New Poll - II and Starwood

I added some new responses after some people voted - if you want to change your response - send me a pm.

-------------------------------
I thought it might be helpful if we had a poll that we could present as evidence to II. It will be up in a few minutes. It will be anonymous.

If you have suggestions for more responses to the poll, please post them in this thread.

I plan on all the actions of the first three choices, however I just chose one for the purpose of the poll.

I would do options 2, [5], and [6].

But I am not planning on closing my II account/

gmarine said:

I plan on all the actions of the first three choices, however I just chose one for the purpose of the poll.

Click to expand...

George - those are my plans, too, so I added an "all of the above" response and moved our votes to that choice. OK?

I added another option for those of you who only have corporate II Accts. - I can move your vote to that option, if you wish.

Thanks for the adjustment of my votes.

I have looked into option #1 too, but haven't had the need or the right match. I have used the Tug Marketplace several times now, for a few direct exchanges and rentals.

DeniseM said:

George - those are my plans, too, so I added an "all of the above" response and moved our votes to that choice. OK?

Click to expand...

Thanks Denise.

With all due respect, the poll is biased with regard to whether or not one is an SVN-member or a non-SVN member. I'll attempt to explain below (but it's early and I'm only on my second cup of coffee, so bear with me).

For background purposes, we own 4 SVN units and 3 non-SVN units (yes, I broke down and bought another SVN unit recently). Despite rumors to the contrary, I'm capable of being objective on this issue.

SVN members agree to the terms surrounding external exchange requests when they become members. Some of the relevant language is as follows:

V. External Exchange Program

In order to increase the range of options available to SVN Members, SVN Operator has made arrangements for each SVN Member to have access to an External Exchange Program. All external exchange requests will be handled by SVN Operator.

The more relevant language is as follows:

c. Bulk Banking for Anticipated External and Starwood Preferred Guest Program Exchanges.

SVN Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at any time thirty (30) days after the beginning of the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, for the purpose of depositing the reserved Vacation Periods with an External Exchange Program on behalf of SVN Members based on SVN Operator's determination, in its sole discretion, of anticipated SVN Member demand to access an External Exchange Program or the Starwood Preferred Guest Program. Vacation Periods deposited with the External Exchange Company may be assigned to SVN Members on a first-come, first-served basis, and assignments are based on the unit size and Season the SVN Member owns. When Home Resort inventory is not available in the bulk deposit accounts, deposits assigned to SVN Members may be designated from other SVN Resorts. This does not affect the SVN Member’s ability to obtain the requested external exchange.

The bold sentence is the infamous language that permitted Starwood to deposit a mud week in Colorado for a Maui owner. The red sentence is for comic relief only as it underscores Starwood's ignorance of the process!

The new procedures ensure that an SVN member will always receive a deposit with trading power that represents the average trading power of all weeks in the applicable season at the home resort. Voila -- no more mud weeks in Colorado deposited for Maui owners. It is a BETTER, MORE FAIR, process for SVN members. I would even go so far as to state it's a "real" ehancement, for once!

For those of you who believe I never have anything nice to say about Starwood, you can put this in the record book: Starwood has improved the external trading process of SVN members.

Now, let's talk about non-SVN members:

First, it's important to understand a major difference. IMHO, most who purchase at mandatory resorts (i.e., join SVN), do so with the intention of using their home resort or trading through the network. II trading is simply a "nice to have." It's not really an important part of their buying decision. (As evidence of this, I ask you how much time your sales rep spent on the II trading process. I don't think mine even brought it up the last time I sat through the dreaded presentation.) On the other hand, external trading is important to non-SVN owners who don't have the ability to do internal trades.

But, far more importantly, those who purchased floating weeks under pre-Starwood deeds/CCRs, never delegated full control of the exchange process to Starwood (in the interest of convenience, we may have delegated the authority to sign exchange company contracts, but that did not include the ability to select weeks for deposit). We had the clear right to book any available week within our season and deposit it to an external exchange company if desired.

It only takes about 5 minutes of google research to learn that state statues MANDATE Starwood furnish, upon sale, langauge such as the above in order to control external trading. The appropriate langage does not exist in pre-Starwood deeds/CCRs. Could Starwood have added it without our consent after-the-fact? Possibly. But, if they did, was it legal to do so or did it require owner consent? Several of us have attempted to find the answers to these questions. But, to date, Starwood appears to be unable or unwilling to provide any documentation that pertains to any legal authority to control deposits for non-SVN members. I smell a rat....

And ... I'm getting to the end of my rant, I promise:

The bottom line is that non-SVN floating week members DO NOT BENEFIT by the blended trading power process. We had better trading power when we were able to book and deposit weeks of our choosing.

