Re-thinking purchase!! HELP

[DavidnRobin]

jerseygirl - are posts are flying by one another - I elect YOU to figure this out. I was talking about the resort territory set-up early in the CCRs - I hadnt seen the SVN part. Interesting - congrats on your new position that you have been volunteered into (thats how i feel right now...)

[LisaRex]

Originally Posted by Fredm

The more I think about it, the less far-fetched it sounds. I am having a hard time quantifying what is in it for Starwood to continue SVN. I was able to define it under old rules. But, not now. Hmmm..

I think that SVO is squeezing every last dime out of its owners now in order to try and justify their existence to Starwood. Once they no longer make a real impact on Starwood's bottom line, there is absolutely no reason for Starwood to keep SVO on the books. What used to be a positive association will be a negative association once people start complaining loudly and publicly what SVN is doing to its owners.

SVN was only really exciting when they were building new resorts. No it's become a source of anger for people as they realize that their internal currency is useless for getting into the resorts they want to get into.

[DanCali]

Originally Posted by samthepoodle

Will you please tell me more about the MF's? We were told 2600 (every other year but I guess we would still pay yearly). So 5 years ago they were 1300? My friend who owns at Marriot says hers are 1,000 for EY, maybe I should buy there?

This problem also extends beyond Hawaii. Even the "less expensive" resorts where MFs are still around $1000-$1300 have seen increases way above the "cost of living" adjustments mentioned by Starwood salespeople. MFs at pretty much all resorts increased by around 50%, or much more in some cases, over the past 5 years.

You should definitely look at other timesharing systems besides Starwood as you do your research. After rescinding, I still liked Starwood and bought a couple of weeks, but now I am looking to diversify into other systems, probably at the expense of one of the Starwood weeks. Starwood has some great resorts, but at this point the minuses outweigh the pluses of ownership in my view. Take your time and do your HW - there is no reason to rush.

[DavidnRobin]

Originally Posted by jerseygirl

Yes, I realize SVN can go away (or Starwood can disassociate resorts and leave owners out in the cold, like they did with St Augustine). And, I agree with you ... I'm also not so confident they'll always be around. Right now, they use membership solely as a marketing tool. If they stop building new resorts, they'll have no motivation to keep the network open.

But, what I was pointing to is a little bit different. Here is the exact wording:

8.4 Special Exchange Programs. SVN Operator reserves the right, from time to time, to enter into special exchange relationships with any entity other than an External Exchange Company pursuant to which SVN Members will have access to selected non-SVN resorts and non-SVN owners will have access to SVN accommodations after the Home Resort Preference Period. Any special exchange programs will be governed by reservation rules and regulations similar to those governing an External Exchange Program.

In re-reading it, I think they're saying:

SVN can enter into a special exchange relationship with any entity (e.g., Disney, Hyatt, Hilton) pursuant to which SVN members will have access to selected (Disney, Hyatt, Hilton) resorts and (Disney, Hyatt, Hilton) owners will have access to SVN accommodations after the Home Resort Preference Period ...

Hilton did this with Interwest ... we can book Interwest resorts with our HGVC points and vice versa.

There is another clause (often mentioned on TUG) that allows for Starwood to let resale owners into SVN, such as they did at Vistana Resort after the special assessments were announced. Here's that wording:

SVN Operator reserves the right to expand or reduce the list of eligible Owners who may may participate in SVN in its sole discretion.

There's lots of fun stuff in those documents if you're bored enough to read them! I need a new hobby!

When I first read this - I interpreted it as at the II level. But I still have to get thru that first section...

What is truly needed is a mechanism for "Owner-to-Owner Community" (O2O) communication per resort to exist - as Owners that HOA would also have membership. Lack of this O2O is the root of the problem that extends even to the most minor issues.

If we could force a HOA Owner vote for a creation of an O2O - I would put money that it could get a 2/3 vote. A large hurdle is whether Developer Owned VOIs (per CCRs) would get a vote, and what % of VOIs are Developer owned per resort.

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

I think they have a lot to lose from discontinuing SVN. If that happens, there is really no reason for owners to keep Starwood as a management company. You can have someone else run the reports, have a large reduction in MFs, and trade through II without management controlling deposits.

This would get my vote at this point!!

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

I am not sure what percentage of owners at SDO are developer buyers, but if most are resale buyers by now it really doesn't make sense to keep Starwood as the management company with no SVN access.

According to the latest published numbers I have, here's the breakdown:

• Scottsdale Pinnacle Condominium has 228 units.
• If they sold 51 weeks (keeping a week for maintenance, which most good developers do), there are 11,628 potential SVN member weeks.
• But, there are only 7,290 VOI weeks enrolled in SVN (63% between all four ownership classes, float 1-52, platinum, gold and silver).

