• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Apollo Group looking to buy HGVC [Merged]

Status
Not open for further replies.

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
JIMinNC, ski_sierra, let me deep dive into the details of what I am saying. I will use Bay Club/HGVC as an example, but I could use any HGVC resort.

I own A Penthouse weeks. There are 750 weeks available at Bay Club. (15 units @50 weeks a year. Weeks 51 and 52 are their own separate class.) For convenience, all sold out.

Of those 750 weeks, how many will book via home week preference? All of them?, some of them?, none of them? If everybody booked home week advantage, there would be a 1 to 1 booking when the window opens. So far, so good.

But say 50% decide to not to use the home week advantage, because they want to "point out" to another HGVC location.

Now you have 50% of 750 weeks competing for the same "prime weeks" for the type I own. Much better odds of getting the week(s) I want, for the place I own. Is anyone being hurt? No. I'm paying $400+ a week more, by owning at Bay Club, compared to, say, Elanra, for this preference. Any one could have this preference, if they are 1.) Willing to pay the extra fees, and 2.) Willing to plan more than 9 months in advance.

Now if one had a hypothetical HGVC trust structured like MVC, here is what would happen. (For this discussion, let's assume that Bay Club has a ROFR. In practice, it does not.)

I understand and concur with everything you wrote in the above quote. My comments will relate to the next quote below:

Assume that the trust has 50% of the weeks, either by ROFR, or by deposit by those "pointing out" people. (The MVC weeks owners converting to Trust points equivalent. . .)

The only way the MVC "Trust" controls a week, and thus has actual owner booking rights for that week, is to actually own that week (through repurchase, ROFR, new resorts, etc). MVC owners electing for points do not convert their week to "Trust Points", so the Trust does not have the right to book this weeks as the owner of that week. Those elected weeks are deposited into the MVC Exchange Company and are made available for other MVC owners to book through the Exchange. Then, the depositing owner gets the election point value of their deposited week in the form of "Elected Points", not Trust points. This may seem like a semantics issue, but legally those Elected Weeks are very different than weeks the Trust controls directly.

Those MVC owners who elect for points are removing their week from the inventory available for traditional home week reservations, but they are also removing themselves as a competitor for that inventory - so the system stays in balance. Points reservations are generally only confirmed from inventory that gets put into the MVC Exchange Company - either through Trust ownership of that inventory or points election by a weeks owner.

Whereas in the current system, those weeks are not assigned until the home week window closes. They are inventory for the current HGVC points people. Under the "MVC like" trust, those weeks get booked at the opening of the home week, as inventory for the trust!

So I go from 50% of the people competing over the weeks I own in the initial window, to 100%. Then I would not have any advantage by owning at Bay Club. It would be given to the trust. At which point, why own at Bay Club, paying the Hawaii premium? Sell and Buy in Vegas, if you can find a person to sell to.

Using your example above, right now, there are 750 Bay Club Penthouse A units. If as you proposed, 50% of current owners book during home week season, that leaves 375 units available for Club bookings.

If HGVC adopted an MVC-like Trust, they would only have the right to use the home window to "book" the weeks the Trust actually owns, they would have no explicit ownership rights to book the weeks that weeks owners choose to elect for points. Using your 750 unit example, If a hypothetical HGVC Trust actually managed over time, to own 25% of that 750 units, the Trust could only book 25% of that unit type/season or about 188 weeks. So, again using your Bay Club example of 750 Penthouse A units:
  • The HGVC Trust books their 25% (188 units) during the home window, that leaves 562 units for other owners.
  • If 50% of the owners opt to use their home week, that consumes another 281 units, meaning a total of 469 units out of the 750 are booked during home week season (63%)
  • The remaining 281 units are available for Club Bookings.
So, while there is less inventory available for Club Season, it only drops by 94 units (because we are assuming the HGVC Trust books 100% of their 188 units, whereas if those units were owned by regular owners, that might be just 50%.

In essence, this is what happened at MVC with the DC Trust. All the frictional inventory, (not sold, or ROFR'ed, or repo'ed), that had been part of the week owners inventory, became DC Trust inventory, leaving all the week owners with a 1 to 1 booking, at every location in the system. With cancellations along the way, the results could end up with owners not getting a week, even if they paid for it. (This is downplayed, but it is very real. personal experience.)

MVC has always structured their system different than HGVC. There has never been an HGVC-like "home resort window" in MVC. There was always a 1 to 1 booking ratio, except for whatever unsold or repo'ed inventory MVC controlled. In the old pre-2010 weeks system, there was no internal exchange system, so all you could do was book your home week at 12 months out (or 13 months for multi-week owners). Anyone wanting to visit another MVC resort just reserved a week and deposited into II, where there was a priority period of a few weeks when only MVC owners could be assigned other MVC deposits. So, while the developer inventory did provide a bit of a buffer for reservations, it was never as powerful as the HGVC home season/club season model.

So when MVC created their Trust and their internal points system, there was no home week priority to protect. They just had to ensure that the legacy weeks inventory "bucket" and the new points buckets are kept in balance. Any HGVC Trust would likely have to respect the current Home Season/Club Season approach or risk huge owner backlash, so that will mean that any HGVC Trust would probably look more like my example in the bulleted example above that what MVC has today.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
A trust will change what you pat in MF’s and what is potentially available in your home season. They usually figure your MF’s as an average of all the deeds in the trust, negating any advantage you have with a cheaper MF deed. The inexpensive Vegas deeds would lose the MF per point advantage. It also could affect those that use their home week advantage. The trust could use an earlier booking window to give the same or better reservation window than those with the home week advantage. Those that bought those weeks probably spent a good chunk of change and the trust could severely damage their ability to book their desired week and decrease the value of their deed.

This is only true if an owner decides to actually BUY trust points. Trust owners pay the trust maintenance fee, which is indeed determined by the maintenance fees of the weeks owned by the Trust. Traditional weeks owners continue to pay their regular fees. Just starting a Trust for new sales would not require existing owners to relinquish their deeds.