I'm sure some will continue to argue that we were taking advantage of loop holes that have now been closed. That's simply not true. All non-SVN owners of the same season have the same ability to book any available week within the season. Some of us have found that booking a prime week and depositing it to II, where it received superior trading power, was the best possible use of our ownership for OUR purposes. Other decide to book and occupy a prime week. One is not better than the other -- it's a matter of personal preference. And, we all own the exact same thing. We pay the exact same maintenance fees to keep the resort running and we should all have the same rights to use our weeks in whichever manner works best for us.

I was explaining the issue to one of my brothers (poor thing -- he was stuck in a car with me and couldn't escape). He's the president of his condo HOA in San Francisco. He said, "You know ... I think I know what you mean. I hate it when people who bought foreclosed units for half the price we paid have the audacity to complain about things. But, they have the exact same ownership rights and pay the exact same HOA fees that I do. I don't like it, but I have to suck it up." He got it. Now, if only we could make Starwood understand that they don't have the right to screw resale buyers at every turn ... and, further, it's not in their best interest to do so as it simply rains bad publicity down on them.

Rant over ... back to your regularly scheduled program.

SORRY --- One more thing ............

The decision to do away with "Request First" is harmful to both groups.

Forgot about that ....

You have nicely laid out what I've been thinking for quite a while, but haven't had the time to write out.

I also own both SVN and non-SVN weeks and so see both perspectives.

jerseygirl said:

The new procedures ensure that an SVN member will always receive a deposit with trading power that represents the average trading power of all weeks in the applicable season at the home resort. Voila -- no more mud weeks in Colorado deposited for Maui owners. It is a BETTER, MORE FAIR, process for SVN members. I would even go so far as to state it's a "real" ehancement, for once!

For those of you who believe I never have anything nice to say about Starwood, you can put this in the record book: Starwood has improved the external trading process of SVN members.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree--except for the request first issue, I think this is a big improvement for SVN owners. Another potential gain may be that it will allow for more SO exchanges into peak resorts during peak times.

jerseygirl said:

Now, let's talk about non-SVN members:

The bottom line is that non-SVN floating week members DO NOT BENEFIT by the blended trading power process. We had better trading power when we were able to book and deposit weeks of our choosing.

Click to expand...

I agree with this as well, but do think there are different levels of damage that are being done to resale owners. It seems to me that there are two distinct sets of owners who are really put at a disadvantage:

SDO, 1-52 float

SBP, 9-43, 47 float

We might add in some SVR owners as well. It would be nice to nail down whether fixed week owners are entitled to deposit their deeded weeks or not. I own at SVR-Cascades. My week is a fixed week 13 with an option to float, but I'm still not clear if I can deposit that specific week into II.

My other non-SVN week is a true Plat (1-21, 50-52 float) SDO unit. I will be curious to see if it's trade power turns out to be substantially higher than a 1-52 float unit's.

Glorian

jerseygirl said:

(...)
I was explaining the issue to one of my brothers (poor thing -- he was stuck in a car with me and couldn't escape). He's the president of his condo HOA in San Francisco. He said, "You know ... I think I know what you mean. I hate it when people who bought foreclosed units for half the price we paid have the audacity to complain about things. But, they have the exact same ownership rights and pay the exact same HOA fees that I do. I don't like it, but I have to suck it up." He got it. Now, if only we could make Starwood understand that they don't have the right to screw resale buyers at every turn ... and, further, it's not in their best interest to do so as it simply rains bad publicity down on them.

Rant over ... back to your regularly scheduled program.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. Please humor me for an added rant of my own:

Starwood hates it when folks like me bought non-SVN resale units for only $.10 on the dollar. So, Starwood took actions which drives resale prices even lower, near zero. That's right, I am claiming to believe we can now pick up an SDO contract for almost free. We now are one of 'those' timeshares.

With what Starwood did on the exchange & MF front, I'd be happy to sell my latest contract for what I paid just 5 short months ago on eBay. The loss on this contract since that purchase has almost nothing to do with real estate drop. That is why it was already a ridiculously cheap price at the time. Yet, it still had some value to me because I knew I could use it to score awesome trades through II. Not so much anymore.

Starwood is destroying the resale market through their own actions with II. With that, Starwood is destroying the resale value for ALL their owners at non-mandatory resorts (including the prized retail customers). Don't believe me, check out completed eBay listings for SDO. Starwood doesn't need ROFR to solicit repurchase of resale units below a certain price. Starwood does need at least some money though. If Starwood had money, they wouldn't need to be hiking everyone's MF in a time of deflation. And, BTW, I already PAID all my 2010 MF early. As a resale buyer, I can easily afford to still do that. I bet the same cannot be said of some original owners this year. SDO needs fresh resale buyers to give struggling owners a better way out. Something is better than nothing. And still, nothing is better than defaulting on payments. We all owe the same HOA fees and it is best when everyone actually pays.

