# Whats up next for Starwood owners [MUST READ!]



## gmarine (Oct 26, 2009)

As some Tuggers know, I have been spending a lot of time calling Starwood to see what I can find out about any motives of the system change or future plans Starwood may have. 

I have made dozens of calls to Owner Services, Specialists, managers etc. I have called Starwood sales multiple times. I have spoken to muliple people at Interval as well.  I have called as an owner, giving my info as well as an owner just asking general questions without giving my info. I have pretended to be a prospective retail buyer and a prospective resale buyer. I have inherited a mandatory unit as well as a voluntary resort. I was a seller having trouble selling who had questions about why. I was an exchanger looking to trade into Starwood resorts. I had to make up a lot of stories to gather this info.

So here is what I have gotten from all this. Please keep in mind none of this is official. Much of it has been gathered in small parts from many different employees.

So here you go.

I was told very simply that Starwood knows this new system isnt owner friendly. This is why there has been no announcment. Starwood chose a "soft rollout", because they anticipated large numbers of unhappy owners contacting Starwood if they sent notices to all owners. They also anticipated plummeting resale prices as a result of an announcment. They preferred keeping it quiet and telling owners only when they called to exchange. 

The new system was not put in place to make SVN owner and non SVN owners equal. It was put in place for purely financial reasons. Under the new system Starwood will be able to rent more prime season units than before. Previously owners would deposit high season units leaving only low season units as available for rentals. I assumed the new system would mean more availability for owners and SVN owners. I was told that I was wrong, that it it will not necessarily mean more availability for owners. I was also told that it will be just about impossible to trade one high season unit to another via Interval. 

Starwood's profits are down in sales and other revenue sources were needed. Keeping a certain amount of high season rentals is Starwoods way of gaining revenue from each resort versus having only low season units avaible for rentals. I did a quick check and there are plenty of peak March SDO units available for rental direct from Starwood.

The lack of real Request First has a specific purpose. To again keep high season units as rentals. Since any reservation has to be canceled before an exchange request can be made, the high season unit reverts back as available for a rental and a low season unit is given to II instead. If the exchage request is not confirmed, the owner retains usage but may only have low season units to choose from since available high season units have already been rented. 

Starwood also plans to try to implement a similar system with RCI as well as imposing similar restrictions on independant exchange company deposits. I was also told of the possibility that there will be a fee to put the name of a non owner on a home resort reservation or SVN exchange reservation.

I was told there are coming changes to SVN procedures but this is one area where I was not able to find out any more information.

Special assessments were also mentioned due to foreclosures and costs incurred due to the economy/energy costs.

HOA's at Starwood resorts are ultimately controlled by Starwood.

I dont wish to debate whether any this is true because nothing is in writing. However, this is what I was told. Yes, I lied a lot about who I was and what my situation was but it was necessary to seem like I was just another overly friendly uninformed person. 

I dont know whether any of this becomes reality but its clear to me that Starwood is looking for every and any way to make money at the expense of owners, both SVN and non SVN. Those of you who I have on the owner list will hear from me again soon regarding some ideas or shoot me an email with suggestions.

Oh yeah, one more interesting tidbit. Current Starwood Vacation Ownership CEO Sergio Rivera was previously Chief Operating Officer of................Westgate Resorts. Now why am I not surprised Starwood is screwing owners


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 26, 2009)

Outstanding work George!

But I am totally disgusted with the results of your research....it's worse than we even suspected.  

George - please let us know what we can do!

And a BIG thank you!

*If you'd like to be on the list of owners who are working together on this issue, please send an email to gmarine.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 26, 2009)

It appears that Starwood may have already implemented the new rules with RCI - see this *email* that a Tugger just received today  regarding an RCI deposit.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 27, 2009)

*What is the endgame?*

Let'snot forget that we are are observing is probably only a small portion of the long term plan. Think of what you would do if you were Starwood, in desperate need of revenue, with no plans for further expansion into new resorts, and you pretty much control the HOAs...

If there are no plans for further expansion then reputation with new owners (ones buying from developer) is meaningless. I am truly starting to believe that the long term plan is to buy back these resorts at pennies on the dollar. With the control of the HOA, starwood can raise MFs over time to ridiculous levels, thus forcing more people to sell and lowering resale prices at the same time. It can then use ROFR to buy these back at 5%-10% of what original buyers paid. Forget renting what people trade into II - they will be able to rent all weeks, all views, whatever, whenever, while the few remaining owners subsidize the housekeeping costs...

I mean think about it - the MFs at all resorts went up again by 8%-15%. There is always an excuse - one year it's inflation, one year it's energy costs, one year it's delinquencies but they never provide enough detail to support any of these excuses! Owners just get used to it and believe MFs have to rise every year at 10%...  

I want to emphasize that this is of course just PURE SPECULATION on my part; I have absolutely no evidence to back it up (besides the ridiculous trajectory of MFs at most resorts) but with the guy heading up the organization - would anyone be surprised if this was an actual deliberate strategy?


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

Gmarine -- thanks for doing this.  Are you keeping records (names, dates, times) of your conversations?  Your information could prove very handy in a future action.  

Danny -- I don't think Starwood wants to own the vast majority of these resorts.  Why would they?  Ownership brings great risks, e.g. economical (low occupancy/rental rates in a bad economy), weather (owners carry the insurance), competition (bigger, better, newer resorts can and will be built in most of these locations).  With the double revenue bonanza of inflated sales prices and a lucrative management fees, they enjoy all the upside with none of the downside.  They knew what they were doing when they got into the timeshare business and for a good many years it was a huge profit generator for them.  Now, times are different, and they're determined to offset the losses caused by the ongoing costs associated with unsold property by squeezing every possible penny out of current owners.  The management side of SVO can make a profit simply by managing the properties in a conservative manner -- but, no, that's not good enough for them.  It's all about corporate greed.

But, I do believe you're right about their interest in the rental income.  How those contracts were written so that rental revenue goes to Starwood and not the HOA is beyond me.  Every other timeshare I own has rental income coming into the HOA finances.  Perhaps that's the issue we should really be fighting (and yes, I realize it would require an expensive lawsuit to attempt to challenge the contracts).  But, it defies logic (did owners really understand the implications when they signed their contracts and would the courts uphold them under a fairness challenge?).  If Starwood had no motivation (i.e., no revenue) to rent prime weeks, they would stop messing with the reservation rules.  