Just a guess -- many of those people would vote to keep Starwood and SVN because the SO values are high enough for them to trade everywhere (based on availability, of course!).

Let's look at the original phase of St John:

• 92 units X 51 weeks = 4692 potential SVN member weeks
• 3974 VOI weeks are SVN members
• Since it's a mandatory resort, that must mean that 718 original (pre-SVN) owner weeks have not converted to network membership. Good for them, I say!!!

As a WSJ owner who would never trade through the network or II, I couldn't care less about SVN membership. But I DO like that the timeshares are affiliated with the hotel. Some people prefer to rent villas when they visit St. John -- I want a bar, restaurants, room service, on-site boat rentals and tours, etc.! I'd be fine with losing Starwood as long as we could retain usage of the hotel facilities (and I'd be fine with another decent quality hotel brand taking over as well). By the way, isn't the existence of on-site hotel amenities a major difference between SDO and WKV as well?

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

In my view, I think the whole mandatory/voluntary is making them miss out on huge revenue opportunities, especially since they are not developing new resorts so they don't need to "convince people that buying resale is a bad idea". At most resorts (except mandatory), every developer buyer selling their unit to a resale buyer is a loss of SVN fees in perpetuity to Starwood.

Only in some cases. For example, at Vistana Resort (HUGE compared to SDO), all non-SVN members are members of the "Vistana Club" (or something like that). We pay fees that are almost the same as SVN fees ... maybe it's $79 instead of $113 (I don't remember the exact numbers), but they have their bases covered.

The bottom line is that the whole "voluntary" thing is their #1 marketing tool for anyone who asks about or researches resales. Look how many people on TUG think that the ability to trade for SPs is a great thing. They use that "exclusive ability" to convince buyers that paying the premium is worth it. I'm not saying I agree with their decision (Hyatt and Hilton do just fine without barring resale owners from the vast majority of their program features) ... Starwood just believes they need to do it so their owners aren't competing with them on sales.

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

Starwood can do much better by expanding SVN and upsell non-svn owners to turn their unit into a mandatory one. By this I don't mean a one time fee of $600 valid until the next resale - but charge thousands of dollars and keep the unit in SVN forever. They can easily charge a SDO Platinum 2BR owner $5000 or more for the privilege - just compare resale prices of a platinum WKV to resale prices of a platinum SDO... and the main difference between the two is SVN access. Similarly, they can charge thousands of SVR owners $1000-$5000 for the privilege etc... Not only do they get the front end revenue, but also perpetual SVN fees. This, in my view, is the cure to the malady - obviously along with reducing MFs so their brand doesn't dilute to nothingness and people actually want to buy into SVN...

I guarantee you that I wouldn't pay $1000 to $5000 to join -- it's just not that important to me. $599 .. maybe .... I'd have to think about it though! You're still pretty new at this ... but those of us who have been around for a long time recall when Starwood did offer all the pre-SVN owners at places like SVR, SDO and SBP membership. MANY wouldn't pay the $599 fee then .. and probably wouldn't pay it now.

I don't want to give them any ideas (!), but where they're really missing the boat is on fee income. Just this week alone, I've paid Hyatt hundreds of dollars in reservation and guest certificate fees. The Hyatt system is EXTREMELY flexible (you can book 7 nights, 4 nights, 3 nights, 2 nights -- all online, no less) but there's a fee for everything except booking your home resort (and, yes, they do let resale buyers into their network).

[DanCali]

Originally Posted by jerseygirl

The bottom line is that the whole "voluntary" thing is their #1 marketing tool for anyone who asks about or researches resales. Look how many people on TUG think that the ability to trade for SPs is a great thing. They use that "exclusive ability" to convince buyers that paying the premium is worth it. I'm not saying I agree with their decision (Hyatt and Hilton do just fine without barring resale owners from the vast majority of their program features) ... Starwood just believes they need to do it so their owners aren't competing with them on sales.


I guarantee you that I wouldn't pay $1000 to $5000 to join -- it's just not that important to me. $599 .. maybe .... I'd have to think about it though! You're still pretty new at this ... but those of us who have been around for a long time recall when Starwood did offer all the pre-SVN owners at places like SVR, SDO and SBP membership. MANY wouldn't pay the $599 fee then .. and probably wouldn't pay it now.

I agree that not everyone would do this, especially the people who know the system well - but here is an example of someone who will... If someone is willing to bid $4000 on a SVV 2BR Prime seaosn with 81,000 SOs, they would clearly be beter off by buying SVR for $1 and paying SVO $3000 to turn the unit into mandatory.