Everything I own is for personal use through an II exchange. Now Starwood has shifted the balance for me in favor of quitting II and becoming a vacation rental landlord at my home resort. I do not want to become that. But maybe I will sell someday to someone who does?

grgs said:

My week is a fixed week 13 with an option to float, but I'm still not clear if I can deposit that specific week into II.

Click to expand...

I own an undeposited fixed week at SVR and the fixed week "shell" shows in my Acct. - rather than a trading value designation. Another Tugger that owns at SVR recently deposited her fixed week, and the fixed week was deposited. So I believe you can deposit fixed weeks.

My other non-SVN week is a true Plat (1-21, 50-52 float) SDO unit. I will be curious to see if it's trade power turns out to be substantially higher than a 1-52 float unit's.

Click to expand...

Even more significant - when we did a recent trade test we discovered that a strong (week 10) SDO deposit under the "old rules" could see twice as many exchanges as the best (Plat) SDO deposit under the "new rules."

As people come up with good suggestions, I am adding responses to the poll. If you see a new response that fits you better, and you've already voted, please send me a pm and I can move your vote. Thanks!

Thanks Glorian. I was afraid my rambling lost everyone!

grgs said:

Absolutely agree--except for the request first issue, I think this is a big improvement for SVN owners. Another potential gain may be that it will allow for more SO exchanges into peak resorts during peak times.

Click to expand...

I agree Glorian. But, I think the old procedures may have been designed to ensure that SO exchangers could trade into peak resorts during peak times as well ... so it may be a wash on that front. I'm certain they must keep SVN and non-SVN inventory separate, so applying the new rules to non-SVN members won't help them provide inventory for SVN members ... at least not until really late in the game (most timeshare deeds/CCRs that I've read don't permit developers/esort managers to "confiscate" unreserved inventory until the 90- or 60-day mark).

jerseygirl said:

The bottom line is that non-SVN floating week members DO NOT BENEFIT by the blended trading power process. We had better trading power when we were able to book and deposit weeks of our choosing.

Click to expand...

grgs said:

I agree with this as well, but do think there are different levels of damage that are being done to resale owners. It seems to me that there are two distinct sets of owners who are really put at a disadvantage:

SDO, 1-52 float

SBP, 9-43, 47 float

We might add in some SVR owners as well. It would be nice to nail down whether fixed week owners are entitled to deposit their deeded weeks or not. I own at SVR-Cascades. My week is a fixed week 13 with an option to float, but I'm still not clear if I can deposit that specific week into II.

My other non-SVN week is a true Plat (1-21, 50-52 float) SDO unit. I will be curious to see if it's trade power turns out to be substantially higher than a 1-52 float unit's.

Click to expand...

You're right -- there are degrees of damage. For the newer voluntary resorts (e.g., WMH, SDO sold under Starwood), with more tightly defined seasons, the damage will not be as bad. It's worse for those with really wide seasons, such as the SDO 1-52 and SBP 9-43,47 you mentioned. I suspect it will be WORSTEST (!) for SVR 1-52 week owners since Orlando is so overbuilt that only a small subset of weeks actually have superior trading power. Fountain "prime" owners should fare significanty better than Fountain "low season" owners. But those 1-52 floats .... not good.

I think I can answer your question with regard to fixed weeks. For the longest time, every Starwood timeshare I own was missing from my account. But, they seem to have "put Jack back together again" and my fixed weeks appear to be designated as fixed only (none of the platinum, gold plus, etc. designations I'm seeing with my floating weeks). So, I'm cautiously optimistic that I would be able to deposit the fixed week itself. However, I'm not depositing anything with II until I'm permitted to deposit my SBP under the old rules, so I'm unwilling to try. I was going to actually use a week 9 I own at XXX (don't want to advertise!), but then realized I'll be in Europe that week (pretty sad when you have so many vacations planned that you don't realize you've double booked!). I'm going to try to rent it for a short while ... then will give it to an independent exchange company if it doesn't rent.

I'm sure your "true platinum" will trade better than a 1-52. Have you tried to doing a trade test with someone to document the results? I think denisem and gmarine own at SDO. If one of them has the same size unit, it would be great to document official results.

Anyway -- thanks for listening. And, I appreciate your feedback.

jerseygirl said:

SORRY --- One more thing ............

The decision to do away with "Request First" is harmful to both groups.