While it is true that HGVC could adopt new rules for a Trust, I think it would be highly unlikely they would dramatically erode existing owner rights. The loss of goodwill would be too large. So, I think any HGVC Trust would probably be structured to work within the rules of the current program. While there could be some impact to Club Season availability, as the example in my reply above to Ralph Sir Edward shows, the impact will likely not be as large as the gloom and doom predictions would seem too portend.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
There is also something else to consider while I am tossing the coin in the air trying to decide whether to add another unit now or wait, and that is the fee MVC charges to activate points in their trust. If Mr greedy pants follows the same model a 7000 point contract would cost an extra $21,000 to activate and virtually kill the resale prices.

The $3/point activation fee that MVC charges is only for resold Trust Points. It is not relevant to resale weeks, which become ineligible for points use anyway when they are resold to a new owner.

i never understood that approach. One should think that MVC would like to have a healthy resale market as it would mean that direct owners are able to sell their ownership with a smaller loss if they need to.

What is more important for a developer like MVC is ensuring that the resale marketplace does not compete with their direct sales. MVC Trust point packages tend to sell for $3-$5 per point on the external resale market. The $3/point activation fee raises the cost to $6-$8/point, much closer to the $11-$12/point promotional/incentive price for direct Trust points and almost exactly the same as the $7-$8/point cost that can be achieved with some of MVC's weeks/points bundles.

Can anyone shed some light on the pre and post value of the MVC legacy weeks, and more importantly to me for long term planning purposes; can they be disposed of and is there any value in them after the Trust was imposed?

My perspective is that Marriott Vacation Club legacy weeks have better resale value than most timeshares, and are generally on par with other hotel-affiliated programs like HGVC, Westin, Hyatt. While there are off-season and less desirable locations that have low resale value, Platinum MVC weeks in desirable places can sell for $4000 to $25,000+). While legacy week values are less than before the Trust and Points program was launched in 2010, its hard to say how much of that is the impact of points versus the overall devastating impact the Great Recession had on timeshare resale in general.
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,747
Reaction score
8,273
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
This is only true if an owner decides to actually BUY trust points. Trust owners pay the trust maintenance fee, which is indeed determined by the maintenance fees of the weeks owned by the Trust. Traditional weeks owners continue to pay their regular fees. Just starting a Trust for new sales would not require existing owners to relinquish their deeds.

While it is true that HGVC could adopt new rules for a Trust, I think it would be highly unlikely they would dramatically erode existing owner rights. The loss of goodwill would be too large. So, I think any HGVC Trust would probably be structured to work within the rules of the current program. While there could be some impact to Club Season availability, as the example in my reply above to Ralph Sir Edward shows, the impact will likely not be as large as the gloom and doom predictions would seem too portend.

Since most HGVC owners use club and don't use their home week, it seems this could have a dramatic effect on availability.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I have been reading through the MVC Forum as a parallel universe before acquiring more HGVC points, and to try to determine the downside risk. I asked the question that went something like this "if I have a resale (MVC) week that I have enrolled in the Trust, and then sell that week at some point in the future, will it continue to be enrolled in the Trust?"

Here is a copy and paste from the Marriott Forum:

No. When you enroll a Week, you're simply giving yourself another usage option which is to convert your Week to Points for use in the Destination Club. Enrollment does not equate to a permanent exchange of Weeks for DC Points. Selling an enrolled Week is no different than selling an un-enrolled Week - you're selling the Week and your enrollment does not transfer to the buyer. (And, the new buyer can not re-enroll the Week because external resales are not currently eligible for enrollment.)

Wow there are a lot of restrictions in the MVC system. If I understand the club rules, your ownership week can only be used as is or exchanged thru the II exchange system unless it is enrolled in the trust. Enrolling a week in the trust is very expensive but it does allow internal exchanges in the MVC system. External Resales can't be enroll in the trust. When a week that is enrolled in the trust is sold it is no longer enrolled in the trust and the new owner can't enroll the week in the trust because it is a Resale.

As I said above the HGVC system has been great!!

This again highlights the biggest misunderstanding that I am reading in this thread -- there is no such thing in MVC as enrolling in the Trust or permanent converting your week to the Trust. The only entity that can add inventory to the Trust is Marriott - and they do so by developing new resorts and deeding that new inventory into the Trust, ROFR, foreclosure, and other repurchases. The inventory in the Trust is the legal backing for the Trust points that they now exclusively sell instead of weeks.

Owners with enrolled legacy MVC weeks do not convert their week to Trust points. They just have an option to convert to Points on an annual basis. If they decide to elect for points in any given usage year, their week goes into the MVC Exchange and they get an allocation of Destination Club Points. Marriott also deposits almost all of their Trust-owned inventory in to the MVC Exchange, and that's how points reservations are fulfilled. MVC had to take this approach because prior to their Points system, they did not have an internal exchange system.

HGVC already has a robust and well-functioning internal points exchange mechanism (The Club), so they do not need to set this up as MVC did. Any Trust that HGVC sets up to facilitate future sales will almost certainly have to function within the current HGVC home season/Club Season model. MVC didn't have that option, but HGVC does, so any HGVC Trust would likely work differently than MVC for reservation and exchange purposes. In fact, that is one of the biggest issues that MVC faces in figuring out how to integrate the Westin and Sheraton points programs and the MVC program into a common structure - the Westin/Sheraton program used a home season/club season much like HGVC would likely choose to adopt, so their Trust/reservations windows are very different than what MVC uses today.

In fact, looking at the current Westin Flex and Sheraton Flex trust programs and how they work within the Vistana Network (which has a home season and club season like HGVC) might be more instructive to HGVC owners than stressing over how MVC set up their system.


 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
Since most HGVC owners use club and don't use their home week, it seems this could have a dramatic effect on availability.

Why do you think that? Maybe if the hypothetical HGVC trust wound up owning a large percentage of a given resort it could have a big impact on club availability at that resort, but the Trust can only book what it owns, and to own a large % of the many sold-out HGVC resorts, HGVC would have to be very aggressive with ROFR. If they took that approach, it would seem that could actually drive up resale prices.