Among existing owners, a well crafted marketing brochure with WSJ, HRA, WKORV photos could do a nice job to convince some existing owners to do this. If you pay MFs of $1000 and now have the option to go to HRA or WSJ every year (of course they won't know how hard it is) then paying the $3000 as a one time fee "pays for itself "after 2 years!

Even if 5% of owners did this - it's millions of dollars upfront and ongoing SVN fees. If I were Starwood, I'd give this route a try rather than shut SVN down...

By the way, in the suggestion I raised the owners opting in would have priviliges like a mandatory resale buyer - i.e., SOs but not SPs. The StarPoint conversion would still be something the developer could pitch as booking an $1800 suite in Paris for 12,500 SPs... This is similar to how Marriott allows resale buyers to trade like anyone else, but can't get Marriott Rewards.

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

I agree that not everyone would do this, especially the people who know the system well - but here is an example of someone who will... If someone is willing to bid $4000 on a SVV 2BR Prime seaosn with 81,000 SOs, they would clearly be beter off by buying SVR for $1 and paying SVO $3000 to turn the unit into mandatory.

Excellent point -- but is the volume really out there? I don't watch ebay like I used to, but there are what ... maybe 10 SVN-eligible sales in a week (or has that changed with the economy ... again, I don't pay attention anymore).

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

Among existing owners, a well crafted marketing brochure with WSJ, HRA, WKORV photos could do a nice job to convince some existing owners to do this. If you pay MFs of $1000 and now have the option to go to HRA or WSJ every year (of course they won't know how hard it is) then paying the $3000 as a one time fee "pays for itself "after 2 years!

Good point -- but, as I referred to in my earlier post, they've tried it in the past with a $599 fee and had only limited success. History: Starwood bought Vistana Development when Lakes and Cascades still had significant inventory for sale. All post-Starwood buyers were automatically enrolled in the network. Circa 2003, Starwood invited all Lakes and Cascades owners who had bought from Vistana Development to join the network for $599 (some resale buyers got the invitation as well, probably due to bad record keeping). We don't have enough data to thoroughly analyze the numbers, but here's what we know -- every Lakes and Cascades owner, with the exception of resale buyers, was either automatically enrolled in SVN or invited to join for $599 and here's where they stand:

• Cascades = 421 units x 51 weeks = 21471 potential SVN member weeks (less resale buyers, but I'd put that number at less than 2000 -- just a guess)
• Actual member weeks = 10,596
• That tells me that MOST people turned down their offer to join for $599

• Lakes = 216 units x 51 weeks = 11016 potential SVN member weeks (less resale buyers but I'd put that number at less than 1000 - again, just a guess)
• Actual member weeks = 4219
• Again, it would appear that most people turned down their offer to join for $599

If I'm way off on the number of resale buyers (~10%), then my hypothesis is wrong. Also, maybe things have changed -- it would be great if we could find out what percentage of Vistana owners joined after the special assessment offer.

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

Even if 5% of owners did this - it's millions of dollars upfront and ongoing SVN fees. If I were them, I'd give this route a try rather than shut SVN down...

I don't disagree with you -- I'd give it a try too. But, we've been discussing this on TUG for about 10 years and Starwood has maintained its stance. I've always predicted that they would give in and let everyone join for the fee income in a bad economy. The bad economy has happened, and so far, they've proved me wrong.

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

By the way, in the suggestion I raised the owners opting in would have priviliges like a mandatory resale buyer - i.e., SOs but now SPs. The StarPoint conversion would still be something the developer could pitch as booking an $1800 suite in Paris for 12,500 SPs... This is similar to how Marriott allows resale buyers to trade like anyone else, but can't get Marriott Rewards.

Agree completely. With my Hyatt resale week, I can do internal trades but can't convert to Hyatt points. With my Hilton resale points, I can do internal trades and can convert to Hilton points ... but can never be elite without a developer purchase. They hold some of the goodies back, but don't create a convoluted two-tiered system.

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by DavidnRobin

jerseygirl - are posts are flying by one another - I elect YOU to figure this out. I was talking about the resort territory set-up early in the CCRs - I hadnt seen the SVN part. Interesting - congrats on your new position that you have been volunteered into (thats how i feel right now...)

David -- I've got some free time on my hands and I'm actually starting to enjoy reading these documents ... so I'll gladly accept responsiblity for document research. But, I only have two recent CCRs -- WSJ Hillside and WSJ Bay Vista. I've been able to locate some older stuff on county websites, but it's almost impossible to put together the whole picture ... documents are listed but not visible, you'd have to search forever to know if you've found every amendment, etc.

Bottom line -- shoot any document related question my way and I'll be happy to see if I can find the relevant language with what I have.