Forgot about that ....

Click to expand...

Yes - that is HUGE for mandatory owners.

An owner at an expensive mandatory resort might consider putting in a "request first" under the old rules, because they knew they could keep their reservation at their home resort, if an II exchange didn't come through.

But under the new rules, the owner of an expensive week would be crazy to put in a request with II, give up their home resort reservation, and take the chance of ending up with nothing!

DeniseM said:

As people come up with good suggestions, I am adding responses to the poll. If you see a new response that fits you better, and you've already voted, please send me a pm and I can move your vote. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I chose option 1 for my non-SVN account.II account is closed already and those units are in RCI. For my SVN account I have the II corperate account. I use the SVN unit for internal trades.
There should be and option reflecting Dual II accounts.(SVN and Non-SVN)

Hi Frank - thanks for your input.

Since it's not feasible to close your corporate Acct., I think your vote should reflect what you are going to do with your non-corporate Acct. So you could vote for 1, 2, 3, or 4.

I added the 7th option for people who ONLY have corporate Accts.

l2trade said:

I couldn't agree with you more. Please humor me for an added rant of my own:

Starwood hates it when folks like me bought non-SVN resale units for only $.10 on the dollar. So, Starwood took actions which drives resale prices even lower, near zero. That's right, I am claiming to believe we can now pick up an SDO contract for almost free. We now are one of 'those' timeshares.

With what Starwood did on the exchange & MF front, I'd be happy to sell my latest contract for what I paid just 5 short months ago on eBay. The loss on this contract since that purchase has almost nothing to do with real estate drop. That is why it was already a ridiculously cheap price at the time. Yet, it still had some value to me because I knew I could use it to score awesome trades through II. Not so much anymore.

Starwood is destroying the resale market through their own actions with II. With that, Starwood is destroying the resale value for ALL their owners at non-mandatory resorts (including the prized retail customers). Don't believe me, check out completed eBay listings for SDO. Starwood doesn't need ROFR to solicit repurchase of resale units below a certain price. Starwood does need at least some money though. If Starwood had money, they wouldn't need to be hiking everyone's MF in a time of deflation. And, BTW, I already PAID all my 2010 MF early. As a resale buyer, I can easily afford to still do that. I bet the same cannot be said of some original owners this year. SDO needs fresh resale buyers to give struggling owners a better way out. Something is better than nothing. And still, nothing is better than defaulting on payments. We all owe the same HOA fees and it is best when everyone actually pays.

Everything I own is for personal use through an II exchange. Now Starwood has shifted the balance for me in favor of quitting II and becoming a vacation rental landlord at my home resort. I do not want to become that. But maybe I will sell someday to someone who does?

Click to expand...

L2Trade --

You're absolutely right and thanks for adding to the rant!

Even those who are "perfectly happy" with their SVN weeks SHOULD be concerned with issues such as these. People are defaulting at record rates and it's not just the economy. It's the HEFTY special assessments without owner vote (taxation without representation didn't work out so well for the British) and maintenance fees that are spiraling out of control. Those of us who are paying our dues are forced to pay for those who aren't. The situation cannot get much worse without imploding.

And, if Starwood can take away our deeded rights and get away with it, what's next? Didn't they already shown their true feelings for SVN-members when they drastically diluted the elite program, or when they raised the number of SOs required to be 5-Star elite without any notification? Just what's it going to take for people to understand that Starwood is out-of-control?

I'm not the landlord type, so I'll just dump the units I don't use personally if this issue isn't resolved to my satisfaction. In fact, I'll give them away -- that's how little I really care about them. But, Starwood and the thousands of other owners should be a little concerned about the "buyers" of these $1 or free units. Will they pay the ever-escalating maintenance fees? I wouldn't want to bank on it ....

Also, my family and I have had great laughs over the anger, energy and effort I've put into fighting this trading issue. I'm enjoying a long sabatical from work right now and have nothing but time (and a bunch of great vacations) on my hands. The other day, my daughter said, "Starwood better hope you go back to work soon, mom!. But, I'm SICK AND TIRED of large corporations like Starwood and RCI taking advantage of the fact that timeshare owners are too dispersed to do anything about the abuses thrown at us. Yes, we can sit back and do nothing. Or, we can fight. I'm in a fighting mood right now.

