WSJ Staroptions

Can it be that Starwood can devalue staroptions. I have an old chart where 95700 staroptions would get a 3BR at WSJ in low season. The new chart requires 104100. I have also seen this with the Westin Lagunamar also.

Not sure about the 'devaluation' of SOs (what may devalued to one - may be a increase to others), but SVO/SVN are allowed to reclassify (per contract) as they see fit.

As you are probably aware - they increased the SOs for WSJ VG (Hillside).

RLOGO said:

Can it be that Starwood can devalue staroptions. I have an old chart where 95700 staroptions would get a 3BR at WSJ in low season. The new chart requires 104100. I have also seen this with the Westin Lagunamar also.

Click to expand...

In a word: yes.

See this recent thread for another example:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70428

Some of the revaluations I think are ok as they are correcting errors that were made in the initial valuation. This is the case with WSJ. Also, I do think they goofed with Cancun when they initially valued the high season there as below other top level resorts.

Of course, correcting previous errors is going to upset some owners at other resorts who now can't trade for as much as before. Still, I would rather see that than have some resorts unfairly valued, as I think that discourages those owners from trading within SVN.

Starwood latest revaluations with the Fountains/Cascades/Lakes resorts are odd to me as they are not giving owners of those units the same as they are charging other SVN owners to exchange in.

So far, Starwood has not changed the top valuation of 148,100 for 2 bd LOs in the prime season in the prime resorts. If they ever did that, I think you would see many angry owners.

Glorian

Yes, SVO can and will devalue StarOptions by increasing the amount of StarOptions required to exchange into a particular resort.

The latest devaluation is occurring at Vistana Resort's Cascades and Lakes sections where SVO is even imposing a whole new higher StarOption season.

Owners at the particular resort where the StarOption "costs" are increased usually receive the full amount of the increase added to their yearly StarOption allotment. As an added bonus; however, this is not happening with the Cascades and Lakes increase. Those owners are only getting half of the increased StarOption values.

I'm pretty sure that none of this will be appearing in any articles on mystarcentral.com anytime soon. (But I bet DVC, Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt salesfolks are having a field day with it on their respective sales floors).

-nodge

DavidnRobin said:

Not sure about the 'devaluation' of SOs (what may devalued to one - may be a increase to others), but SVO/SVN are allowed to reclassify (per contract) as they see fit.

As you are probably aware - they increased the SOs for WSJ VG (Hillside).

Click to expand...

True, this is and increase for some and devaluation for others, however when purchasing a Starwood timeshare one is led to beleive they can exchange to other Starwood properties with the SO's they have. This seems somewhat unfair once the system is altered and one does not have SO required.

I don't disagree - like many things within SVO/SVN - they are subject to change per contract language. Heck - even SVN could go away entirely (thus why back-up Resort Exchange systems are also stated in the contracts - I forgot what they are specifically called...)

This only goes to continue to support an ongoing TUG mantra - 'Buy where you want to go.'

RLOGO said:

This seems somewhat unfair once the system is altered and one does not have SO required.

Click to expand...

In SVO's mind, you're supposed to fill the gap in StarOptions with a new developer purchase. Of course, that new purchase won't help you much when your StarOptions are further devalued in the future, but you can always buy more . . ..

-nodge

DavidnRobin said:

I don't disagree - like many things within SVO/SVN - they are subject to change per contract language. Heck - even SVN could go away entirely (thus why back-up Resort Exchange systems are also stated in the contracts - I forgot what they are specifically called...)

This only goes to continue to support an ongoing TUG mantra - 'Buy where you want to go.'

Click to expand...

Buy where you want to go may work howerver if they change the SO for a season then it's "buy where you want to go, when they want you to go."

nodge said:

In SVO's mind, you're supposed to fill the gap in StarOptions with a new developer purchase. Of course, that new purchase won't help you much when your StarOptions are further devalued in the future, but you can always buy more . . ..

-nodge

Click to expand...

Brings up a question I had ( I am sure it has been asked before) Can one combine staroptions from two mandatory resorts for use at one stay at another starwood property?


Thanks

Rico

RLOGO said:

Buy where you want to go may work howerver if they change the SO for a season then it's "buy where you want to go, when they want you to go."

Click to expand...

Although SVO may want to, it can't change the resort or season that you bought in. It can only mess with the StarOption "cost" for others to trade into it. For example, even though SVO added a new peak season to Cascades and Lakes VR and gave those owners fewer StarOptions than required to trade into those phases during that new peak season using StarOptions, since those owners all bought week 1-52 floaters, they can still use their home resort ANY time, including within the new peak season.

(Same for me and my SDO. It requaled at "gold" status, but I can still book during Platinum weeks at SDO. I just only have 81,000 StarOptions if I elect to trade into other resorts via SVN.).

Don't get me wrong, what SVO did here is BAD, it just isn't as bad as your thinking.