And -- I couldn't agree with you more with regard to O2O communication. Some groups (Worldmark, for example) seem to have better success with Yahoo Groups than TUG. I think it's easy to start a Yahoo group -- but how do we get the word out ??? That's the real question. I have one idea I'll shoot you via PM.

[Ken555]

Originally Posted by jerseygirl

And -- I couldn't agree with you more with regard to O2O communication. Some groups (Worldmark, for example) seem to have better success with Yahoo Groups than TUG. I think it's easy to start a Yahoo group -- but how do we get the word out ??? That's the real question. I have one idea I'll shoot you via PM.

Owner information is in the public domain - just recall all those annoying calls you receive regarding selling or renting your timeshare. At worst case, should there be a lawsuit, the names can be obtained (for a fee) from any organization that collects and manages this public info. I'm not sure email addresses are included, however, so snail mail may need to be used to alert the owners of any issue.

[jerseygirl]

Excellent point Ken !!!!!! You're a genius !!!!

I remember reading about all the trouble Worldmark "organizers" were having trying to get names and thought we would face the same thing. But, Worldmark doesn't have deeds -- we do.

It will be expensive, but perhaps we could start with a small mailing ... ask people to donate $2 or $5 to help fund additional mailings. Something like that.

Where there's a will, there's a way!

[Fredm]

[quote=*WoodMFs2Hi;816650]

I think they have a lot to lose from discontinuing SVN. If that happens, there is really no reason for owners to keep Starwood as a management company. You can have someone else run the reorts, have a large reduction in MFs, and trade through II without management controlling deposits. I am not sure what percentage of owners at SDO are developer buyers, but if most are resale buyers by now it really doesn't make sense to keep Starwood as the management company with no SVN access. In addition, is SVN goes away, it is also likely that owners at the most desireable resorts in the network (and the highest MFs) will opt to not join II at all - that can still end up in a large reduction in revenue.

Danny,

I should begin by stating the obvious. Starwood will most likely retain SVN for the time being. My speculation was just that. I ventured it in recognition of a simple fact. SVN could disappear tomorrow.

You make some sweeping statements.

No reason to keep Starwood if no SVN? Really? Try to get rid of them.

If SVN goes away, owners will have no incentive to join I.I.?
I don't even know how to respond to that.

In my view, I think the whole mandatory/voluntary is making them miss out on huge revenue opportunities, especially since they are not developing new resorts so they don't need to "convince people that buying resale is a bad idea". At most resorts (except mandatory), every developer buyer selling their unit to a resale buyer is a loss of SVN fees in perpetuity to Starwood. Stawood can do much better by expanding SVN and upsell non-svn owners to turn their unit into a mandatory one. By this I don't mean a one time fee of $600 valid until the next resale - but charge thousands of dollars and keep the unit in SVN forever. They can easily charge a SDO Platinum 2BR owner $5000 or more for the privilege - just compare resale prices of a platinum WKV to resale prices of a platinum SDO... and the main difference between the two is SVN access. Similarly, they can charge thousands of SVR owners $1000-$5000 for the privilege etc... Not only do they get the front end revenue, but also perpetual SVN fees. This, in my view, is the cure to the malady - obviously along with reducing MFs so their brand doesn't dilute to nothingness and people actually want to buy into SVN...

I know all about it.
I, jerseygirl, and others have been speculating that Starwood would open SVN membership to all for a couple of years now. For exactly the reasons you mention. Thus far, we have been wrong. But, still makes a lot of sense to me, taken in isolation. Glad to know you read what is posted here. Feeding it back as original thought is a bit much though.

The rest of it... how it affects resale values is meaningless to Starwood. How the secondary marketplace perceives SVN value is also meaningless.
SVN is nothing special. In fact, its a just another variation on a point system designed to rake value from owners.
Ask yourself, how would the market react if SVN was dissolved tomorrow? Mandatory resorts are not inherently more valuable.
You can fall for the baloney. I choose to pass.

I mean, how has Marriott survived without some such gimmick?
And, heaven help them, the owners belong to I.I. to get their trades.
Who would have thunk it? Is such a thing possible?

I also think Starwood is sharp as a tack. They certainly don't need us to point out how they can make money from their system. Have just a touch of humility. These are world-class wealth creators, and we are babes still trying to figure out how we are being fleeced, for heaven sake.
We don't even know what we don't know about their motives and methods.

If SVN disappeared tomorrow Starwood would not suffer one dollar.
But first, they would have to create a substitute mechanism to control exchange inventory.
That has now been accomplished.
Not a single item you describe as reason to maintain SVN cannot be addressed a different (and better) way. All Starwood needs to do is dictate it.