Even if you consider a hypothetical new resort that was 100% owned by the Trust, unless trust owners consumed 100% of that resort's inventory during home season, there would likely still be some available for club bookings.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
After reading what you wrote here about the Marriott Timeshare/Vacation Club System you make me want to get out of timeshares for good. The disaster that you detail could happen to HGVC if it is bought by the wrong group. Please tell me something good about the Marriott system as far as how much it costs in maintenance to vacation in Hawaii or Fort Lauderdale for a couple of weeks in a Studio or 1 BR. The following is extent of my knowledge of the Marriott systems and where I am coming from:

We attended Marriott Timeshare presentation about 11 years ago and we were looking at buying one or two 2 BR Lock-offs on Fort Lauderdale Beach which was the only Marriott at the time that was not in the middle of no where so that we could vacation without a car. We stayed there for 4 nights without a car on a promotion. I don't remember the Developer cost since we were going to buy resale. The resale prices were were looking at were in the 10-12K range. The maintenance at the time for the 2 BR lock-off was a little over $1000/week. By splitting the Lock-off we understood that we could vacation for 4 weeks on Fort Lauderdale beach for about $2000 or $500/week. Two weeks would be in a 1 BR and 2 weeks in a Studio. That seemed like a reasonable cost to add to the Miami South Beach HGVC timeshares that we already owned to allow us to vacation most of the winter in South Florida.

If you read the MVC board, I think you will find that most MVC owners are happy, love the resorts, and like the flexibility of the Destination Club Points system. While there are some who don't feet they need points (they primarily use their home resorts or aren't turned off by trying in II, etc), and there are some that feel like there has been negative impacts to the traditional weeks system since the Points overlay was added in 2010, I think most MVC owners would say those voices are the minority. The MVC points system is very flexible, works well, and most report being able to book what they want, unless they are booking those special high demand weeks that are hard to book in any system.

MVC is far from a disaster in my opinion. It is the largest and perhaps the most successful hotel-branded timeshare system, and overall customer satisfaction scores are over 90%.

But comparing the MVC to HGVC systems is something like comparing apples and oranges. HGVC began with a points-based home season/club season exchange model. MVC had to overlay a points program on top of a mature weeks-based system with only home resort reservations and no pre-existing internal exchange mechanism.

As far as your specific question, here are some 2019 Marriott maintenance fees for resorts in Hawaii. This is for deeded weeks only:

Maui Ocean Club 2BR - $2407
Maui Ocean Club 1BR - $2189
Kauai Beach Club 2BR - $2113
Kauai Beach Club 1BR - $1921
Waiohai Kauai 2BR - $2140
KoOlina 2BR - $2315

The TUG MVC maintenance fee list doesn't have a recent entry for Ft Lauderdale Beach Place, but in 2016 a 2BR was $1442.

Booking with Trust points at these resorts will usually cost more in maintenance fees - and will vary depending on season/view - but that only applies to people who have bought and are booking with Trust points.
 
Last edited:

Ralph Sir Edward

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
3,501
Points
448
Location
Plano, Texas
After reading what you wrote here about the Marriott Timeshare/Vacation Club System you make me want to get out of timeshares for good. The disaster that you detail could happen to HGVC if it is bought by the wrong group. Please tell me something good about the Marriott system as far as how much it costs in maintenance to vacation in Hawaii or Fort Lauderdale for a couple of weeks in a Studio or 1 BR. The following is extent of my knowledge of the Marriott systems and where I am coming from:

We attended Marriott Timeshare presentation about 11 years ago and we were looking at buying one or two 2 BR Lock-offs on Fort Lauderdale Beach which was the only Marriott at the time that was not in the middle of no where so that we could vacation without a car. We stayed there for 4 nights without a car on a promotion. I don't remember the Developer cost since we were going to buy resale. The resale prices were were looking at were in the 10-12K range. The maintenance at the time for the 2 BR lock-off was a little over $1000/week. By splitting the Lock-off we understood that we could vacation for 4 weeks on Fort Lauderdale beach for about $2000 or $500/week. Two weeks would be in a 1 BR and 2 weeks in a Studio. That seemed like a reasonable cost to add to the Miami South Beach HGVC timeshares that we already owned to allow us to vacation most of the winter in South Florida.

Tamaradarann, here is the 2020 point chart for Marriott timeshares. I will dive down to Marriott Maui.

https://vacationpointexchange.com/pointschart/points_charts_2020.pdf

2Bdr - High season - Garden view - 5450 points for a week. @ $.58 a point, that is $3161 a week. (OV is 6700, OF is 7450, or $3886 and $4321 respectively)
Low season - Garden view - 4700 points for a week. @ $.58 a point, that is $2726 a week. (OV is 5850 ($3393), OF is 6424 ($3726).)

Studio is High season IV is 2525 ($1464), OV 2925 ($1696.50), OF 3500 ($2030)
Low season IV is 2175 ($1261,50), OV 2975 ($1725), OF is 3375 ($1957.50)

(These are all MFs)

(Note: A Bay Club A Penthouse (2 bdr, largest type) costs $1606 a week (2019 MF, 2020 not out yet), direct ownership MFs)

Fort Lauderdale is much more affordable.

High season 2 Bdr 3625 ($2102), Studio 1725 ($1000.80)
Low(est) season (Hurricane season) 2 Bdr 1725 ($1000.80), Studio 775 ($449.50)

I don't have the direct own MF handy, look at the Marriott MF sticky thread.

(Must go now, the Cowboys are on. . . )
 
Last edited:

Tamaradarann

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
3,368
Reaction score
1,297
Points
548
Location
Honolulu, HI
Resorts Owned
HGVC South Beach, HGVC Las Vegas, HGVC Las Vegas on the Strip, HGVC Sea World, Misner Place
If you read the MVC board, I think you will find that most MVC owners are happy, love the resorts, and like the flexibility of the Destination Club Points system. While there are some who don't feet they need points (they primarily use their home resorts or aren't turned off by trying in II, etc), and there are some that feel like there has been negative impacts to the traditional weeks system since the Points overlay was added in 2010, I think most MVC owners would say those voices are the minority. The MVC points system is very flexible, works well, and most report being able to book what they want, unless they are booking those special high demand weeks that are hard to book in any system.

