then run into the restriction that increases in one part of the chart need to be offset elsewhere.

I ask this because the discussion a page or two earlier in this thread about the low point values assigned to Caribbean resorts, made me wonder to what extent MVC could use any re-do of the DC system (to incorporate participation by the Vistana/Hyatt networks) to also adjust or rectify any point value imbalances that may have been uncovered in the first decade of the DC?

From the DC Trust POS, the following excerpts seems to apply to your first question.

Demand Balancing. In establishing the Reservation Procedures, the Developer and Board have taken into account the location and anticipated relative use demand for each Accommodation and Component and each has used its best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the Beneficiaries as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the Trust Property. The Association Delegee will periodically make such adjustments or amendments to the Trust Reservation System and the Reservation Procedures in order to respond to actual Beneficiary use patterns and changes in Beneficiary demand for the Accommodations existing within the Trust, as well as other pertinent information. The Association Delegee will also take into consideration the demand for and the availability of existing Accommodations prior to making any additions, deletions, or substitutions of Accommodations.

And also....

Subject to the limited calendar adjustments described in this paragraph, any increase or decrease in the number of Points for Use required to reserve a designated Use Period pursuant to Association Delegee’s right to amend the Point Schedule as set forth above must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase to the Points for Use for other Use Period(s) occurring during the same year as the designated Use Period. Points for Use for a given calendar year will fluctuate from year to year as a result of the number of weekends that occur during that year, leap years, the occurrence of “Week 53” as defined in the Component Declarations, and which day of the week a holiday occurs. As a result of these fluctuating factors and differing demand which occurs because of the calendar permutations, the number of Points for Use may fluctuate for a given Use Period; provided, however, that the Points for Use for a Use Period in a specific calendar year that has the same factors as another specific calendar year, may only be increased or decreased pursuant to the preceding paragraph. Any modification to the Point Schedule shall not require approval by the Beneficiaries.

Where Use Period is defined as follows:

Use Period means the time period(s) of a day or consecutive days during which each Beneficiary is afforded the opportunity to reserve and use an accommodation in accordance with the Trust Agreement, the Reservation Procedures, and the other Trust Plan Documents.

 

[JIMinNC]

From the DC Trust POS, the following excerpt seems to apply to your first question.

Subject to the limited calendar adjustments described in this paragraph, any increase or decrease in the number of Points for Use required to reserve a designated Use Period pursuant to Association Delegee’s right to amend the Point Schedule as set forth above must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase to the Points for Use for other Use Period(s) occurring during the same year as the designated Use Period. Points for Use for a given calendar year will fluctuate from year to year as a result of the number of weekends that occur during that year, leap years, the occurrence of “Week 53” as defined in the Component Declarations, and which day of the week a holiday occurs. As a result of these fluctuating factors and differing demand which occurs because of the calendar permutations, the number of Points for Use may fluctuate for a given Use Period; provided, however, that the Points for Use for a Use Period in a specific calendar year that has the same factors as another specific calendar year, may only be increased or decreased pursuant to the preceding paragraph. Any modification to the Point Schedule shall not require approval by the Beneficiaries.

Where Use Period is defined as follows:

Use Period means the time period(s) of a day or consecutive days during which each Beneficiary is afforded the opportunity to reserve and use an Accommodation in accordance with the Trust Agreement, the Reservation Procedures, and the other Trust Plan Documents.

I'm not sure I read where that clearly defines whether the Use Periods impacted by the increase/decrease and the offsetting increase/decrease have to be at the same resort or not.

I thought maybe by looking at the definition of "Accommodation" that might help answer and then the definition of "Component" inside that definition. Here is an abridged version:

Accommodation means an accommodation, condominium unit, apartment...and that portion of the Component(s) or other similar real property interests that is subject to exclusive ownership or use by one or more persons.

Component means those Accommodations located in a specific geographic location under common management, which constitute in whole or in part, any portion of the Trust Property, and related amenities and recreation facilities. The Association Delegee retains the right to determine what constitutes a Component in the Association Delegee's sole discretion from time to time.

After reading all of that, I'm still not sure I understand...

 

[Fasttr]

I'm not sure I read where that clearly defines whether the Use Periods impacted by the increase/decrease and the offsetting increase/decrease have to be at the same resort or not.

I thought maybe by looking at the definition of "Accommodation" that might help answer and then the definition of "Component" inside that definition. Here is an abridged version:

Accommodation means an accommodation, condominium unit, apartment...and that portion of the Component(s) or other similar real property interests that is subject to exclusive ownership or use by one or more persons.