-- Jerseygirl

PS Donations for my mental health fund will be gladly accepted via paypal.

hey Jerseygirl,

funny thing. i too am on a sabbatical from work, although only for a couple months. i got nothing going on but vacations and then lounging around at home watching TV while the kids are in school before going out on vacation again... I'm ready to stand up for our rights.

jerseygirl said:

I think I can answer your question with regard to fixed weeks. For the longest time, every Starwood timeshare I own was missing from my account. But, they seem to have "put Jack back together again" and my fixed weeks appear to be designated as fixed only (none of the platinum, gold plus, etc. designations I'm seeing with my floating weeks). So, I'm cautiously optimistic that I would be able to deposit the fixed week itself.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right about the fixed week issue. I'm fortunate that my deeded Cascades week is a decent one (13).

My 2010 SVR unit is deposited with II, but it's a replacement week. I had already made exchange, which I had to cancel. This was before the new rules.

Other than my SVR replacement week, nothing shows up in my non-SVN II account for either SVR or SDO. Should there be? Based on what you said above, I guess I better call II.

jerseygirl said:

I'm sure your "true platinum" will trade better than a 1-52. Have you tried to doing a trade test with someone to document the results? I think denisem and gmarine own at SDO. If one of them has the same size unit, it would be great to document official results.

Click to expand...

I won't have an SDO unit to deposit until next year--I already traded the 2010 use before the changes went into effect. Based on Denise's post above, it looks like the true plat units under the new rules are not trading as well as the 1-52 float old rules units.

So right now, I don't have anything I can test in II.

Glorian

l2trade said:

hey Jerseygirl,

funny thing. i too am on a sabbatical from work, although only for a couple months. i got nothing going on but vacations and then lounging around at home watching TV while the kids are in school before going out on vacation again... I'm ready to stand up for our rights.

Click to expand...

All Right! Power to the people!!

"I am woman, hear me roar....."

grgs said:

I hope you're right about the fixed week issue. I'm fortunate that my deeded Cascades week is a decent one (13).

Click to expand...

Glorian -- Are you sure it's a fixed week? You (or the original owner) would have had to pay extra (I think) to fix it. As a general rule, Cascades was sold as float 1-52. Unless it was deeded as "fixed," the deeded week itself doesn't matter. You'll receive the blended trading power for weeks 1-52. It might not be that bad ....... we won't know until someone tests and reports on one.

Here's how you can tell if it's fixed or floating. Check the detailed description in my starcentral.

My "pure float" weeks (e.g., SBP) say:

Ownership Type
Annual Float

My Harborside, which has the ability to float but is technically fixed, and a "true fixed" week at SVR says:

Ownership Type
Annual Fixed

grgs said:

My 2010 SVR unit is deposited with II, but it's a replacement week. I had already made exchange, which I had to cancel. This was before the new rules.

Other than my SVR replacement week, nothing shows up in my non-SVN II account for either SVR or SDO. Should there be? Based on what you said above, I guess I better call II.Other than my SVR replacement week, nothing shows up in my non-SVN II account for either SVR or SDO. Should there be? Based on what you said above, I guess I better call II.

Click to expand...

Or, call Starwood. I'm afraid that if it was a true "fixed" week 13, you should have the 2010 replacement week and a 2011 fixed week reflected in your II account (I have both years in mine -- I think fixed week owners are permitted to deposit 2 years in advanced). So, either it's a floating week or you were "lost in the cracks" when they made the updates to the accounts. Again, my stuff was missing for weeks.

Good luck -- keep us posted.

jerseygirl said:

Or, call Starwood. I'm afraid that if it was a true "fixed" week 13, you should have the 2010 replacement week and a 2011 fixed week reflected in your II account (I have both years in mine -- I think fixed week owners are permitted to deposit 2 years in advanced). So, either it's a floating week or you were "lost in the cracks" when they made the updates to the accounts.

Click to expand...

I also, can already see and exchange my fixed 2011 week in my II Acct.

DeniseM said:

I also, can already see and exchange my fixed 2011 week in my II Acct.

Click to expand...

apology in advance for this side note to the conversation:

I only own floating weeks. With these new changes, I feel jealous of folks who own prime fixed weeks.

As timeshare programs evolved from 'fixed' to 'floating' to 'points' and everything in between, i wonder why i am now stuck longing for the 'honesty' of the past. I do not mean blue genie carpet and pepto bismol walls. I mean knowing that you own what you own and no big corporation can arbitrarily change the ownership rights of it. Is it just me? Why do I grab hold of this silly notion that I now wished I owned fixed rather than the floating weeks which I do? Why am I so negative on points?

I need to sign up for the very next timeshare presentation offer. I need healing from those gurus. Last time I was told I was an idiot for not seeing the gold mine of the RCI world points program. Then I was given only 48 hours to spend $150 buck on Brazilian meat buffets. It made me so sick, but I digress... Maybe the Starwood sales folk can help fix my crazy longing for the past once and for all. ;-)