The reasons it would disappear is to insulate Starwood from whatever negative it might bring. The network operator is a separate and distinct business entity for a reason.
So long as SVN serves its purpose to Starwood, it will remain.

Have you ever considered why there is even such a thing as mandatory and voluntary? There were business reasons for it initially. It was not a freak accident. Because it is convoluted, one can easily ascribe thorny issues to its creation. Something like making sausage. Best to not know what went into it.
But, times, circumstances, and business imperatives change.

The difference between you and I, best I can tell, is that you think you have it figured out. I do the best I can to grope along with the imperfect information I have. From there, I make educated guesses.
I'm wrong as often as right. But, very little comes as a surprise.

Reminds me of a brilliant mathematician I know. A university professor who grapples with incomprehensible problems and equations. He long ago tired of suffering those of his colleagues in academia who would listen to his thesis and quickly respond with "I disagree".
He would say "How can you disagree? I just now presented it to you. I have been thinking about the problem for 10 years. You heard it 10 minutes ago. Please consider the problem for a year, so you will at least have the benefit of 10% of my thought before you disagree."

[Ken555]

Originally Posted by Fredm

We don't even know what we don't know about their motives and methods.

Absolutely correct - we should repeat this to ourselves at least once a week... as we try to pull back the covers and see what's really going on at SVN and Starwood.

[l2trade]

Originally Posted by jerseygirl

...
According to the latest published numbers I have, here's the breakdown:

• Scottsdale Pinnacle Condominium has 228 units.
• If they sold 51 weeks (keeping a week for maintenance, which most good developers do), there are 11,628 potential SVN member weeks.
• But, there are only 7,290 VOI weeks enrolled in SVN (63% between all four ownership classes, float 1-52, platinum, gold and silver).

...

Hi jerseygirl,
Great posts, as always!!! The Starwood/II new system is driving me to pay much closer attention to my ownership.

At the risk of my sounding like a total TUG newbie, can you please let me know where you got these numbers above from?

My research so far hasn't been easy. Maybe I've yet to identify the right post on TUG. For example, you may know a much easier way to find this, but I found Sheraton Desert Oasis CC&Rs by going to the Maricopa County Recorded Document Search: http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/

For this search, I entered the following and clicked search. Ignore any results where the Name is not an exact match.
Business Name: SCOTTSDALE PINNACLE
Document Code: PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS FOR CONDO/SUBDIV

[DanCali]

Originally Posted by Fredm

If SVN goes away, owners will have no incentive to join I.I.?
I don't even know how to respond to that.

Fred - what I said was: "if SVN goes away, it is also likely that owners at the most desireable resorts in the network (and the highest MFs) will opt to not join II at all"

Do owners at HRA and WSJ have any real incentive to join II if there was no SVN? They hardly use SVN for trades... if SVN goes away, will many of those owners pay II exchange fees to trade down? I don't see that happening because even if they want to exchange they are much better off renting their week and renting elsewhere for much less... am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Fredm

I know all about it.
I, jerseygirl, and others have been speculating that Starwood would open SVN membership to all for a couple of years now. For exactly the reasons you mention. Thus far, we have been wrong. But, still makes a lot of sense to me, taken in isolation. Glad to know you read what is posted here. Feeding it back as original thought is a bit much though.

...

SVN is nothing special. In fact, its a just another variation on a point system designed to rake value from owners.
Ask yourself, how would the market react if SVN was dissolved tomorrow? Mandatory resorts are not inherently more valuable.

What I brought up was a suggestion that instead of what I read on other posts by you and others (e.g. a one time $600 fee to join SVN good only for the current owner) there could be a much larger fee to have the unit become mandatory for life even after a subsequent resale. Owners that would participate should also experience an increase in the resale value of their units if the next owner had the ability to retain the benefit. Over time, this does away with the voluntary concept altogether and is a different propsition.

If I was repeating something that you mentioned ad nauseum in other places then my apologies - I haven't read the last two years of posts... and certainly didn't intend to plagiarize your original thoughts as my own...

Originally Posted by Fredm

The rest of it... how it affects resale values is meaningless to Starwood. How the secondary marketplace perceives SVN value is also meaningless.
SVN is nothing special. In fact, its a just another variation on a point system designed to rake value from owners.
Ask yourself, how would the market react if SVN was dissolved tomorrow? Mandatory resorts are not inherently more valuable.
You can fall for the baloney. I choose to pass.

How the secondary market perceives SVN is not meaningless because it affects the equity values for many of us. Mandatory resorts are more valuable becasue they are mandatory - otherwise I have no explanation to the great disparity in resale values of SVR and SVV or SDO and WKV... do you? If SVN were dissolved tomorrow I'm pretty sure resale values of all mandatory resorts will tank - and that's not meaningless to me...