Component means those Accommodations located in a specific geographic location under common management, which constitute in whole or in part, any portion of the Trust Property, and related amenities and recreation facilities. The Association Delegee retains the right to determine what constitutes a Component in the Association Delegee's sole discretion from time to time.

After reading all of that, I'm still not sure I understand...

I could not draw a conclusion either. I would imagine it’s intentionally vague.

 

[CPNY]

I could not draw a conclusion either. I would imagine it’s intentionally vague.

Sounds like they can increase or decrease based on factors of what days of the week a holiday may fall on, how many weekends are in a calendar year etc. when there is an increase or decrease in a certain use period then there must be a decrease or increase in other use periods within the same calendar year, to match up? And the increase or decrease may only fluctuate to match increases and decreases in years that have had similar circumstances? Wow, that is confusing as heck.
I would assume it’s a blanket across the board fluctuating point value for all resorts?

Is this why one of the line items on the eBay listing for DP resale had a line item of $300 education fee for new owners? The real estate company was charging to give education on how this system works? Kinda didn’t understand that.

 

[JIMinNC]

Is this why one of the line items on the eBay listing for DP resale had a line item of $300 education fee for new owners? The real estate company was charging to give education on how this system works? Kinda didn’t understand that.

The Education Fee is a fee Marriott charges on Trust point purchases for all new Destination Club members. It is not a fee you pay if you already own Trust points.

 

[CPNY]

The Education Fee is a fee Marriott charges on Trust point purchases for all new Destination Club members. It is not a fee you pay if you already own Trust points.

Makes sense, it said existing owners didn’t have to pay the fee.

 

[dioxide45]

.I think the rental price of points has not been driven too far up because I believe "a flood" of points are on the market (in my opinion).

The main group probably keeping rental prices down are the mega renters that own Grand Residence and Perhaps also Ritz that enrolled their weeks. Their MF per point is quite low and they can flood the market with tens of thousands of points.

A two bedroom WKV rents for ~$3,700 during prime season (March). So if they don't offer approx 6000 DC points (6000 DC points @ $0.60 = $3,600) , owners will find it more profitable to rent their weeks rather than to elect points and MVC will have no inventory.

Also, a DC cost of less than about 6000 DC points to reserve the unit would permit one to rent the unit for far less than its rental value by renting DC points @ ~ $0.60 (if the price were 4000 DC points, one could rent enough points for $2,400).

I don't think Marriott will, in any way, be concerned about the rental value that an owner can get for their week. Perhaps if it will undercut their rental market, they may make some adjustments.

Great question. I think we've been seeing this already based on how they have been adjusting point requirements for holiday weeks (with a supposed adjustment elsewhere on that resort's point calendar).

Based on the last nine years, there are only a small handful of situations where Marriott has changed point values. None have ever been made that span across resorts, most within the same week when it came to holidays. There was a situation a while back at Ko'Olina where they increased the price of the individual 1BR and studio units but didn't change the point cost of the whole 2BR unit. Since there are no separately deeded 1BR and studio units at Ko'Olina, the didn't really run afoul of anything. Vistana can't really do that in VSN because they often sold off individual parts of the 2BR lock off units and now that they have conveyed these weeks to their Flex trusts, they have effectively locked in the point values of those weeks.

 

[Ken555]

The Education Fee is a fee Marriott charges on Trust point purchases for all new Destination Club members. It is not a fee you pay if you already own Trust points.

Wait, what? When you buy Trust you must pay a fee...for them to teach you about the program? I must be missing something, since that sounds absurd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dioxide45]

In my opinion, this is the key challenge Marriott Vacations Worldwide will face in designing a cross-brand exchange system, and may be the single biggest impediment to ever completely abandoning VSN. When the DC was first developed, MVC owners had no pre-existing point system, so the only yardstick they could use to compare was the relative "black box" of the II exchange system. In II, a week exchanged for a week, and it was possible to exchange a lower demand location like Canyon Villas for a high demand place like Maui, but the whole value exchange process was closeted in secrecy and everyone knew exchanging was something of a crapshoot. So, the owner that swapped a shoulder season Canyon Villas for a week on Maui saw what they got as a great deal, but it wasn't "expected".