MVC is far from a disaster in my opinion. It is the largest and perhaps the most successful hotel-branded timeshare system, and overall customer satisfaction scores are over 90%.

But comparing the MVC to HGVC systems is something like comparing apples and oranges. HGVC began with a points-based home season/club season exchange model. MVC had to overlay a points program on top of a mature weeks-based system with only home resort reservations and no pre-existing internal exchange mechanism.

As far as your specific question, here are some 2019 Marriott maintenance fees for resorts in Hawaii. This is for deeded weeks only:

Maui Ocean Club 2BR - $2407
Maui Ocean Club 1BR - $2189
Kauai Beach Club 2BR - $2113
Kauai Beach Club 1BR - $1921
Waiohai Kauai 2BR - $2140
KoOlina 2BR - $2315

The TUG MVC maintenance fee list doesn't have a recent entry for Ft Lauderdale Beach Place, but in 2016 a 2BR was $1442.

Booking with Trust points at these resorts will usually cost more in maintenance fees - and will vary depending on season/view
- but that only applies to people who have bought and are booking with Trust points.

I agree the MVC and HGVC systems are totally different and you can't compare them. However, I will compare the costs to vacation versus our cost to vacation. We own 6 HGVC timeshares none of which are in Hawaii; about 1/2 have relatively high maintenance costs for the HGVC system. During the Club Season we are able to reserve a number of weeks in Honolulu for a maintenance cost of about $500/week in a Studio. The maintenance costs for MVC timeshares are much higher than that. Furthermore, the Legacy MVC system doesn't allow you to do an internal exchange to other MVC resorts, therefore, vacationing in Hawaii using the MVC would require buying in Hawaii and paying the high Hawaii maintenance costs. Converting to Trust Points would cost more initially and as you mentioned cost more in maintenance fees.

The above illustrates my fear of a new owner of the HGVC system.
 

Ralph Sir Edward

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
3,501
Points
448
Location
Plano, Texas
"Whereas in the current system, those weeks are not assigned until the home week window closes. They are inventory for the current HGVC points people. Under the "MVC like" trust, those weeks get booked at the opening of the home week, as inventory for the trust!

So I go from 50% of the people competing over the weeks I own in the initial window, to 100%. Then I would not have any advantage by owning at Bay Club. It would be given to the trust. At which point, why own at Bay Club, paying the Hawaii premium? Sell and Buy in Vegas, if you can find a person to sell to."

Using your example above, right now, there are 750 Bay Club Penthouse A units. If as you proposed, 50% of current owners book during home week season, that leaves 375 units available for Club bookings.

If HGVC adopted an MVC-like Trust, they would only have the right to use the home window to "book" the weeks the Trust actually owns, they would have no explicit ownership rights to book the weeks that weeks owners choose to elect for points. Using your 750 unit example, If a hypothetical HGVC Trust actually managed over time, to own 25% of that 750 units, the Trust could only book 25% of that unit type/season or about 188 weeks. So, again using your Bay Club example of 750 Penthouse A units:
  • The HGVC Trust books their 25% (188 units) during the home window, that leaves 562 units for other owners.
  • If 50% of the owners opt to use their home week, that consumes another 281 units, meaning a total of 469 units out of the 750 are booked during home week season (63%)
  • The remaining 281 units are available for Club Bookings.
So, while there is less inventory available for Club Season, it only drops by 94 units (because we are assuming the HGVC Trust books 100% of their 188 units, whereas if those units were owned by regular owners, that might be just 50%.

You are missing my point. I could care less about the Club Season, or Club Season availability. I don't use it.

By paying an extra MF premium, I get an effective priority at the initial booking window, for the particular resort season. I pay extra for that. TANSTAAFL. With a MVC type trust system, that get hammered.

In the existing system, the points system does not become effective as competition for booking weeks until after the home booking window completes. In an MVC trust type system, those weeks are being competed against from the start of the home booking week.

Consider - who would use a proposed trust? People who book in their home week window? No, people who current book in the Club Season window. So let's look at my example again.

Instead of 375 people getting "first crack" at weeks at the start of the window, you now get 375 + 188 more (the trust weeks) or 563 competing for those 750 weeks. (Why would people already using the Home Booking advantage join a Trust to get exactly the same advantage they already have?) That would be a clear deterioration of the Home Booking advantage, for which I am paying for, for no benefit to me. (By your numbers, the 50% group would grow to 75% trying for those initial weeks. 563/750.) This would be giving the Club Season booking people (who join the Trust) a better crack at the inventory, at the cost of those who already paid extra for that privilege.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I agree the MVC and HGVC systems are totally different and you can't compare them. However, I will compare the costs to vacation versus our cost to vacation. We own 6 HGVC timeshares none of which are in Hawaii; about 1/2 have relatively high maintenance costs for the HGVC system. During the Club Season we are able to reserve a number of weeks in Honolulu for a maintenance cost of about $500/week in a Studio. The maintenance costs for MVC timeshares are much higher than that. Furthermore, the Legacy MVC system doesn't allow you to do an internal exchange to other MVC resorts, therefore, vacationing in Hawaii using the MVC would require buying in Hawaii and paying the high Hawaii maintenance costs. Converting to Trust Points would cost more initially and as you mentioned cost more in maintenance fees.

The above illustrates my fear of a new owner of the HGVC system.

Yes, in MVC, booking with Trust points is more expensive than using a legacy week or trading that week through Interval International. But the important thing to remember is that higher cost only impacts people who actually buy trust points. It doesn't impact legacy owners. People who owned weeks prior to the start of the MVC Points system/Trust still pay their legacy maintenance fee, even when converting their week to MVC Points (These weeks can be enrolled into the Points system for a nominal fee, sometimes even free). So if HGVC instituted an MVC-like Trust, it should not impact the maintenance fee of your 6 HGVC timeshares. You would pay the Trust maintenance fee only if you added to your ownership by buying new HGVC Trust points.