-nodge

RLOGO said:

Brings up a question I had ( I am sure it has been asked before) Can one combine staroptions from two mandatory resorts for use at one stay at another starwood property? Rico

Click to expand...

The official rule at SVO is that StarOptions can only be combined if both SVO properties were purchased from the developer (or retro/requaled back into SVN). So if you own two mandatory resorts that were purchased resale, you can't combine their StarOptions to make a single reservation.

In practice, it all depends on who you get on the phone at SVN when you try to book the reservation. You know sometimes things just click . . . . it's like FIREWORKS!!!!!!

-nodge

nodge said:

Although SVO may want to, it can't change the resort or season that you bought in. It can only mess with the StarOption "cost" for others to trade into it. For example, even though SVO added a new peak season to Cascades and Lakes VR and gave those owners fewer StarOptions than required to trade into those phases during that new peak season using StarOptions, since those owners all bought week 1-52 floaters, they can still use their home resort ANY time, including within the new peak season.

(Same for me and my SDO. It requaled at "gold" status, but I can still book during Platinum weeks at SDO. I just only have 81,000 StarOptions if I elect to trade into other resorts via SVN.).

Don't get me wrong, what SVO did here is BAD, it just isn't as bad as your thinking.

-nodge

Click to expand...

That seems fair for owners. Can you shed some light on my post above about combing staroptions.

Thanks,
Rico

RLOGO said:

That seems fair for owners. Can you shed some light on my post above about combing staroptions.

Thanks,
Rico

Click to expand...

See post #11 above. -N

nodge said:

Don't get me wrong, what SVO did here is BAD, it just isn't as bad as your thinking.

-nodge

Click to expand...

I may have missed something - what specifically did SVO/SVN that was BAD - I know it has to do with some Sheraton Resorts in the Orlando area (which I do not follow) - and that they let some of the resorts into SVN and modified some SOs (and thus caused some type of SO devaluation) - but not exactly what the bottom-line was.

Please summarize if you could.

i don't see why you think the revaluation is so bad. it is letting owners who were not part of the svn into it. the people in fountainsII bought the resorts many years ago and did not pay half of what a developer week is so they staroptions they are getting they will able to get them to every resort in the svn. a big change and different quality of resorts they were able to trade into before.

the amount of staroptions they are giving the fouintains II owners is based on the average original sale price and the upgrade assessment and what a 2 br in orlando should be valued at.

and they are trying to keep all the other svn owners happy.if you look at the new revised staroption chart the resorts are now all have the same equal footing.

all the orlando resorts have the same seasons and the same staroption amounts for like for like units.

i think the change is a good thing. they are not out to get you IMO.

RLOGO said:

Can it be that Starwood can devalue staroptions. I have an old chart where 95700 staroptions would get a 3BR at WSJ in low season. The new chart requires 104100. I have also seen this with the Westin Lagunamar also.

Click to expand...

Even if you have the Staroptions needed, this is nearly an impossible exchange to get...

by next year, i think wsj will open up so we can exchange into and they can go to other resorts.

pointsjunkie said:

by next year, i think wsj will open up so we can exchange into and they can go to other resorts.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... perhaps, but there are a few things to consider.

Yes, with more units opening there will be become more flexibility, but there are also (slowly) becoming more Owners. I do not see the Owners of the new WSJ BV units using SVN exchanges for quite a while.

With the increase of the SOs at WSJ - you may find more Owners that will do an SVN exchange out of WSJ, but to where? As an WSJ Owner - I would think that most (who reside mainly on the East Coast) would only likely exchange into HRA and Cancun - some may venture to HI, but many do not want to travel that far. I think it is very limited as to how many will exchage to other places (like Orlando) - unless they are forced to due to specific circumstances (like those mentioned here).

Many - especially in the high season - will opt to rent as that is by far the best ROI - WSJ SVN availability will likely be better in summer/fall (as it is now) - than winter/spring.

Also, add that there are now a lot more people in SVN - and that will create more demand.

So... perhaps for the low seasons at WSJ, but I do not see it for the high seasons

What David said...

DavidnRobin said:

I may have missed something - what specifically did SVO/SVN that was BAD - I know it has to do with some Sheraton Resorts in the Orlando area (which I do not follow) - and that they let some of the resorts into SVN and modified some SOs (and thus caused some type of SO devaluation) - but not exactly what the bottom-line was.

Please summarize if you could.

Click to expand...

Here’s my position:

StarOption devaluation is BAD, BAD, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

Folks bought into SVN with an understanding that they could trade into other SVN resorts using their StarOptions. They purchased what they purchased based on them having a certain “trading power” to trade into other SVN resorts.

When SVO arbitrarily (yes it is arbitrary with not a single thought in the world as to how if affects existing owners) ups the StarOptions needed to trade into one of its (usually newest) resorts in an area, it is messing with the balance of “trading power” that formed the foundation upon which people originally bought.