Originally Posted by Fredm

I mean, how has Marriott survived without some such gimmick?
And, heaven help them, the owners belong to I.I. to get their trades.
Who would have thunk it? Is such a thing possible?

I know much less about Marriott than I do about Starwood but I know that Marriott gives their owners 20+ day II priority... that is a large part of what makes owning a Marriott valuable. It also helps in getting the trades... If they did away with that priority and, for example, a DSV and WMH owner had equal priority to Marriott exchanges in II - then DSV and WMH sould have more similar resale values, no? (vs. a 4:1 ratio these days?).

Yes, Marriott has a nice system without points and it seems to work well - but secondary market prices must be affected by superior preference to exchange within the system, whether implemented via points or via II preference.

Around this part of your post you start to get even more rude, so I'd rather refrain from a detailed response...

Originally Posted by Fredm

The difference between you and I, best I can tell, is that you think you have it figured out. I do the best I can to grope along with the imperfect information I have. From there, I make educated guesses.
I'm wrong as often as right. But, very little comes as a surprise.

I'm glad you have me figured out.

I know I am still a newbie to many of the issues, I certainly don't "have it all figured out", and I am humble enough to realize that. However, I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot...

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by l2trade

Hi jerseygirl,
Great posts, as always!!! The Starwood/II new system is driving me to pay much closer attention to my ownership.

At the risk of my sounding like a total TUG newbie, can you please let me know where you got these numbers above from?

My research so far hasn't been easy. Maybe I've yet to identify the right post on TUG. For example, you may know a much easier way to find this, but I found Sheraton Desert Oasis CC&Rs by going to the Maricopa County Recorded Document Search: http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/

For this search, I entered the following and clicked search. Ignore any results where the Name is not an exact match.
Business Name: SCOTTSDALE PINNACLE
Document Code: PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS FOR CONDO/SUBDIV

L2trade --

Thanks for your kind words!

The member numbers are included in the disclosure documents when you buy a unit from the developer ... and, yes, even this avid resale buyer has foolishly bought from Starwood to get exactly what she wanted at WSJ. (I know, it ruins my reputation ... but so it goes!). I'd be happy to send you a copy of the latest one I have if you send me your email address by PM. I suspect that Florida law requires them to publish the data once a year -- it's on my research "to do list," and if I find that's true .. you can be sure I'll be requesting newer copies (my latest numbers are from 2007, despite having a 2009 version of the documents).

I've also found some docs by searching county websites. But, either I'm just not any good at it (very possible!) or the search engines are a little more difficult in Horry Country (Broadway Plantation) and Orange County (Vistana Resort). I can find the original docs on the Horry Country website, but when you click on the link, it says "doc not available," or something like that. I've just been too lazy to call and find out if I can order printed copies. I can also find some of the docs on Orange County's website -- but there are so many versions of "Vistana," so many amendments ... I'm not confident I'm seeing the entire picture. Using the document classifications to narrow the search has not been successful -- I'm afraid they may not have been "totally perfect" in classifying documents under the right headings.

I'm going to be at Harborside next month. My original deed was presumably lost in the mail (I moved frequently the last few years) so I'm going into town to see if I can get a replacement copy while I'm there -- have the file all ready to go and everything! A friend's father passed away recently -- he left everything so organized -- down to addressed letters to his bankers, brokers, Social Security, etc. She only had to fill in the dates and add stamps (I'm sure they didn't have the "forever stamps" when he did this project or that would have been taken care of as well!) He's inspired me to try to make things easy for my heirs in the event of my untimely demise -- and somehow, I fear that not having the Harborside deed will cause them unnecessary work and money. Anyway, once I find the "holder of the deeds" I'm going to try to get copies of EVERYTHING related to HRA -- original documents and amendments. If I'm successful, then I think I'll take a road trip to SC and FL to try the same thing, in person, at Horry and Orange Counties. (Anything for an excuse to escape our upcoming dreadful weather!).

Since David volunteered me to be "reader of the records," I welcome copies of anything anyone has. Just shoot me a PM with what you've got, and I'll return my email address if it's something that needs added to my growing "collection!"

Unfortunately, I have to go back to work in July. But, that gives me plenty of time to be a thorn in Starwood's side!!

-- Jerseygirl

[bullroc3]

Starwood can disassociate resorts and leave owners out in the cold, like they did with St Augustine.

I am curious as to what this means. We are in building #23, St. Augustine, at the Vistana Villages right now!! We don't own here but it is very nice. I like the changes that they made.