For example, in MVC, someone who owns a couple legacy enrolled 2BR Platinum Oceanfront weeks at Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head gets 5075 MVC Points for each of those weeks at a maintenance fee cost of $1491 per week. That's $0.29 per point. MVC doesn't have anything in Honolulu, so I'll use some other Hawaii examples instead. Here is the cost for that legacy owner for using their points to book a Studio in Hawaiii:

Oahu, Ko Olina
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club MV Studio, Peak Season: 1970 points @ $0.29 -- $571
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club MV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 1705 points @ $0.29 -- $494

Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club OV Studio, Peak Season: 2070 points @ $0.29 -- $600
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club OV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2335 points @ $0.29 -- $677

Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club PHOV Studio, Peak Season: 2740 points @ $0.29 -- $795
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club PHOV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2425 points @ $0.29 -- $703

Maui, Maui Ocean Club
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club MGV Studio, Peak Season: 2525 points @ $0.29 -- $732
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club MGV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2175 points @ $0.29 -- $631

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OV Studio, Peak Season: 3100 points @ $0.29 -- $899
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2700 points @ $0.29 -- $783

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OF Studio, Peak Season: 3325 points @ $0.29 -- $964
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OF Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2925 points @ $0.29 -- $848

As you can see, if you are using a lower cost MF week like Grande Ocean, that MVC owner can get costs in the same ballpark as what you have experienced for a studio. And with this example, the 10,000+ points a two-week Grande Ocean owner would have at their disposal enough points to book 3-5 studio weeks, depending on date and view desired. Since resale weeks don't get this points option, that's not a viable example for a new owner post-2010, but for existing owners, the numbers can look really good if you own low mf/point weeks. But that isn't relevant for HGVC since they have a legacy points system prior to any Trust. MVC had no points system prior to the Trust.

So, if HGVC implements a Trust, I would still expect that you would be able to use your existing 6 weeks, much as you do today, with the same maintenance fees you pay today (adjusted for normal increases). Only those who choose to buy into the the new trust would be impacted. As Ralph suggests, there could be some additional competition for home week bookings from the Trust, but that would only be a big issue at existing resorts if HGVC really ramped up ROFR and actively built Trust inventory at existing sold out resorts.
 

terces

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
311
Reaction score
84
Points
238
Location
Alberta
Resorts Owned
HGVC LVB x3, Sandos Mexico for RCI points
This has been a very informative thread. We have gone a long way down the MVC rabbit hole to try to figure out what the future could hold. More realistically we might have some fun looking right at Diamond for their MO as Apollo/Diamond is the group that have presented the offer and could very well be the owners of HGVC.

What about a scenario like this: They (Diamond) is (hypothetically) successful with their Offer to Purchase. They roll the EMBARC and HAWAII Collection into HGVC. They then overlay a Diamond style Trust on the entire HGVC. Following this process they "entice" all existing HGVC owners by making the booking window for the Trust ahead of both the Club and Home Week Window and then offering to "let" the legacy weeks owners join the Trust, for a fee of course. All owners would then pay the MF associated with the Diamond Trust and any owners of lower MF resorts would be forced to pay much higher MF's. All hypothetical of course.

Whereas we may have had some comfort that Hilton would have had to approve the ongoing use of the brand, at the end of the day it is all about profit, and the above scenario would create a much larger HGVC for Hilton to earn a royalty off of, so in fact Hilton could potentially embrace this.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
By paying an extra MF premium, I get an effective priority at the initial booking window, for the particular resort season. I pay extra for that. TANSTAAFL. With a MVC type trust system, that get hammered.

In the existing system, the points system does not become effective as competition for booking weeks until after the home booking window completes. In an MVC trust type system, those weeks are being competed against from the start of the home booking week.

Consider - who would use a proposed trust? People who book in their home week window? No, people who current book in the Club Season window. So let's look at my example again.

Instead of 375 people getting "first crack" at weeks at the start of the window, you now get 375 + 188 more (the trust weeks) or 563 competing for those 750 weeks. (Why would people already using the Home Booking advantage join a Trust to get exactly the same advantage they already have?) That would be a clear deterioration of the Home Booking advantage, for which I am paying for, for no benefit to me. (By your numbers, the 50% group would grow to 75% trying for those initial weeks. 563/750.) This would be giving the Club Season booking people (who join the Trust) a better crack at the inventory, at the cost of those who already paid extra for that privilege.

Here is how I think it would work for Home Week bookings:

Status Quo Today
There are 750 weeks for regular home week owners. If half of those opt to wait to use Club Season, then you have 375 people competing for the 750 weeks. Two weeks for every one home week owner.

Trust Owns 10%
Trust books their 75 units, leaving 675 for regular home week owners. If half of those opt to wait to use Club Season, then you have 338 people competing for the 675 weeks. Still two weeks for every one home week owner.

Trust Owns 25%
Trust books their 188 units, leaving 562 for regular home week owners. If half of those opt to wait to use Club Season, then you have 281 people competing for the 561 weeks. Still two weeks for every one home week owner.

Trust Owns 50%
Trust books their 375 units, leaving 375 for regular home week owners. If half of those opt to wait to use Club Season, then you have 188 people competing for the 375 weeks. Still two weeks for every one home week owner.

If, for any given inventory release, the Trust only takes a portion of the availability equal to their ownership of that season/category, I don't think Home Week owners are harmed. As long as a meaningful portion of the remaining owners opt to use Club Season instead of booking their home week, there should still be adequate inventory for home week owners. So, owning where you want to go should still work well for owners like you.

One other thing to comment on from the above:

Why would people already using the Home Booking advantage join a Trust to get exactly the same advantage they already have?