Yes, some folks benefit from StarOption devaluation by being given more StarOptions. But the overwhelming majority of the remaining SVN members get screwed as a result.

As for Fountains I, II and Vistana Resorts folks being allowed access into SVN, I’ve no beef with that per se. It’s just that SVO arbitrarily picked a cut-off date for allowing resale purchasers to join, and I’m pretty darned sure that deadline was pulled right out of thin air (and if investigated further, probably shouldn’t be there at all).

Do I think SVO is out to get me? No. But I do think that it doesn’t give the consequences to existing owners' interests a second thought when it arbitrarily implements changes to its programs. The absolute overriding goal of SVO is to sell more developer units, and EVERY SINGLE THING IT DOES is aimed at meeting that goal. Us existing owners are just hanging on for the ride.

For example, SVO tried the “elite” program, more or less as a CARROT to induce us into buying more developer units. But, with the exception of the SPG Platinum benefit for 5 Stars, it has pretty much stripped that program of any “carrots” worth pursuing, and I suspect SVO’s numbers have started to show declining additional sales to current owners.

Accordingly, SVO appears to now be testing this StarOption devaluation theory as a “STICK” to force us into buying more units if we want to keep our current internal SVN “trading power.” I agree that it’s currently working around the fringes with this concept – summer season in Avon; giving Fountains/Beach Club owners fewer StarOptions than needed – but I guarantee you that if developer sales to current owners start increasing with little or no resistance from us owners to this nonsense, there will be no limit as to how much SVO will devalue our existing StarOptions in the future.

So my question to you folks claiming all is good here, is:

What more data do you need to convince yourselves that this is what SVO is doing?

I’ll do my best to find it. I’m pretty good at finding things.

-nodge

i guess we can agree to disagree.

i am a born optimist and i still think the cup as half full. i am an original developer purchaser and everything starwood said in the sales pitch came true for us. we have had only positive and wonderful experiences since we have bought since 2001 and that's why we bought many more weeks.

nodge said:

So my question to you folks claiming all is good here, is:

What more data do you need to convince you that this is what SVO is doing?

I’ll do my best to find it. I’m pretty good at finding things.

-nodge

Click to expand...

I am concerned, but not completely upset (yet!).

Adjusting existing resorts that seem to have been valued incorrectly is ok with me. That would be WSJ, WLR.

Adjusting existing resorts that whose values were slightly out of whack is ok with me. That would be Lakes/Cascades/PGA?/SBP? back about 4 or 5 years ago.

Bringing in existing resorts into SVN, and assigning them a value that matches other similar resorts is ok with me. That would be Fountains/Fountains II/Vistana Beach Club. Not assigning those owners the same number of options, though, just seems really strange to me.

Creating new seasons in existing SVN resorts seems wrong to me. That would be Lakes/Cascades. Again, not assigning those owners the same number of options is weird.

Increasing the options needed for a new, similar resort because of an additional feature seems very wrong to me. That would be the gold season at the new Westin Riverfront being valued at a higher level than SMV because of the air conditioning. Should WKORV-N have more options attached because of the kiddie pool, etc.? Or, should WKORV have more options attached because it's units are larger and have an oven?

This last one is the one that concerns me the most--particularly if more examples of this occur. So that's the answer to your question: if I see more examples of newly built resorts being valued at higher options than similar, older resorts, then you can bump me over to quite upset.

Glorian

grgs said:

I am concerned, but not completely upset (yet!).


Increasing the options needed for a new, similar resort because of an additional feature seems very wrong to me. That would be the gold season at the new Westin Riverfront being valued at a higher level than SMV because of the air conditioning. Should WKORV-N have more options attached because of the kiddie pool, etc.? Or, should WKORV have more options attached because it's units are larger and have an oven?

This last one is the one that concerns me the most--particularly if more examples of this occur. So that's the answer to your question: if I see more examples of newly built resorts being valued at higher options than similar, older resorts, then you can bump me over to quite upset.

Glorian

Click to expand...

Fair Enough. We'll just have to see where new resorts' StarOptions fall.

FWIW, a two bedroom summer season at Steamboat will be 95,700 StarOptions (the same at Westin Riverfront), which is more StarOptions than the same sized unit and season at SMV. But, I suspect Steamboat will have A/C too, so it's not really an entirely new data point.

SVO, you're on notice. Glorian and I are watching you.

-nodge

nodge said:

I’m pretty good at finding things.
-nodge

Click to expand...

You will not get any argument from us there, my man.

nodge said:

Fair Enough. We'll just have to see where new resorts' StarOptions fall.

FWIW, a two bedroom summer season at Steamboat will be 95,700 StarOptions (the same at Westin Riverfront), which is more StarOptions than the same sized unit and season at SMV. But, I suspect Steamboat will have A/C too, so it's not really an entirely new data point.

SVO, you're on notice. Glorian and I are watching you.

-nodge

Click to expand...

i totally agree with you on these points.