[Fredm]

[quote=*WoodMFs2Hi;816886]

Fred - what I said was: "if SVN goes away, it is also likely that owners at the most desireable resorts in the network (and the highest MFs) will opt to not join II at all"

Do owners at HRA and WSJ have any real incentive to join II if there was no SVN? They hardly use SVN for trades... if SVN goes away, will many of those owners pay II exchange fees to trade down? I don't see that happening because even if they want to exchange they are much better off renting their week and renting elsewhere for much less... am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing the entire point.
IF SVN disappeared, nothing would change for these owners. They may, or may not, choose to trade. It remains up to them.

How the secondary market perceives SVN is not meaningless because it affects the equity values for many of us. Mandatory resorts are more valuable becasue they are mandatory - otherwise I have no explanation to the great disparity in resale values of SVR and SVV or SDO and WKV... do you? If SVN were dissolved tomorrow I'm pretty sure resale values of all mandatory resorts will tank - and that's not meaningless to me...

It is meaningless. If SVN did not exist there would be no mandatory/voluntary distinction. Starwood did not charge more for the timeshare because the resort was mandatory. They charged what the market would bear. Period. Resale prices are determined by buyer perception of value. If owners of all resorts had to deposit to I.I. or another external exchange for a trade, the inventory now assigned to SVN would wind up in the external exchange inventory. All owners would be able to compete for a trade into that inventory.
The resulting resale price in the marketplace may change. Who knows how? My guess is current voluntary resorts would be perceived as more valuable, and mandatory resorts as less valuable.
BUT, what happens in that marketplace would not enter into Starwood's decision to dissolve SVN. Just like it did not enter into their decision on how to price at retail. It's academic to them.
That's the point.

I know much less about Marriott than I do about Starwood but I know that Marriott gives their owners 20+ day II priority... that is a large part of what makes owning a Marriott valuable. It also helps in getting the trades... If they did away with that priority and, for example, a DSV and WMH owner had equal priority to Marriott exchanges in II - then DSV and WMH sould have more similar resale values, no? (vs. a 4:1 ratio these days?).

Marriott has nothing to do with this. Their system benefits its owners equally. Just like Starwood's would if SVN disappeared.
Absent SVN, all Starwood owners would/could have an I.I. preference for in-system trades just as Marriott owners now enjoy.
Starwood has a 3 day preference currently. It can change to whatever, or remain the same.
It is not a matter of what would happen if Marriott removed the preference. They won't. It has everything to do with what happens if Starwood owners enjoyed something similar. Again, neither will influence Starwood to do what is in their interest.

Market price is determined by the value perception of the buyer.
Most resale buyers have it drummed into their head that mandatory resorts offer better exchange value. That is the consensus opinion. Hence, more demand for mandatory resorts. I hold a different opinion. But it too becomes irrelevant if SVN disappears.

Precisely because SVN can be dissolved, or a particular resort can be banished from the "Club", any advice to purchase it because it is at the time mandatory, is poor advice in my view.

In point of fact, non-SVN owners enjoyed superior trade experiences with I.I. prior to the most recent change in methodology. THAT is what the huge discussion and revolt is all about these days.
In one broad sweeping change, Starwood has substituted the primary reason for SVN being at all. It controls all the exchange inventory. And will continue to do so if SVN is dissolved.
So, they no longer have to worry about losing residual unused StarOptions (which I guesstimate at ~2% of issued Options, or 1 week per condo). They control it all.

Losing annual SVN fees are not a real consideration either. The fee included membership in I.I. Starwood can easily renegotiate their cut of I.I. member dues if SVN does not exist.

All of which goes to say that Starwood will do what serves Starwood. They will have the revenue side figured out, without needing our input of what is in their interest.

Yes, Marriott has a nice system without points and it seems to work well - but secondary market prices must be affected by superior preference to exchange within the system, whether implemented via points or via II preference.

Right. And absent SVN, Starwood resorts would perform similarly.
That's the part you do not seem to appreciate. The market will take care of itself.

I'm glad you have me figured out.

I know I am still a newbie to many of the issues, I certainly don't "have it all figured out", and I am humble enough to realize that. However, I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot..

I did not say I had you figured out. I said "The difference between you and I, best I can tell, is that you think you have it figured out. " Sorry, your posts come across that way. Spoken as a font of wisdom and knowledge.

Everyone is entitled to voice an opinion. When in the context of "I disagree", it serves the person disagreeing to offer relevant discussion. My clarifying the irrelevance of your comments, and thereby highlighting it, was not intended to be rude.
I apologize if it was.

[DanCali]

Originally Posted by Fredm

Yes, you are missing the entire point.
IF SVN disappeared, nothing would change for these owners. They may, or may not, choose to trade. It remains up to them.

My point was that I don't think they are trading via II now, even when thay belong to II via a corporate account. If SVN goes, there is no reason to even belong to II - hence a possible reduction in fees to Starwood (similarly for HRA and possibly WKORV owners).