You wouldn't. Since HGVC uses a preferential home week window that precedes their internal exchange system, that serves to protect home week owners. There should be no reason for an existing HGVC owner who likes using what they own as a home week (or Club Season) to buy into any new HGVC Trust unless they want/need more points or want direct, home week access to any of the new resorts that become 100% owned by any Trust.

Marriott required that legacy weeks must enroll in their new internal points Exchange Company because they had no internal points exchange program prior to their Trust and they needed a way for legacy owners to be able to exchange into Trust inventory and for Trust owners to access legacy inventory that is deposited into the MVC Exchange Company. HGVC doesn't need to do that. They already have an internal exchange system that the Trust can play within. How they will actually set it up if they do it remains to be seen, but I think any HGVC Trust will wind up looking more like the Vistana Westin Flex and Sheraton Flex trusts than the MVC Trust. Vistana, like HGVC, had a pre-existing points exchange system with a home week window that the Trusts had to play within. I think HGVC owners would do better to use those systems as proxies for what HGVC might develop rather than looking at the unique situation faced in 2010 by Marriott, which bears little resemblance to HGVC.

Obviously, my opinions assume HGVC retains the existing structure of home week/Club booking windows and their hypothetical Trust operates within that framework, as Vistana did when they started their trusts a few years ago. Could HGVC change the whole system to something much less owner-friendly, sure, but why would they risk alienating their existing customer base? That would create a big goodwill and profit hole to dig out of.
 
Last edited:

Ralph Sir Edward

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
3,501
Points
448
Location
Plano, Texas
This has been a very informative thread. We have gone a long way down the MVC rabbit hole to try to figure out what the future could hold. More realistically we might have some fun looking right at Diamond for their MO as Apollo/Diamond is the group that have presented the offer and could very well be the owners of HGVC.

What about a scenario like this: They (Diamond) is (hypothetically) successful with their Offer to Purchase. They roll the EMBARC and HAWAII Collection into HGVC. They then overlay a Diamond style Trust on the entire HGVC. Following this process they "entice" all existing HGVC owners by making the booking window for the Trust ahead of both the Club and Home Week Window and then offering to "let" the legacy weeks owners join the Trust, for a fee of course. All owners would then pay the MF associated with the Diamond Trust and any owners of lower MF resorts would be forced to pay much higher MF's. All hypothetical of course.

Whereas we may have had some comfort that Hilton would have had to approve the ongoing use of the brand, at the end of the day it is all about profit, and the above scenario would create a much larger HGVC for Hilton to earn a royalty off of, so in fact Hilton could potentially embrace this.

Agreed. And for the HGVC developed resorts, quite possible. The legality of "front running" the existing owners is legally questionable, but who has the bucks to fight it? The affiliates can always choose to exit HGVC. And under that type of scenario, quite possible it would pass. Use today, and see what the morrow brings. (I can always take the credit hit, if need be. . . )
 

1Kflyerguy

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
3,430
Reaction score
1,528
Points
399
Location
San Jose, Ca
Resorts Owned
HGVC Kings Land, Elara, and Marriott Destination Club Points
If you read the MVC board, I think you will find that most MVC owners are happy, love the resorts, and like the flexibility of the Destination Club Points system. While there are some who don't feet they need points (they primarily use their home resorts or aren't turned off by trying in II, etc), and there are some that feel like there has been negative impacts to the traditional weeks system since the Points overlay was added in 2010, I think most MVC owners would say those voices are the minority. The MVC points system is very flexible, works well, and most report being able to book what they want, unless they are booking those special high demand weeks that are hard to book in any system.

You can count me as a very happy owner with Marriott DC points owner. We almost never travel for exactly a week, so we like like the flexibility points provide with both HGVC and Marriott.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
What about a scenario like this: They (Diamond) is (hypothetically) successful with their Offer to Purchase. They roll the EMBARC and HAWAII Collection into HGVC. They then overlay a Diamond style Trust on the entire HGVC. Following this process they "entice" all existing HGVC owners by making the booking window for the Trust ahead of both the Club and Home Week Window and then offering to "let" the legacy weeks owners join the Trust, for a fee of course. All owners would then pay the MF associated with the Diamond Trust and any owners of lower MF resorts would be forced to pay much higher MF's. All hypothetical of course.

The only way, I believe, to "let the legacy weeks owners join the Trust" would be for HGVC to repurchase the week (and then they deed it into the Trust) or do as Vistana has done and offer to take back the legacy week deed as a credit toward the purchase of Trust points - basically similar to what HGVC does today with "upgrades". Remember, the only way to "join" the Trust is for the Trust to actually own the week.

I believe the "upgrade" approach would be the most likely given that is similar to what HGVC has already been doing with HGVC upgrades in some cases. I also recall from our previous Diamond ownership (sold in 2014), that when Diamond started their "Collection" trusts, they offered a similar approach - turn in your deed for a credit against the purchase of the Collection trust. As I recall though, back then, even Diamond did not undercut our basic owner booking rights for our deeded Maui week and did not try to "front-run" our booking rights for benefit of the trust. They tried to sell the "benefits" of the trust (which for a Hawaii owner was a lower maintenance fee, if I recall correctly, since the trust incorporated some lower MF resorts that averaged down the cost for booking a week).

But as others have said, just because Apollo owns Diamond doesn't mean if they prevail that the Diamond business model will prevail. Apollo's only goal is to make as much money as they can for their investors, so if they feel the HGVC brand and management is the superior model, they would perhaps be more inclined to impose that on Diamond than vice versa. Perhaps a "Hampton Vacation Club" or a rebirth of the old "Embassy Vacation Resort" brands as a way to signify brand differentiation and erase the Diamond stigma?

There are a lot of ways this could go.
 

1Kflyerguy

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
3,430
Reaction score
1,528
Points
399
Location
San Jose, Ca
Resorts Owned
HGVC Kings Land, Elara, and Marriott Destination Club Points
But as others have said, just because Apollo owns Diamond doesn't mean if they prevail that the Diamond business model will prevail. Apollo's only goal is to make as much money as they can for their investors, so if they feel the HGVC brand and management is the superior model, they would perhaps be more inclined to impose that on Diamond than vice versa. Perhaps a "Hampton Vacation Club" or a rebirth of the old "Embassy Vacation Resort" brands as a way to signify brand differentiation and erase the Diamond stigma?