I think their current actions are very short-sighted.  Someday, the economy will be booming again.  But, will owners come flocking back?  I don't think so.  People have long memories when it comes to special assessments, out-of-control maintenance fees, benefits taken away under the guise of ehancements.  Yes, there are always "new suckers" to draw in, but those who take even just a few minutes to research their purchases before the rescission period is up will easily find information such as this.  On the other hand, look at the Hyatt and Hilton boards ... do you see complaints similar to ours?


----------



## LisaRex (Oct 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> But, I do believe you're right about their interest in the rental income.  How those contracts were written so that rental revenue goes to Starwood and not the HOA is beyond me.  Every other timeshare I own has rental income coming into the HOA finances.



I believe that the greed is what is going to ultimately hang them.  I believe that we could fight the clause re Starwood keeping all the rental income on its face alone.  I think it falls under "usury."  But when they also bill current Starwood owners for delinquencies without handing over the rental income associated with those units ...well, let's just say that I believe they've hanged themselves. 

They can't reasonably expect to have it both ways.  I think the question is not whether the current owners are going to have to sue them but when. 

And it gives me absolutely no pleasure to say that.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 27, 2009)

gmarine said:


> The new system was not put in place to make SVN owner and non SVN owners equal. It was put in place for purely financial reasons. Under the new system Starwood will be able to rent more prime season units than before.



This is what I had suspected all along.   I'm surprised someone at *wood would actually tell you this.

We made the decision to sell our SDO before these changes came about.  The original plan was to buy again in a few years, but now I think we will stick with Marriott.

I still think SDO will be a good trader (by our standards) under the new system.  I just don't want to be associated with Starwood.


----------



## erm (Oct 27, 2009)

I don't pretend to know much about the Starwood system, but did spend yesterday morning studying the info available on TUG -thanks Denise and others.  I attended the sales presentation yesterday afternoon and was told by the sales manager that she hadn't met anyone who knew as much about the system as I did (after she said I was "brazen" to bring recent ebay sales and WKV active listings to the meeting).  When I asked about mandatory and non mandatory resorts she told me they aren't doing that anymore and Starwood is making it to stop people from buying resale.  Just one bit of info I learned.  I hope Marriott is not following this model for their new internal trade system.


----------



## Transit (Oct 27, 2009)

erm said:


> I don't pretend to know much about the Starwood system, but did spend yesterday morning studying the info available on TUG -thanks Denise and others.  I attended the sales presentation yesterday afternoon and was told by the sales manager that she hadn't met anyone who knew as much about the system as I did (after she said I was "brazen" to bring recent ebay sales and WKV active listings to the meeting).  When I asked about mandatory and non mandatory resorts she told me they aren't doing that anymore and Starwood is making it to stop people from buying resale.  Just one bit of info I learned.  I hope Marriott is not following this model for their new internal trade system.



I'm not sure what you mean by Starwood is not doing mandatory and non- mandatory anymore.What is Starwood doing to stop people from buying resales?


----------



## Politico (Oct 27, 2009)

Transit said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by Starwood is not doing mandatory and non- mandatory anymore.What is Starwood doing to stop people from buying resales?



I think she means all future resorts (not that there are really any new ones coming) will be voluntary resorts.


----------



## Politico (Oct 27, 2009)

Gmarine, Keep in mind that we know Starwood reads TUG.  And a Starwood exec looked up another Tuggers account information and posted their personal information here.    Unfortunately, I think the starwood execs are going to want to know who you are.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Oct 27, 2009)

Gmarine:

You are amazing!!!  Thanks for all the great work.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 27, 2009)

erm said:


> When I asked about mandatory and non mandatory resorts she told me they aren't doing that anymore and Starwood is making it to stop people from buying resale.



The sad thing is this change isn't going to make very many people more likely to buy from Starwood.   All it does is kill resale values, making buying from Starwood an even worse idea.   Why would I want to buy developer at a place like Princeville knowing that Starwood was doing everything in their power to kill resale value?


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

Politico said:


> Gmarine, Keep in mind that we know Starwood reads TUG.  And a Starwood exec looked up another Tuggers account information and posted their personal information here.    Unfortunately, I think the starwood execs are going to want to know who you are.



Politico, I think many of us (gmarine, denisem, myself) are fully aware that Starwood knows who we are on TUG.  I can't speak for gmarine or denise, but I couldn't care less.  I'm not afraid of them -- I grew up in a large family and learned how to deal with bullies at a very young age!  They can't stop me from using the units I bought to use, and I truly don't care one bit about the traders, except to the extent that I'll keep two (based in two separate states) so I can continue to "fight the fight" (with two different state regulators if necessary).  I did consider dumping them all (I own so many timeshares -- believe me, I don't need the Starwood traders to enjoy wonderful vacations), but that would be giving in, which simply serves to reinforce a bully's behavior.  Starwood is not going to be so lucky on that front.

I actually sent them a concilitory letter recently.  I told them I'm willing to  drop my formal complaints and apologize to all involved if they'll simply provide the legal documentation that proves they have the ability to control non-SVN deposits.  (Heck, I'll even send them a crate of oranges if I'm wrong!).  We'll see ... but let's just say I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 27, 2009)

Stefa said:


> The sad thing is this change isn't going to make very many people more likely to buy from Starwood.   All it does is kill resale values, making buying from Starwood an even worse idea.   Why would I want to buy developer at a place like Princeville knowing that Starwood was doing everything in their power to kill resale value?



You are right. We rescinded Princeville after I did a couple of hours of research on TUG. It doesn't take long to realize that buying voluntary from developer is not a great proposition. The mandatory/voluntary argument also dictates that there is no reason to buy Princeville on resale when you can buy Maui or even a property in the desert on resale and get much more in benefits, at least not until Princeville resale prices become more similar to WMH.  

But now that I gravitated towards mandatory resorts (on resale), I realize that those are not maintaining their value either when MFs are skyrocketing every year.