I think this may be why we end up seeing Marriott creating an overlay only for their pure trust point owners; Sheraton Flex, Westin Flex, Westin Aventuras and Marriott Trust Points (to be renamed Marriott Flex). These owners really have non pre-conceived value of the worth of a week. Marriott then sets up some kind of conversion ratio of DC points and HomeOptions. You can continue to book inside your own trust starting at 13/12 months depending on ownership level and trust and if you want to book across the systems you can do so at some other month mark (or perhaps still at 13/12 months). Perhaps you don't even have to elect your points, you just do a straight booking and you keep whatever leftover points in their original form. So say it is 20:1 and you own 6,000 DC points, you can perhaps use 2,200 to get to get 44,000 Options to book a 1BR in low season in Cancun for a week and have 3,800 DC points left for a Marriott booking or perhaps a later conversion to Options. Or you are a Vistana owner and want to book a peak 1BR in Boston, you use 63,000 Options and whatever you have left can be used for a Vistana reservation or future conversion to DC points. There may be bargains or bad conversions and 20:1 may not be the best ratio, but you get the idea.

The more I think about this and the problems they will have with what they sold certain Vistana weeks for and what they are really worth as compared to similar Marriott resorts in the same area, the more I think they will go with a conversion only for pure trust point owners. If us weeks owners want in, we have to buy in or perhaps trade in our weeks using "equity value" and buy in to one of the trusts. Marriott doesn't really owe any of us anything. Again though, it is all speculation and guessing or perhaps I just created their new program for them

 

[dioxide45]

Wait, what? When you buy Trust you must pay a fee...for them to teach you about the program? I must be missing something, since that sounds absurd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only if you buy the Trust points resale and only if you don't already own trust points. It is a junk fee and pure money grab.

 

[SMB1]

Wait, what? When you buy Trust you must pay a fee...for them to teach you about the program? I must be missing something, since that sounds absurd.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the junk fees that have been discussed in many posts here. I believe it is a one time $300 fee for first time owners of destination points when bought resale.

 

[csalter2]

I have read the many posts on this thread. Very interesting. I must say that the anxiety that Vistana and others who are now in the system are so much similar to what I heard when Diamond Resorts bought systems like Intrawest. Those owners were very testy and unhappy with Diamond Resorts acquiring them. They tried to sue and everything else. Diamond rebranded them as Embarq. Diamond has various collections of resorts that the points owners belong to. Each owner has a home collections. Some of the collections are named the US Collectin, Hawaii Collection, California Collection, etc. Some of the Intrawest resorts were placed in the US Collection. One resort, Cabo Azul was made its own collection. Owners in their home collection have a 13 month advantage to make reservations. If you want to book a reservation outside of your collection, you have to wait 10 months.

When Diamond acquires these systems, they give owners in these acquisitions a choice to keep what they currently have or convert to Diamond. Diamond does not care if you’re a owner of weeks or points in your system. They sell Diamond points. Some people keep their deeds and still buy Diamond points because they want access to all of the Diamond locations worldwide. Some just keep their deed or points that their system had. Sometimes it’s beneficial to keep the points you had in your system because Diamond takes the inventory that was unsold and gives it their own Diamond Resorts points value. If you buy into Diamond and leave your points system, it’s possible you can lose some power. For example, you may have been able to get a two bedroom unit during Christmas with your old ownership. However, when you look at the Diamond conversion, if you look at almost all weeks you will see that you can still get a 2 bedroom, but if you are not savvy to look at the entire calendar and points requirements, you may miss that the points conversion for Diamond does not give you enough points for July 4th, Christmas or New Years that you once could do with your original points contract. So you have to be careful what you’re giving up to join.

Veryone pays the same fees to enter Damond and maintenance fees are the same for all. There are no reservation fees because part of your fees are annual reservation and club fees. All Diamond Club members have access to all of the inventory at 10 months our on a first come first serve basis. All new acquisitions buy into the Club. If you are a Diamond owner in the Club, then you do NOT pay extra to have access to the new inventory of the recent acquisitions. However, they pay to become part of the Club if they desire. The other piece that is important is that for the newer acquisitions, particularly the nicer and high demand resorts, Diamond does require significantly more points for them compared to others.

Now I know you may ask why does he bring this up? Well, many of the Diamond executives are now at Marriott! When Marriott rolled out their point system in 2010. There were not a lot of differences that I saw between the two. Because of that, there was really very little transition for me having been in the Diamond system for so many years.

I foresee much of this happening with Marriott. I believe that Vistana owners will have a choice. Their choice to have access to more locations or to just continue to do what they have always done with some variance or lost of some benefits that are at the discretion of Marriott. Diamond either limited, deleted or altered some of the perks owners had because it was written into the contract that they could at any time. Just like with Marriott owners in which Marriott can stop the Destinations Program benefit levels at any time or stop bongos points or stop renting points. These are all possibilities I have seen exercised. People sue, get angry and everything else, but as long as the contract is being honored, there is not a lot to say.