I don't recall if it was Hilton call or HGV investor call, but one of the firms mentioned expanding the existing licensing agreement by creating new timeshare brands, exactly like you mentioned. As they continue to add luxury to the newer HGV resorts, i can see a market for more modest resorts with differentiated naming to make the concept clear.

One issue for HGV with the trust model would be all the fee for service resorts. HGV does not own that inventory, and never actually does own it. They get paid to manage and sell the resort, but don't own the unsold the units. I believe the ROFR rights one these resort remain with the developer, not HGV. It would be hard to add these resorts to a trust without a large capital expenditure to purchase the inventory. That would really impact their capital light model.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
One issue for HGV with the trust model would be all the fee for service resorts. HGV does not own that inventory, and never actually does own it. They get paid to manage and sell the resort, but don't own the unsold the units. I believe the ROFR rights one these resort remain with the developer, not HGV. It would be hard to add these resorts to a trust without a large capital expenditure to purchase the inventory. That would really impact their capital light model.

Yes, Mark Wang addressed that very issue of how the fee-for-service partnerships would integrate into any trust when the analysts asked him during the last investor call about whether HGV would consider a trust. They could just gradually buy the inventory as they need it to fund their inventory of trust interests without having to buy and hold a lot of inventory. That's how MVC acquires the inventory from their development partners - slowly in small bites - so they don't tie up a lot of capital for a long time. But since they do have multiple fee-for-service partners, the bigger issue is whose inventory does HGV buy first? Who has to wait to get paid? Here is what he said:

"But we also have to cognizant around the fact that we have a robust fee-for-service business. And it would be really, really difficult to have a trust product with multiple fee-for-service partners like we have now. We have half a dozen fee-for-service partners, and I just don't know how you negotiate whose product goes into the trust first. Whereas today, we can sell multiple fee-for-service deals simultaneous."
 

nuwermj

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
615
Reaction score
302
Points
273
Location
Potsdam, NY
One issue for HGV with the trust model would be all the fee for service resorts. HGV does not own that inventory, and never actually does own it. They get paid to manage and sell the resort, but don't own the unsold the units. I believe the ROFR rights one these resort remain with the developer, not HGV. It would be hard to add these resorts to a trust without a large capital expenditure to purchase the inventory. That would really impact their capital light model.

Bluegreen has transitioned to a fee-for-service inventory and they sell only trust fund points.
 

Ralph Sir Edward

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
3,501
Points
448
Location
Plano, Texas
How many of them still have sizeable inventories? AFAIK all of them are basically sold out. And yes, HGVC does not have ROFR on any of them (AFAIK).

Plus some (most?) of the SW Florida Fee-for-service are fixed unit fixed week timeshares.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
How many of them still have sizeable inventories? AFAIK all of them are basically sold out. And yes, HGVC does not have ROFR on any of them (AFAIK).

Plus some (most?) of the SW Florida Fee-for-service are fixed unit fixed week timeshares.

Several of the newer properties they are building are fee-for-service. Here is a list of all fee-for-service based on info in another thread:

Property Name / Ownership / Location / Units
Las Palmeras, a Hilton Grand Vacations Club Fee-for-service Orlando, FL 226
Elara, a Hilton Grand Vacations Club Fee-for-service Las Vegas, NV 1,201
The Grand Islander by HGVClub Fee-for-service Honolulu, HI 418
HGVClub at Anderson Ocean Club Fee-for-service Myrtle Beach, SC 172
Ocean 22 by Hilton Grand Vacations Club Fee-for-service Myrtle Beach, SC 230
Ocean Enclave by Hilton Grand Vacations Club Fee-for-service Myrtle Beach, SC 330
Ocean Oak Resort by Hilton Grand Vacation Club Fee-for-service Hilton Head, SC 125
Sunrise Lodge, a Hilton Grand Vacations Club Fee-for-service Park City, UT 83
HGVClub at MarBrisa Fee-for-service Carlsbad, CA 232
HGVClub at Borgo alle Vigne Fee-for-service Italy 31

I think the under construction Charleston bHC may also be fee-for-service and the mentioned upcoming resort in the Smoky Mountains was disclosed as fee-for-service during the earnings call, not sure about the other upcoming properties.
 

Tamaradarann

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
3,368
Reaction score
1,297
Points
548
Location
Honolulu, HI
Resorts Owned
HGVC South Beach, HGVC Las Vegas, HGVC Las Vegas on the Strip, HGVC Sea World, Misner Place
Yes, in MVC, booking with Trust points is more expensive than using a legacy week or trading that week through Interval International. But the important thing to remember is that higher cost only impacts people who actually buy trust points. It doesn't impact legacy owners. People who owned weeks prior to the start of the MVC Points system/Trust still pay their legacy maintenance fee, even when converting their week to MVC Points (These weeks can be enrolled into the Points system for a nominal fee, sometimes even free). So if HGVC instituted an MVC-like Trust, it should not impact the maintenance fee of your 6 HGVC timeshares. You would pay the Trust maintenance fee only if you added to your ownership by buying new HGVC Trust points.