Starwood has been living by the mantra of "There's a sucker born every minute" but I am sure that the ability of buyers to find TUG has increased the rate of developer purchase cancellations. The economy is only one reaon why there are no new developments, but not the only one in my opinion.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> I don't think Starwood wants to own the vast majority of these resorts. Why would they? Ownership brings great risks, e.g. economical (low occupancy/rental rates in a bad economy), weather (owners carry the insurance), competition (bigger, better, newer resorts can and will be built in most of these locations). With the double revenue bonanza of inflated sales prices and a lucrative management fees, they enjoy all the upside with none of the downside.



I don't know what their long term agenda is, so I am just speculating. They already got the inflated sales prices so how do they maximize revenues now? They can try to milk owners as much as possible with their cut from MFs, SVN fees, rentals, etc but I am not sure if that is sustainable in the long run.

Think about what are the options when MFs at WKORV reach $4000 or $5000? At this rate this can happen in about 5-6 years... At that level of MFs thousands of owners wll seek to dump their properties and resale values will literally be zero because nobody will want to buy them. So either Starwood buys the hotel back or owners vote to close down the property, if the latter is even an option. If they buy a week at $1000 (probably very generous, because at that level of MFs owners will be willing to give their weeks away, or even pay someone to take them) that's $50,000 _per 2BR villa_ in a super prime location. Much cheaper than building from scratch... (in fact, buying just the furniture and appliances inside the villa would probably exceed that value). Even with the risks of economy/competition this has got to be a very attractive proposition for Starwood. 

As an illustration think of their return on investment in an ultra conservative scenario - they rent a 2BR villa for $300 a night ($100 for the studio and $200 for a 1BR suite), have only 70% occupancy rates at those ridiculously low rates, and their costs to operate the villa are 90% of revenues... So their operating income per villa per year would be $300 * 365 days * 0.7 occupancy * 0.1 operating margin = $7665 per year. On a $50,000 investment that's a pretax return on equity of over 15% a year. And I think we can all agree this is a very conservative scenario...

Now in more realistic, but still quite conservative scenario, they rent a villa at $500/night (say $200 for a studio and $300 for a 1BR suite), have 80% occupancy and let's just assume their costs are still 90% of sales. Now their operating income per villa per year would be $500 * 365 days * 0.8 occupancy * 0.1 operating margin = $14,600 per year. On a $50,000 investment that's a pretax return on equity of over 29% a year! This doubles to a 60% pretax annual return if the costs are 80% of revenues and they have a 20% operating margin.

When you think of it that way you see that despite the risks, buying the hotel back fr a symbolic price would be a great way to create value for Starwood shareholders (not the SVN owners). This is not so outlandish as it may seem at a first glance at the idea...


----------



## gmarine (Oct 27, 2009)

Politico said:


> Gmarine, Keep in mind that we know Starwood reads TUG.  And a Starwood exec looked up another Tuggers account information and posted their personal information here.    Unfortunately, I think the starwood execs are going to want to know who you are.



A Starwood Exec looked up a Tuggers account and posted that information in a public forum without permission ? If that is true, and Starwood management found out, I guarantee that employee would be fired immediately. Starwood Corp has specific privacy policies in place to protect members information. An employee cannot post private information in a public forum. 

I tell Starwood management every chance I get that I post on TUG. I want them to know who I am and that I'm going to be a most annoying pain in the ***.

 I cant imagine why anyone would not want Starwood to know that they are unhappy and that they are willing to post in a publice forum to let others know.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 27, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> It appears that Starwood may have already implemented the new rules with RCI - see this *email* that a Tugger just received today  regarding an RCI deposit.



I believe that this is a different issue. More likely, the owner has used some time for 2010 and they are not eligible to deposit a week right now. Was there any follow up from the Tugger? They said they did not have time to call SVO to discuss the e-mail.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 27, 2009)

gmarine said:


> A Starwood Exec looked up a Tuggers account and posted that information in a public forum without permission ? If that is true, and Starwood management found out, I guarantee that employee would be fired immediately. Starwood Corp has specific privacy policies in place to protect members information. An employee cannot post private information in a public forum.
> 
> I tell Starwood management every chance I get that I post on TUG. I want them to know who I am and that I'm going to be a most annoying pain in the ***.
> 
> I cant imagine why anyone would not want Starwood to know that they are unhappy and that they are willing to post in a publice forum to let others know.




George - the TUG member in question reported it to the Starwood lead attorney and they did NOTHING - in fact the employee who posted the TUG member's info. still lurks on TUG, and still uses their work ISP.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 27, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> I believe that this is a different issue. More likely, the owner has used some time for 2010 and they are not eligible to deposit a week right now. Was there any follow up from the Tugger? They said they did not have time to call SVO to discuss the e-mail.



Jim - the OP wants to deposit their reserved 2010 week with RCI and Starwood/RCI will not allow them to do so.  They have not use the week - they have tried to deposit it, and they are not being allowed to do so.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 27, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> George - the TUG member in question reported it to the Starwood lead attorney and they did NOTHING - in fact the employee who posted the TUG member's info. still lurks on TUG, and still uses their work ISP.



Really? Wow. Most companies have a very strict policies regarding the release of personal information and have a zero tolerance policy for violations. Immediate dismissal is common for violations. That TUG member should call Sergio Rivera's office and file a formal complaint against both the employee who posted the information and against the attorney who did nothing. Something like that could result in a lawsuit against Starwood.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 27, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Really? Wow. Most companies have a very strict policies regarding the release of personal information and have a zero tolerance policy for violations. Immediate dismissal is common for violations. That TUG member should call Sergio Rivera's office and file a formal complaint against both the employee who posted the information and against the attorney who did nothing. Something like that could result in a lawsuit against Starwood.