Remember, this people on this site are a small minority. The public at large is not as aware as most of us on TUG.

 

[bazzap]

In the end, it's all speculation until something formal is announced. The only thing that has been said officially that we can bank on is what the Marriott Vacations Worldwide CEO, Stephen Weisz, said in their last earnings conference call for investors:

"Looking ahead to 2020, we have begun focusing on product enhancements for the various brands. Specifically, we are working hard to develop an integrated product form that can be leveraged across the Marriott, Westin, and Sheraton brands enhancing the overall value proposition for our owners and customers. It will take time to finalize and roll out this new product form. However, we are very excited about the potential it will provide and we look forward to updating you in the future as this work evolves.”

I don't think they have announced the exact date of their second quarter earnings call, but it should be late July or early August. Maybe more info then; maybe not.

Marriott Vacations Worldwide 2Q19 Earnings Call
Aug 1, 2019 at 8:30 AM EDT

 

[bazzap]

I have a couple questions for those folks who did the deep-dive into the Destination Club CCRs when it was announced almost 10 years ago...

1) I understand that the docs say something about the total number of points required to book can't change and that an increase in points required to book in one part of the point chart has to be offset by a decrease elsewhere. Can those adjustments be made between resorts or just within a given resort?
2) Since the points assigned to enrolled weeks are somewhat tied to the points required to book those weeks (the booking cost less the "Skim"), what freedom does Marriott Vacation Club have to change the points assigned to enrolled weeks? In other worlds, can they decide to change the election value of a Maui Ocean Club 2BR OV from 5825 points to 5200 or 6500? It would seem a change like that would trigger the need to adjust booking costs as well, which would then run into the restriction that increases in one part of the chart need to be offset elsewhere.

I ask this because the discussion a page or two earlier in this thread about the low point values assigned to Caribbean resorts, made me wonder to what extent MVC could use any re-do of the DC system (to incorporate participation by the Vistana/Hyatt networks) to also adjust or rectify any point value imbalances that may have been uncovered in the first decade of the DC?

Revaluation of the points for the Caribbean resorts would be my dream scenario.
I fear it will remain a dream though

 

[ocdb8r]

The more I think about this and the problems they will have with what they sold certain Vistana weeks for and what they are really worth as compared to similar Marriott resorts in the same area, the more I think they will go with a conversion only for pure trust point owners. If us weeks owners want in, we have to buy in or perhaps trade in our weeks using "equity value" and buy in to one of the trusts. Marriott doesn't really owe any of us anything. Again though, it is all speculation and guessing or perhaps I just created their new program for them

This poses several bigger problems to MVC though:

1) the current SVN trusts don't have enough inventory to make this very attractive to current DC owners (would make SVN resorts very hard to access and certain resorts like Harborside, unaccessable completely);

2) this would theoretically make DC point "add-ons" only attractive to current SVN owners in one of the flexOption programs (which is a relatively small slice of the SVN customer base) as weeks owners have nothing to add on to; and

3) most important - this doesn't relieve them of the problem of the SVN point chart. The various flexOption trusts are based on the same point chart as the rest of SVN. That means if they go with an overall fixed ratio to exchange from flexOptions to DC points, the ratio back in will have to be similar (perhaps with some skim). The result is somehow Marriott is going to have to get (nearly) the same number of DC points for WKORV as they do for Westin Mission Hills or Dessert Willow (in high season). That doesn't nearly comport with the relative DC point values of similar MVC resorts in Maui and AZ/CA desert.

...just thinking a bit more as I write, what they could do is:

1) Use a different fixed exchange rate for each of the various flexOptions programs - say for Westin Flex you get 0.04 DC points for every Westin flexOption; for Sheraton Flex you get 0.03 DC points for every flexOption and for Westin Aventuras you get (who knows....perhaps 0.04, I have no idea how MVC will value Mexico). This doesn't solve the inherent mismatch between Maui and AZ/CA desert in the Westin flex...but that is the worst of the issues and perhaps with some sort of skim MVC can manage it. I think the mismatches between resort demand in the other trusts is much smaller.