For example, in MVC, someone who owns a couple legacy enrolled 2BR Platinum Oceanfront weeks at Marriott's Grande Ocean in Hilton Head gets 5075 MVC Points for each of those weeks at a maintenance fee cost of $1491 per week. That's $0.29 per point. MVC doesn't have anything in Honolulu, so I'll use some other Hawaii examples instead. Here is the cost for that legacy owner for using their points to book a Studio in Hawaiii:

Oahu, Ko Olina
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club MV Studio, Peak Season: 1970 points @ $0.29 -- $571
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club MV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 1705 points @ $0.29 -- $494

Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club OV Studio, Peak Season: 2070 points @ $0.29 -- $600
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club OV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2335 points @ $0.29 -- $677

Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club PHOV Studio, Peak Season: 2740 points @ $0.29 -- $795
Marriott's Ko Olina Beach Club PHOV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2425 points @ $0.29 -- $703

Maui, Maui Ocean Club
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club MGV Studio, Peak Season: 2525 points @ $0.29 -- $732
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club MGV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2175 points @ $0.29 -- $631

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OV Studio, Peak Season: 3100 points @ $0.29 -- $899
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OV Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2700 points @ $0.29 -- $783

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OF Studio, Peak Season: 3325 points @ $0.29 -- $964
Marriott's Maui Ocean Club OF Studio, Shoulder Season: -- 2925 points @ $0.29 -- $848

As you can see, if you are using a lower cost MF week like Grande Ocean, that MVC owner can get costs in the same ballpark as what you have experienced for a studio. And with this example, the 10,000+ points a two-week Grande Ocean owner would have at their disposal enough points to book 3-5 studio weeks, depending on date and view desired. Since resale weeks don't get this points option, that's not a viable example for a new owner post-2010, but for existing owners, the numbers can look really good if you own low mf/point weeks. But that isn't relevant for HGVC since they have a legacy points system prior to any Trust. MVC had no points system prior to the Trust.

So, if HGVC implements a Trust, I would still expect that you would be able to use your existing 6 weeks, much as you do today, with the same maintenance fees you pay today (adjusted for normal increases). Only those who choose to buy into the the new trust would be impacted. As Ralph suggests, there could be some additional competition for home week bookings from the Trust, but that would only be a big issue at existing resorts if HGVC really ramped up ROFR and actively built Trust inventory at existing sold out resorts.

OK so if a Legacy MVC owner who paid the high developer cost when buying their weeks they can deposit them int eh Trust and exchange to Studios with the effective maintenance costs above. Of course since all of my HGVC weeks are resale if HGVC followed that same model we would be out of luck with the deals you presented above. That is one of my fears. Keeping the HGVC club reservation systems as is is my most important point in my fear of a new owner who will change the system.
 

dayooper

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
3,401
Points
349
Location
The Land of Ice and Snow
Resorts Owned
HGVC: The Flamingo, The Boulevard
Bluegreen has transitioned to a fee-for-service inventory and they sell only trust fund points.

The partners knew they were going into a trust when they were built, if I remember correctly. New fee for service HGVC could easily be put into a trust knowing that from the beginning. Existing fee for service partners may not be willing to go along with that. I find it hard to believe that Strand Capitol fronted a ton of money on very expensive beachfront property in Myrtle Beach just to be potentially shorted on the sale.
 

dayooper

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
3,401
Points
349
Location
The Land of Ice and Snow
Resorts Owned
HGVC: The Flamingo, The Boulevard
OK so if a Legacy MVC owner who paid the high developer cost when buying their weeks they can deposit them int eh Trust and exchange to Studios with the effective maintenance costs above. Of course since all of my HGVC weeks are resale if HGVC followed that same model we would be out of luck with the deals you presented above. That is one of my fears. Keeping the HGVC club reservation systems as is is my most important point in my fear of a new owner who will change the system.

If I remember correctly, weren’t resales purchased prior to 2010 treated the same as developer bought units?
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
OK so if a Legacy MVC owner who paid the high developer cost when buying their weeks they can deposit them int eh Trust and exchange to Studios with the effective maintenance costs above. Of course since all of my HGVC weeks are resale if HGVC followed that same model we would be out of luck with the deals you presented above. That is one of my fears. Keeping the HGVC club reservation systems as is is my most important point in my fear of a new owner who will change the system.

Just for clarity - it may seem like semantics, but it's not; it's key to truly understanding how things work - MVC legacy week owners do not deposit their enrolled legacy weeks into the MVC Trust. They deposit their weeks into the MVC Exchange as an annual election (to deposit or not to deposit). The Trust also typically deposits their owned weeks into the MVC Exchange. It is inside this Exchange where most all reservations are fulfilled. Think of the Trust just as another resort. The only difference, is the Trust's weeks are spread around amongst all MVC resorts, not just at one location. The only way to own something from the Trust is to actually buy an interest in the Trust from MVC or on the resale market; and the only way weeks inventory can actually go into the Trust is for the Trust to actually acquire that week through purchase, ROFR, new resorts, etc. The Trust is an owner of weeks just like anyone else.

The important difference is MVC did not have a points system to work around when they created their Trust in 2010. HGVC already has a structure in place that will likely need to be respected. The MVC experience will not directly transfer to the HGVC model. As I have said in some other posts, the Vistana Westin Flex/Sheraton Flex programs are probably closer to what HGVC would have to do. Both of those programs were set up to respect/keep intact the existing legacy week reservation windows.

As far as your other point about developer vs. resale, see below.

If I remember correctly, weren’t resales purchased prior to 2010 treated the same as developer bought units?

Yes. This is correct. Both MVC developer-purchased and MVC resale-purchased weeks acquired prior to June 20, 2010 were given the option to participate in the MVC Exchange (the points system that started in 2010, after they created their Trust). The only difference was that the resale weeks paid a higher enrollment fee to participate; but both developer and resale weeks were allowed to play. I wasn't an MVC owner at the time, but I searched the forum and found these prices for pre-June 2010 weeks:
- $595 to "enroll" a single Week purchased direct from MVC
- $695 for multiple Weeks purchased direct
- $1,495 for a single Week purchased externally
- $1,995 for multiple Weeks purchased externally
These were the prices offered at the time. The price has since changed, but I believe the current price for any pre-6/2010 weeks - both developer and resale - is $2395, but that is often discounted to as low as free under certain incentives.

The key difference though is, again, MVC had no existing points or internal exchange system, so they had to start from scratch and they needed as much inventory as possible to feed their new system. HGVC doesn't need to do this, and IMHO, any Trust they might set up in the future would likely be set up to work within the existing HGVC Club structure, just as Vistana did with their trusts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top