Gmarine, remember your own post, Servio Rivera used to be CEO of ....... Westgate resorts. So things such as contracts, violations of policies, fairness, threat of lawsuits do not mean much going forward. I do see starwood taking actions against some SVO owners who will show up at one of their resorts wearing a t-shirt "starwood lied to me and screwed me" 

http://www.wftv.com/news/20121236/detail.html


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 27, 2009)

gmarine said:


> As some Tuggers know, I have been spending a lot of time calling Starwood to see what I can find out about any motives of the system change or future plans Starwood may have.
> 
> I have made dozens of calls to Owner Services, Specialists, managers etc. I have called Starwood sales multiple times. I have spoken to muliple people at Interval as well.  I have called as an owner, giving my info as well as an owner just asking general questions without giving my info. I have pretended to be a prospective retail buyer and a prospective resale buyer. I have inherited a mandatory unit as well as a voluntary resort. I was a seller having trouble selling who had questions about why. I was an exchanger looking to trade into Starwood resorts. I had to make up a lot of stories to gather this info.
> 
> ...



Gmarine.

I am shocked to hear of this feedback having been previously employed with SVO.

Are you saying that a Starwood employee(s) specifically said that they we aware that the recent changes were not owner friendly?

Also, Starwood employee(s) specifically said that the changes were put into place purely for financial reasons and that they could rent out more prime weeks?

Whether the statements are true or not, I would not imagine SVO or any other developer coming to the line with such a response.

I understand that Starwood has verbiage in some (if not all) of their condominium documents that allows them to rent out unreserved inventory 60-days out. What I am not sure of is that there are so many owners that want to deposit specific weeks that they see an opportunity to improve their bottom line so much by changing the process so drastically.

Very interesting reading here.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 27, 2009)

on a related note - see my post from SVO Management regarding WSJ MFs and Owners deliquencies and defaults (typical corp-speak)

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=810907&postcount=302

I will not go away until I get real answers and results...

I suggest that others start LOUDLY complaining to SVO Managment and HOAs/BODs...


----------



## gmarine (Oct 27, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Gmarine.
> 
> I am shocked to hear of this feedback having been previously employed with SVO.
> 
> ...




Yes,yes, and they did indeed. 

Keep in mind that I pretended to be many different people and was in many different situations. Many times I spoke of things like my sympathy for the employees who are being yelled at by owners for something management did, they should treat employees better etc. You would be surprised how much you can get from employees that you can get talking, especially if they even have the smallest amount of contempt for their employer.

Starwood's third quarter financial results were a disaster. Revenue from timeshares was down 44%. It makes sense that they are looking for any way they can to increase revenue. They are unfortunately attempting to do it ar the expense of owners.

I wanted to add that its pretty obvious Starwood knew the changes arent owner friendly. If Starwood anticipated good reaction they would have made an announcement about the changes and advertised the great new trading "enhancment". Instead they hid the whole thing and the only way owners find out is by calling and asking. Starwood is also still refusing to provide owners with the official details of the system.


----------



## nodge (Oct 27, 2009)

DannyM said:


> [...]  If there are no plans for further expansion then reputation with new owners (ones buying from developer) is meaningless. I am truly starting to believe that the long term plan is to buy back these resorts at pennies on the dollar. With the control of the HOA, starwood can raise MFs over time to ridiculous levels, thus forcing more people to sell and lowering resale prices at the same time. It can then use ROFR to buy these back at 5%-10% of what original buyers paid. Forget renting what people trade into II - they will be able to rent all weeks, all views, whatever, whenever, while the few remaining owners subsidize the housekeeping costs...
> 
> [...]
> 
> I want to emphasize that this is of course just PURE SPECULATION on my part; I have absolutely no evidence to back it up (besides the ridiculous trajectory of MFs at most resorts) but with the guy heading up the organization - would anyone be surprised if this was an actual deliberate strategy?



Here's some data to support your theory.  (Read the last post from "Jeff" to "Kent" on "page 3").  The poster is pretty PO'd at the massive special assessment at Vistana Resort and has flately refused to pay it.  In response, SVO offered to buy his SVO timeshare for $210.

-nodge


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

DannyM said:


> I don't know what their long term agenda is, so I am just speculating. They already got the inflated sales prices so how do they maximize revenues now? They can try to milk owners as much as possible with their cut from MFs, SVN fees, rentals, etc but I am not sure if that is sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Think about what are the options when MFs at WKORV reach $4000 or $5000? At this rate this can happen in about 5-6 years... At that level of MFs thousands of owners wll seek to dump their properties and resale values will literally be zero because nobody will want to buy them. So either Starwood buys the hotel back or owners vote to close down the property, if the latter is even an option. If they buy a week at $1000 (probably very generous, because at that level of MFs owners will be willing to give their weeks away, or even pay someone to take them) that's $50,000 _per 2BR villa_ in a super prime location. Much cheaper than building from scratch... (in fact, buying just the furniture and appliances inside the villa would probably exceed that value). Even with the risks of economy/competition this has got to be a very attractive proposition for Starwood.
> 
> ...



Danny,

I'm sure your math is accurate, but I think you may be overlooking a couple of important factors:

-- It's illegal in all 50 states for maintenance fees to exceed operating costs (obviously, reserves are permitted -- but I'm talking about the "pure" costs to run the resort on a day-to-day basis).

-- Yes, we all suspect that Starwood "pads the expenses" to increase their percentage-based management fee.  But, I think they're smart enough to stay below the radar.  I'm not suggesting that the padding may not be significant, but I don't think it would change the economics drastically if they suddenly found it unwise to pad their own (rather than our) expenses.  

-- If Starwood would decide to turn WKORV back into a hotel (which would be virtually impossible due to need for owner votes as specified in the deed), they would have to substantially increase services, and corresponding expenses (daily housekepping is just one example). to command rental prices to compete with other luxury resorts in the area.  (Althernatively, they'd be comparable to a Residence Inn.)

-- Just as an example, for an uncoming trip, we're staying in a Club room at the Hyatt in Maui.  We have personal club concierge services, a guaranteed ocean view, killer pools, daily maid and turn-down service, a sitting room, breakfast every morning in the club suite, drinks and appetizers every evening in the club suite, 24-hour room service, ~7 restaurants/3 lounges, admission to the oceanfront athletic club, onsite full spa services, a coffee maker, refrigerator, microwave, mini-bar, robes, a fax machine ... you get the picture ... we'll probably even have trash can liners.  (Disclaimer:  we wish we had a washer and dryer, but we'll just have to let the concierge take care of that little incovenience).  Our rental rate (discounted, due to the economy, I'm sure) is approximately $1000 more than the equivalent maintenance fee for a one-BR at WKORV.  Based on the quotes I've seen in the maintenance fee thread, it would cost WKORV at least $1000 more/week just to offer daily housekeeping service, let alone some of the other features found at full service hotes.  Do you really think that Starwood could offer all these things without substanitally increasing their already out-of-control expense lines? 