2) for SVN weeks owners, they offer an option to enroll in the DC with your week being set at a fixed DC point value (completely unrelated to the SVN StarOptions value and based closer to similar MVC resort values), basically the same as what they did with MVC weeks owners when they launched the program. Yes, weeks owners will see a mismatch between the value ascribed compared to (1) above, but I think MVC could explain it away. Likely more in demand weeks/resorts (Maui. ski weeks...etc) will end up with a value higher than the fixed rate above and less in demand weeks/resorts (Orlando, mud weeks...etc) will end up with a value lower than the fixed rate above. For non-trust resorts, they don't have a true way to compare...and most of these are likely to be in demand resorts which would get a decent DC point value offered.

I think the most marginalized in the above approach would be Platinum desert week owners (both CA and AZ) who would likely not receive nearly the same rate of DC points as Platinum Maui week owners (where in SVN they are on par). However, this may be as good as can get and I suspect it marginalizes the smallest group of SVN owners. MVC had to contend with some of the same concerns when they launched the DC program as many low value week owners were regularly getting high value trades in II. While there was a lot of smoke the first year or so, over time things have settled down and most MVC owners have come to find value in the DC program.

Taken together, this approach also helps minimize the inherent mismatch in the SVN trusts. If they get enough weeks owners on board, the trusts stay a relatively small portion of the overall DC-SVN interaction and (2) above pulls the whole system closer to being on par with relative MVC resort DC point values.

This is where they have a problem with Vistana. Places like Westin Kierland Villas had a very high sales price as compared to Marriott resorts in the area. I think WKV Plat+ sold for close to $60K. The same is true for Lagunamar. That is much higher than Marriott sold Canyon Villas for. Vistana could command those higher prices because of how they setup their StarOption chart. A WKV Plat+ week could easily book in to a Hawaii week. So they were selling Hawaii in Scottsdale. Can they really give WKV week owners 5,000-6,000 DC points for their weeks when they would perhaps only charge 4,000 for the highest season week there? Not really because it would create a huge imbalance. People would convert to DC points and use those to book back in to WKV and have plenty of points leftover. Or they would book longer stays at WKV and people would effectively be locked out of booking back in because demand would be much higher than supply.

It will be intersting to see how they allocate these points and the vallues they assign to them along with how much they charge to book weeks at some of these properties.

I think the past is in the past and actual sales prices for weeks played very little into how DC point values were set at launch....and again, at worst this marginalizes the Platinum desert weeks owners which is a relatively small group when looking at SVN as a whole. No solution is going to make everyone happy, and I suspect this is the group that will lose out. As the systems mingle I don't think it's reasonable for WKV Platinum week owners to expect things will always stay on par and that their weeks will always be as valuable as a Maui week. I suspect they will continue to have SVN exchanges as an option to try to get those Maui weeks (but even there, this will become increasingly difficult over time if Maui week owners actually use DC points in any given year - thus taking the week out of the SVN pool that year).

ONE silver lining in all of this that I hope is in MVC's mind and may provide a tiny buffer. The one clear advantage SVN desert weeks (and most SVN mainland resort weeks) has over similarly situated MVC properties is that our properties lock-off into two 1-bedrooms. This should justify a bit of a premium in DC point value over MVC resorts and narrow the mismatch a bit.

 

[bazzap]

This poses several bigger problems to MVC though:

1) the current SVN trusts don't have enough inventory to make this very attractive to current DC owners (would make SVN resorts very hard to access and certain resorts like Harborside, unaccessable completely);

2) this would theoretically make DC point "add-ons" only attractive to current SVN owners in one of the flexOption programs (which is a relatively small slice of the SVN customer base) as weeks owners have nothing to add on to; and

3) most important - this doesn't relieve them of the problem of the SVN point chart. The various flexOption trusts are based on the same point chart as the rest of SVN. That means if they go with an overall fixed ratio to exchange from flexOptions to DC points, the ratio back in will have to be similar (perhaps with some skim). The result is somehow Marriott is going to have to get (nearly) the same number of DC points for WKORV as they do for Westin Mission Hills or Dessert Willow (in high season). That doesn't nearly comport with the relative DC point values of similar MVC resorts in Maui and AZ/CA desert.

...just thinking a bit more as I write, what they could do is:

1) Use a different fixed exchange rate for each of the various flexOptions programs - say for Westin Flex you get 0.04 DC points for every Westin flexOption; for Sheraton Flex you get 0.03 DC points for every flexOption and for Westin Aventuras you get (who knows....perhaps 0.04, I have no idea how MVC will value Mexico). This doesn't solve the inherent mismatch between Maui and AZ/CA desert in the Westin flex...but that is the worst of the issues and perhaps with some sort of skim MVC can manage it. I think the mismatches between resort demand in the other trusts is much smaller.