Originally Posted by Fredm

Market price is determined by the value perception of the buyer.
Most resale buyers have it drummed into their head that mandatory resorts offer better exchange value. That is the consensus opinion. Hence, more demand for mandatory resorts. I hold a different opinion. But it too becomes irrelevant if SVN disappears.

....

The resulting resale price in the marketplace may change. Who knows how? My guess is current voluntary resorts would be perceived as more valuable, and mandatory resorts as less valuable.

.....

Right. And absent SVN, Starwood resorts would perform similarly.
That's the part you do not seem to appreciate. The market will take care of itself.

One thing I do understand and appreciate is how markets work... we both agree that absent SVN mandatory resort values are likely to take a big hit - that's what I care about.

Of course if SVN is dissolved there is no mandatory voluntary distinction.

When I said "how the secondary market perceives SVN is not meaningless because it affects the equity values for many of us" that assumes SVN exists. Part of this discussion involved a scenario of expanding rather than dissolving SVN - in that scenario a "mandatory SVR unit" (where the owner pays Starwood $3000 to join SVN perpetually) would be more valuable on the resale market than a voluntary SVR unit. That's a reason to pay $3000 rather than $600 to join SVN only until the next ownership transfer. I think we digressed so much from the toic of the thread that we were not talking about the same thing anymore...

Originally Posted by Fredm

Everyone is entitled to voice an opinion. When in the context of "I disagree", it serves the person disagreeing to offer relevant discussion. My clarifying the irrelevance of your comments, and thereby highlighting it, was not intended to be rude.
I apologize if it was.

I think some of your comments originated from misunderstanding what I meant and some are valid. You are obviously more experienced than most people here about timeshares and I'm happy to learn from you and others. I'm also happy to have a constructive discussion anytime, but there is no need to be obnoxious in the process. I'm definitely not overly sensitive, but I did perceive that post as somewhat condescending. Apology accepted...

[DeniseM]

Folks - let's focus on the issues here. Any further personal comments will be deleted...

[timeos2]

Originally Posted by *WoodMFs2Hi

When I said "how the secondary market perceives SVN is not meaningless because it affects the equity values for many of us" that assumes SVN exists. Part of this discussion involved a scenario of expanding rather than dissolving SVN - in that scenario a "mandatory SVR unit" (where the owner pays Starwood $3000 to join SVN perpetually) would be more valuable on the resale market than a voluntary SVR unit. That's a reason to pay $3000 rather than $600 to join SVN only until the next ownership transfer. I think we digressed so much from the toic of the thread that we were not talking about the same thing anymore...

What you are missing is that the purchase price is a one time expense that over time means little. The real cost is the annual fees and those for mandatory resorts - since they are under Starwoods thumb - have and appear more likely to continue to have a fee increase that outstrips the vacation /trade value of the time - regardless of which system it may be part of. Resale values for both mandatory and voluntary are on the slide and are likely to continue toward zero as both have too many negatives to support a high resale value.

In fact all timeshares appear to headed toward a free exchange of ownership for basically the transfer costs, with the true value/cost being the fact that the current owner of record must shoulder the annual fees for the use rights. As long as a decent return in use, trade or rental can be extracted then the ownership is viable. When the annual costs exceed that use (and many off season/old/unkempt/poorly managed resorts or systems are falling into this group) then the ownership becomes truly worthless. Eventually the fees for the poor times will transfer to the more valuable times as the worthless weeks are abandoned/foreclosed. If the overall value remains despite those returns it is a viable way to go - if the bad times weigh down the good then the whole system could implode. It is not a pretty picture but it is the way things are headed. Increasing fees, especially with overly generous profit margins for greedy developer based managements, are not sustainable over the long term. And none show any signs of abating.

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by bullroc3

Starwood can disassociate resorts and leave owners out in the cold, like they did with St Augustine.

I am curious as to what this means. We are in building #23, St. Augustine, at the Vistana Villages right now!! We don't own here but it is very nice. I like the changes that they made.

Sorry -- this comment had nothing to do with the St Augustine phase at Vistana Villages. Back when Starwood first started (when they bought Vistana Development), there was an additional resort in St. Augustine. There is disagreement as to whether or not it was ever part of SVN, but I recall them touting it to me in an SVN presentation. However, my memory could be flawed (it may have just been part of the "Vistana Club," which allowed owners to trade between Vistana Resort, PGA Resort and Beach Club). Regardless, Starwood sold it to Bluegreen (I think) and owners lost all internal trading privileges (whether they were SVN, Vistana Club, or both). My point was, it's happened before ... and it can happen again.