We may have to agree to disagree, but Starwood (and Marriott and Hyatt and Hilton and Disney, etc.) knew exactly what they were doing when the got into the timeshare business.  They sell property at extremely inflated prices, pass the vast majority of the risk to the owners, and then sit back and collect annuitized managements fees.  It was a win-win, until the credit freeze and subsequent recession left them holding the bag on a mountain of unsold property.  Now they're forced to look for other ways to increase revenue -- and that should be scaring each and every owner.  But, turning it back into a hotel, even if it were possible and the rooms were obtained for $0, would not guarantee profitability.  WKORV has one advantage that the Hyatt in Maui doesn't have -- and it's a big one -- WKORV has as close to guaranteed 100% occupancy as is humanly possible (and I mean occupancy in the revenue sense of the work, not the physical presence sense of the word).


----------



## tomandrobin (Oct 27, 2009)

To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.


----------



## Transit (Oct 27, 2009)

tomandrobin said:


> To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.


I've been doing the same since June 11 .I did get 1 bed deluxe but I'm trying to get a standard 2 bed and have had no luck calling twice a day.Every time I call I also check for studio and 1 bedroom avalability at WSJ also never an opening.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 27, 2009)

tomandrobin said:


> To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.




Well if you really want to go that week why not go to the Atlantis website and rent a unit directly from Starwood? They have one bedroom deluxe units going for $5800 and one bedroom premium going for $6200. Price include tax and service charges. Why should those units be made available to Starwood owners? I mean really, your maintenance fees are so low. 

Doesnt that make you proud to be an owner of a Starwood resort?


----------



## tomandrobin (Oct 27, 2009)

Every week I called, the only units available were the two least desirable units. Always the deluxe unit. I have gotten a premium unit or lock-off every year, but this year. Plus I called for the entire month of May, normally I only try just for June.


----------



## Transit (Oct 27, 2009)

I put Starwood Reservations on my cell phone speed dial and I added them to my family and friends account so I don't waste minutes calling them so often.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

I haven't called every day ... but at least 6 or 7 days.  Found one one-BR deluxe -- that's it.

I think ithe increased competition from the new SVR members is affecting the situation ... but, if it's not there to begin with, it doesn't matter how many owners are competing.  

Thanks to the II issue, I've spent a considerable amount of time reading disclosure documents lately.  Here's what Starwood can pull out of the reservation pool:

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*

............the document then it goes on to talk about the "SVN Float Period," (i.e., the 8-month mark, which is what we're discussing with regard to June Harborside reservations:

SVN Members also will compete with SVN Operator for reservations during the SVN Float Period with respect to SVN Operator's rights to make reservations for bulk banking for external exchange and anticipating SVN Member demand to access the Starwood Preferred Guest Program as discussed above.

Note that there is no discussion of SVN rental capability at this point.

Rentals don't come into play until here:

f. SVN Priority Period. The SVN Priority Period is the sixty (60)-day period immediately preceding the Check-in Day of a given Vacation Period. If a reservation request for a given Vacation Period has not been received by Reservation Services by the beginning of the SVN Priority Period, Reservation Services' ability to confirm a subsequent reservation request for the Vacation Period will be limited by and subject to the following:

(1) Any reservations made available by SVN Operator to the Managing Entity for maintenance purposes;
(2) Any reservations used by SVN Operator for rental to SVN Members; and
(3) *Any reservations used by SVN Operator for its own purposes including exchange, promotional use, rental to third parties, or any other purpose as SVN Operator determines in its sole discretion.*

In simpler words, Starwood has no right to rent weeks until the 60-day mark (which is consistent with other timeshares I own and language I've seen in online state statues).

But, I have a new theory.  *See the red sentence above.*

-- I don't think they're pulling much Harborside inventory for bulk banking (otherwise we'd see summer weeks in II, and that never happens).

*-- I do believe, however, that they could be pulling significant inventory for SPG conversion.  That would give them some NICE rental income vs. the value of StarPoints they have to give owners who convert.  This is my new theory for the problem.*


----------



## Transit (Oct 27, 2009)

Besides the normal outlets we see Harborside units for rent. Check out how many  this guy  has booked and available for rent.Ok alot of them are expired but someone like that who is handling multiple sales and rentals can eliminate a months worth of availability if they have access to make resevations for owners in 1 phone call.


----------



## stevens397 (Oct 27, 2009)

Well George, I'm impressed, pissed and disgusted.

Four years ago, I purchase the Manhattan Club at the then unheard of price of $17,000.  Retail at that time was over $35,000. Maintenance fees were just over $1,100 and as long as you didn't want Thanksgiving weekend, reservations were easy.

Four years later, you have to plan 9 months in advance and if your plans change (pretty easy when you plan 9 months ahead), you pretty much lose the days since it is too late to reschedule and expect to get ANYTHING!

Maintenance fees are now over $2,100 - over $300 per night.  I'm staying at a luxury hotel in a suite for XMas for $269 per night!

Went to the users' meeting in August and it was clear that there was absolutely no leverage that the owners had. I put it up on eBay, got less than 10% of what I paid and got the hell out.

BTW, go to hotels.com and you will find weekend suites available.  Owners can't get squat but the developer is renting suites!  There is clearly hanky-panky going on and they are counting on the fact that it's too hard to fight it.

And now, I see the same thing happening with Starwood.  It's been just over 7 years since we bought out first timeshare and we've loved it.  Businesses have ups and downs but they are killing the business and any owner loyalty.  I like my resorts so I'm okay using them, but I'm incensed by all you told us.  It's a very helpless feeling.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> ...We may have to agree to disagree, but Starwood (and Marriott and Hyatt and Hilton and Disney, etc.) knew exactly what they were doing when the got into the timeshare business.  They sell property at extremely inflated prices, pass the vast majority of the risk to the owners, and then sit back and collect annuitized managements fees.  It was a win-win, until the credit freeze and subsequent recession left them holding the bag on a mountain of unsold property.  Now they're forced to look for other ways to increase revenue -- and that should be scaring each and every owner.  But, turning it back into a hotel, even if it were possible and the rooms were obtained for $0, would not guarantee profitability.  WKORV has one advantage that the Hyatt in Maui doesn't have -- and it's a big one -- WKORV has as close to guaranteed 100% occupancy as is humanly possible (and I mean occupancy in the revenue sense of the work, not the physical presence sense of the word).