2) for SVN weeks owners, they offer an option to enroll in the DC with your week being set at a fixed DC point value (completely unrelated to the SVN StarOptions value and based closer to similar MVC resort values), basically the same as what they did with MVC weeks owners when they launched the program. Yes, weeks owners will see a mismatch between the value ascribed compared to (1) above, but I think MVC could explain it away. Likely more in demand weeks/resorts (Maui. ski weeks...etc) will end up with a value higher than the fixed rate above and less in demand weeks/resorts (Orlando, mud weeks...etc) will end up with a value lower than the fixed rate above. For non-trust resorts, they don't have a true way to compare...and most of these are likely to be in demand resorts which would get a decent DC point value offered.

I think the most marginalized in the above approach would be Platinum desert week owners (both CA and AZ) who would likely not receive nearly the same rate of DC points as Platinum Maui week owners (where in SVN they are on par). However, this may be as good as can get and I suspect it marginalizes the smallest group of SVN owners. MVC had to contend with some of the same concerns when they launched the DC program as many low value week owners were regularly getting high value trades in II. While there was a lot of smoke the first year or so, over time things have settled down and most MVC owners have come to find value in the DC program.

Taken together, this approach also helps minimize the inherent mismatch in the SVN trusts. If they get enough weeks owners on board, the trusts stay a relatively small portion of the overall DC-SVN interaction and (2) above pulls the whole system closer to being on par with relative MVC resort DC point values.



I think the past is in the past and actual sales prices for weeks played very little into how DC point values were set at launch....and again, at worst this marginalizes the Platinum desert weeks owners which is a relatively small group when looking at SVN as a whole. No solution is going to make everyone happy, and I suspect this is the group that will lose out. As the systems mingle I don't think it's reasonable for WKV Platinum week owners to expect things will always stay on par and that their weeks will always be as valuable as a Maui week. I suspect they will continue to have SVN exchanges as an option to try to get those Maui weeks (but even there, this will become increasingly difficult over time if Maui week owners actually use DC points in any given year - thus taking the week out of the SVN pool that year).

ONE silver lining in all of this that I hope is in MVC's mind and may provide a tiny buffer. The one clear advantage SVN desert weeks (and most SVN mainland resort weeks) has over similarly situated MVC properties is that our properties lock-off into two 1-bedrooms. This should justify a bit of a premium in DC point value over MVC resorts and narrow the mismatch a bit.

I am not totally certain, as it was a long time ago now, but I don’t recall that when enrolling our MVC Lock off weeks we received any premium over non Lock off weeks?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

They will have to grandfather the mandatory resale feature if they want to attract owners of WKORV, WKORVN, Harborside, St John etc to enroll. If not, this will be a deal breaker for many owners like me, making SVN quite relevant for a very long time (i.e. keeping significant Maui inventory in SVN SO pool vs. the points trust).

 

[ocdb8r]

I am not totally certain, as it was a long time ago now, but I don’t recall that when enrolling our MVC Lock off weeks we received any premium over non Lock off weeks?

It's not the lock-off feature itself I think commands more points, its the fact a 2 bedroom is comprised of 2 units that each equate to a 1 bedroom....think of it this way, certainly the small 1 bedroom side of an SVN lock-off should be worth more than a studio. Therefore the total for the full sized one bedroom and the small sized one bedroom (SVN mainland resorts) should command a premium over the total of a full sized one-bedroom plus a studio (MVC resorts).

One (not quite the same) example in DC is Marriott Grand Residence Club, Lake Tahoe - the larger 2 bedrooms (that sleep 6-8) command about a 10% point premium over the smaller 2 bedrooms (that sleep 4-6).

They will have to grandfather the mandatory resale feature if they want to attract owners of WKORV, WKORVN, Harborside, St John etc to enroll. If not, this will be a deal breaker for many owners like me, making SVN quite relevant for a very long time (i.e. keeping significant Maui inventory in SVN SO pool vs. the points trust).

I'm not sure I follow - why would the mandatory resale feature affect owners choice to enroll in the DC (if the option was provided)? If the enrollment fee is low, not sure why they would care if it transfers on ownership (to be clear, I have always assumed SVN as is will continue as it is alongside the DC, with the DC just as an additional option...I think too much work to wind SVN up). While I think SVN will continue to be relevant, if Maui, St John and Harborside owners are offered attractive DC point values for electing their week in any give year, it could start to crunch SVN inventory when those owners choose to use DC Points.