Jerseygirl - I agree that they knew what they were getting into and i don't think their intentions were to ultimately own the hotels up front. However, given the current economy and the fact that there are no new properties planned that changes the game.

I think we will both agree that (i) As a public company, Starwood is under great pressue to improve profitability and (ii) Buying a 2BR villa for $50,000 or the whole resort for $10 million is much less expensive than building a hotel or the whole resort from scratch. 

If we agree on these points then it _has_ to be more profitable to employ the strategy I mentioned than to build new hotels - although both could ultimately be losing propositions. It could be that building a new hotel from scratch involves loans/financing and interest rates that make it not viable. It could also be that the added expenses you mentioned would make buying units from owners for almost free and operating as a hotel not profitable. This is where we probably disagree.

I personally think that it would be extremely profitable for them to get the rooms for a symbolic price and operate like a hotel. For one, the whole incentive scheme changes - rather than give "Starwood Cleaning" a nice contract for housekeeping and collect 10% off the top, they will now negotiate in their favor and get the best prices. The same for "Starwood Gardening," "Starwood Pool Guys," etc... No doubt some costs like housekeeping will go up due to daily service but other costs will go down due to this change in incentives, and some new amenities (e.g. room service with $30 entrees) can operate at a profit.

Even if the hotel option is too uncertain, risky, or difficult to estimate then another way to think about it is suppose Starwood gets to pay $1000 per 2BR villa week and own it. Now they do that 52 times per unit * 200 units so they own the resort for $10 million. How much would Marriott pay them to buy it from them and put their name on it? In my opinion - probably alot more than $10 million... Alternatively, they could sell these as 2BR condos say at an average of $1 million per unit - that's $200 million on a $10 million investment... not too shabby! (we'll maybe they need to spend $5-$10 million more in marketing the units + some broker commissions, but still)


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

DannyM said:


> Jerseygirl - I agree that they knew what they were getting into and i don't think their intentions were to ultimately own the hotels up front. However, given the current economy and the fact that there are no new properties planned that changes the game.
> 
> I think we will both agree that (i) As a public company, Starwood is under great pressue to improve profitability and (ii) Buying a 2BR villa for $50,000 or the whole resort for $10 million is much less expensive than building a hotel or the whole resort from scratch.



I agree to both points in the above paragraph.  However, I think they're immaterial because even if Starwood were to get its hands on 100% of the units (highly improbable -- I'll bet David'nRobin or DeniseM would hold out just to be ornery! ), the initial documents almost assuredly require them to operate as a timeshare for a specified period of time.  Could they be 100% "timeshare owners?"  I suppose, but it would be unprecedented.

I don't know the terms of dissolution as they relate to WKORV, but here's what has to happen at WSJ Bay Vista:

Term of the Vacation Ownership Plan. The Declaration and the Condominium will automatically terminate forty (40) years after the date of the initial recording of the Declaration; provided, however, that this term may be extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, if (i) such extension is approved by the affirmative vote of eighty percent (80%) of the total votes eligible to be voted at any regular or special Association meeting called and convened in accordance with the Bylaws and called at least sixty (60) but not more than ninety (90) days prior to the date of termination, (ii) all necessary approvals, if any, from all applicable governmental authorities are obtained; and (iii) the document evidencing the extension of the term of the Declaration and Condominium is recorded in the Recorder’s Office. Upon the termination of the Declaration and the Condominium, each Owner shall become a tenant in common with every other Owner in the Condominium in the percentage of the undivided interest previously owned by such Owner in the Common Elements and a Sale Trustee (as defined in the Declaration) will sell the Condominium Property and wind up the affairs of the Association and the proceeds of the sale of the Condominium Property will be distributed to the Owners in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration and the Bylaws.

Pursuant to the Declaration, the Condominium will automatically terminate forty (40) years after the initial recording of the Declaration unless an extension of the Condominium is approved by an affirmative vote of the Owners as set forth in the Declaration. At such time as the Condominium is terminated, the Condominium Property (including all Vacation Ownership interests) shall be sold and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed to the Owners in accordance with the Declaration.

It takes total destruction (act of war, weather) to dissolve a Condominimum Association any other way.



DannyM said:


> If we agree on these points then it _has_ to be more profitable to employ the strategy I mentioned than to build new hotels - although both could ultimately be losing propositions. It could be that building a new hotel from scratch involves loans/financing and interest rates that make it not viable. It could also be that the added expenses you mentioned would make buying units from owners for almost free and operating as a hotel not profitable. This is where we probably disagree.



Yes, this is where we definitely disagree.  I believe it's more profitable, over the long term, for them to manage a property where other owners pay 100% of the expenses.  I think Marriott agrees with my position as they only own about 4 (?) hotels -- the rest are managed.    



DannyM said:


> I personally think that it would be extremely profitable for them to get the rooms for a symbolic price and operate like a hotel. For one, the whole incentive scheme changes - rather than give "Starwood Cleaning" a nice contract for housekeeping and collect 10% off the top, they will now negotiate in their favor and get the best prices. The same for "Starwood Gardening," "Starwood Pool Guys," etc... No doubt some costs like housekeeping will go up due to daily service but other costs will go down due to this change in incentives, and some new amenities (e.g. room service with $30 entrees) can operate at a profit.



I agree -- but this is where a responsible HOA comes into play.  We will always pay a premium for the Starwood/Westin/Sheraton brand.  But, if a responsible, independent HOA truly did it's job, the differences you speak of would be significantly smaller.  



DannyM said:


> Even if the hotel option is too uncertain, risky, or difficult to estimate then another way to think about it is suppose Starwood gets to pay $1000 per 2BR villa week and own it. Now they do that 52 times per unit * 200 units so they own the resort for $10 million. How much would Marriott pay them to buy it from them and put their name on it? In my opinion - probably alot more than $10 million... Alternatively, they could sell these as 2BR condos say at an average of $1 million per unit - that's $200 million on a $10 million investment... not too shabby!



Well, not Marriott ... they're in the management business as mentioned above.  But, you're right that someone else would probably pay them a nice chunk of change.  But, we're talking about an impossibility, in my opinion.  They have no choice but to operate as a timeshare for X years (i.e., 40 in the case of WSJ).  

Please know that I agree with you as it relates to the fact that their actions are destroying the value.  However, I see it as short-sighted mismangement.   As much as I love a good conspiracy theory, I have to disagree that their end goal is to own the property before the condominium association dissolves.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> However, I think they're immaterial because even if Starwood were to get its hands on 100% of the units (highly improbable -- I'll bet David'nRobin or *DeniseM would hold out just to be ornery! *)



So very, very true!  :hysterical:


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 27, 2009)

Denise -- If this comes to pass, I'll pay half your maintenance fees just to keep you in the game.  I'll even let you have the large side of the lockoff 'cuz I'm a nice person!


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Denise -- If this comes to pass, I'll pay half your maintenance fees just to keep you in the game.  I'll even let you have the large side of the lockoff 'cuz I'm a nice person!



Hang on to those valuable coupons you are going to get for paying your MF early this year - I will even honor 50% off the rack rate!  Just like Starwood!


----------



## yumdrey (Oct 27, 2009)

First, thank you very much George for what you did/doing for starwood/II situation. 
I have sent complaint (actually, copied and sent ) to II and didn't get any reply. Did anyone get reply from II regarding this complain letter?
The more I know about Starwood, the less I want to own it. Now I realize how nice Hilton is. I want more Hilton points or Marriotts, NEVER Starwood!


----------



## l2trade (Oct 28, 2009)

yumdrey said:


> First, thank you very much George for what you did/doing for starwood/II situation.
> I have sent complaint (actually, copied and sent ) to II and didn't get any reply. Did anyone get reply from II regarding this complain letter?
> The more I know about Starwood, the less I want to own it. Now I realize how nice Hilton is. I want more Hilton points or Marriotts, NEVER Starwood!



I agree!  Thank you George and everyone else here!

I don't think many other owners realize just how much power we can really have for change.  I've seen HOA's fire developer chosen management companies before.  Marriott Desert Oasis, hmm?   Starwood is a management company for SDO now, not a sales company.  Starwood owns very few units.  They also own the main lobby building & snack bar and the HOA pays for space at the front desk.  That is it.  They use that building to sell other SVN properties which they had more say in the original deed conditions of.   That is why our SDO HOA cannot offer resales / distressed listings for us upstairs or in the lobby.  We (via the SDO HOA) can leave flyers door to door because we (meaning the SDO HOA which represents All of Us) own all the condo buildings.  Our SDO HOA is going to need to request deeds and/or commence foreclosure on an enormous number of delinquent units (more than we can afford to do all at once).  Then, they will need to sell them as quick as possible to any dues paying owner.  Otherwise, paying owners will end up paying the difference in lost dues and delinquencies will increase further.  It is a downward spiral.  I do not believe that's what our SDO HOA or Starwood want to see continue, but it is going to be difficult to stop it.  Although SDO's situation is pretty bad, it is in great shape compared to delinquencies across SVO and the entire timeshare industry.  I do not believe for a moment Starwood wants to buy them all back, not in this market.  I really want to help our SDO HOA sell all these units to dues paying members.  I will do what I can, but Starwood is making that very difficult for me right now.


----------



## SDKath (Oct 28, 2009)

Reading all this just makes me so sad.  I really thought Starwood was the best of the best when it comes to TSing.    Now I feel like they are actively trying to rip us all off.  I gave them the benefit of the doubt a million times in the past (when they changed the platinum requirements and the retro requirements and the II deposit process, etc, etc.).  But now I am done with it all.  I am glad I own what I own and have platinum status but no way am I giving any more of my money to them.  Ever again...

Sigh.  Katherine


----------



## kcgriffin (Oct 28, 2009)

This would explain why I could not trade my dedicated week 52 2BR townhome into  the new Rivera Maya Westin even thou I called exactly minutes after the internal trade window opened up.  I ended up doing a direct trade into one of the Royals with an owner there.

I had never tried to trade my WSJ unit, in part because of the high cost, and the ease I have had in renting it directly thru TUG.

I guess I won't even try to trade it in the future.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Oct 28, 2009)

Transit said:


> Besides the normal outlets we see Harborside units for rent. Check out how many  this guy  has booked and available for rent.Ok alot of them are expired but someone like that who is handling multiple sales and rentals can eliminate a months worth of availability if they have access to make resevations for owners in 1 phone call.



I talked to the timeshareking, he has owners that have him on as an associate so he can call and make the reservation to rent out the unit. Becasue they have no clue on the TS thing, his words not mine.

 He was pretty upfront with me about some of his renters just use the units for income and perhaps go once every 3 yrs or so!


----------



## tomandrobin (Oct 28, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> I talked to the timeshareking, he has owners that have him on as an associate so he can call and make the reservation to rent out the unit. Becasue they have no clue on the TS thing, his words not mine.
> 
> He was pretty upfront with me about some of his renters just use the units for income and perhaps go once every 3 yrs or so!



I have talked to Russell several times in the past. He is the self anointed Harborside timeshare "King". He is very knowledgeable regarding Harborside. He is one of the few timeshare brokers who are very quick to call back and correspond with you. He does speak his mind, which I find refreshing. 

He is correct about his clients. There are a lot of uneducated or disinterested owners. Look at some of the WSJ rental sites, you see the same thing. Also the same for AtlantisFamilyFun.com


----------



## tlpnet (Oct 28, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> *I do believe, however, that they could be pulling significant inventory for SPG conversion. That would give them some NICE rental income vs. the value of StarPoints they have to give owners who convert. This is my new theory for the problem.*


 
You are 100% correct. I went to my WSJ owner's update yesterday. I was there for some time, and at times was left alone. You could clearly hear 3-4 sales presentations at a time. Two of the most heard owners' questions were "How many hotel points can I get when if I convert?" and "So if I buy a second week/two weeks, I can convert to hotel points every year?" AND THIS IS WSJ, WHERE I WOULD GET 44,000 POINTS FOR MY 3BR!!!

Later, I had the opportunity to meet with someone with knowledge (not in SVO group) at the resort, and specifically asked the question, "If an owner converts to StarPoints, does that mean that the hotel operator gets to sell the villa as a hotel room, and the answer was a definitive YES." I always assumed that was the case, and frankly it makes sense because the StarPoints give the owner access to the hotel system.

Because we on TUG are more educated to the system, we realize that with some exceptions, this is a bad value (and converting WSJ is ALWAYS a bad value). I spoke to several owners here (not necessarily WSJ owners) who told me that they exchange for hotel points EVERY other year because they can. I think here we sometimes assume that very few people convert to StarPoints, but I just don't believe that is the case. I'll bet the number could be as high as 50% of owners eligible each year convert to StarPoints. And most have to do so by March, so Starwood is always going to have "hotel" villas available during the year.

-tim


----------



## thinze3 (Oct 28, 2009)

tomandrobin said:


> To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.




Are you suggesting that the prime weeks were taken out of inventory for rental purposes before SVN members could reserve them with star options?


----------



## LisaRex (Oct 28, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Are you suggesting that the prime weeks were taken out of inventory for rental purposes before SVN members could reserve them with star options?



My current understanding is that the villas for folks who convert to SPG points are taken out of SVN inventory.   

The big question is what weeks they take out of SVN inventory when an owner converts to SPG points? Do they take the deeded week that was converted?  A generic week in the season that they own?  The best week in the season that they own? Or the best week of the best season in that resort, regardless of what season was owned? 

Another question is how the process works for folks who use SVN to trade to another resort.  I own an OF resort, for instance.  This year I exchanged to WSJ.   I assumed my villa would be available for others to exchange into with StarOptions.  But what week do they choose to make available? The week that I reserved at WSJ? An off-season week?  When you use SOs, you lose your view rights, so does that mean that Starwood substituted an IV villa for mine and then pocketed the rent for the OF unit? Or will they allow SVNers, especially elite members, to upgrade into OF units?

It's all a mystery.  And part of the reason that we'll never see an online booking system.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 28, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Yes,yes, and they did indeed.
> 
> Keep in mind that I pretended to be many different people and was in many different situations. Many times I spoke of things like my sympathy for the employees who are being yelled at by owners for something management did, they should treat employees better etc. You would be surprised how much you can get from employees that you can get talking, especially if they even have the smallest amount of contempt for their employer.
> 
> ...



Gary,

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no reason to believe the information that you are posting. The majority of it anyway. It does not matter who you pretended to be and what condolences you shared with the associate(s). The information that you are sharing is very likely derived from assumption and drawing your own conclusions. Conclusions which I believe were already drawn before your crusade.

Statistically speaking, there are not enough owners that want to deposit specific weeks with II or RCI that by preventing them from doing this would give Starwood enough financial traction to significantly improve their bottom line.

Further, there are plenty of owners that are not paying their HOA dues which Starwood is able to rent.

Now, we go back to: how is Starwood using the rental monies from these weeks to make the HOA's whole?

There are issues out there GMARINE and I believe there is a lot to figure out. But to think that Starwood is going to get out of a financial challenge by renting a few prime weeks that would otherwise be deposited by owners does not add up.

IMHO


----------



## chalucky (Oct 28, 2009)

James....there is plenty that does not add up here....especially the insiduous way that Starwood has rolled this out and the parsing out of contradictory information to owners trying to get a handle on their options.

I think you mentioned you used to work there...perhaps you could use your resources and share what you are able to glean...if nothing else (since you are in Orlando), perhaps you could sneak into the company lunchroom and tell us what you overhear.

JMHO.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 28, 2009)

chalucky said:


> James....there is plenty that does not add up here....especially the insiduous way that Starwood has rolled this out and the parsing out of contradictory information to owners trying to get a handle on their options.
> 
> I think you mentioned you used to work there...perhaps you could use your resources and share what you are able to glean...if nothing else (since you are in Orlando), perhaps you could sneak into the company lunchroom and tell us what you overhear.
> 
> JMHO.



You are correct, I was employed from '99-'07. I am pretty sure that they know I am on TUG quite a bit and for me to ask questions related to this thread or ones like it would be pretty suspect.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 28, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Gary,
> 
> I'm sorry but I have absolutely no reason to believe the information that you are posting. The majority of it anyway. It does not matter who you pretended to be and what condolences you shared with the associate(s). The information that you are sharing is very likely derived from assumption and drawing your own conclusions. Conclusions which I believe were already drawn before your crusade.
> 
> ...



Your certainly entitled to your opinion. I was told what I was told. Believe it, dont believe it. Your opinion matters nothing to me. And since you say you previously worked for Starwood, you have even less credibility IMO. Whether that is true or not, I dont know. I have no reason to believe it.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 28, 2009)

Jim - Since you haven't been with Starwood for more than 10 years, and they now have a CEO who came from Westgate, which is known for unsavory business dealings, isn't it possible that things have changed dramatically since you were there?


----------



## tlpnet (Oct 28, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Jim - Since you haven't been with Starwood for more than 10 years, and they now have a CEO who came from Westgate, which is known for unsavory business dealings, isn't it possible that things have changed dramatically since you were there?


 
Denise - I think you mean 2 years (James said '07), and I'm pretty sure that Rivera has been there longer than that. He was co-CEO or something like that.

-tim


----------



## Fredm (Oct 28, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Gary,
> 
> I'm sorry but I have absolutely no reason to believe the information that you are posting. The majority of it anyway. It does not matter who you pretended to be and what condolences you shared with the associate(s). The information that you are sharing is very likely derived from assumption and drawing your own conclusions. Conclusions which I believe were already drawn before your crusade.
> 
> ...



James,

gmarine is reporting what he has heard. He was careful to qualify that it is based on conversation(s), not anything that could be attributed to an official source. 

Disgruntled employees are apt to say anything. Most often, as you know, customer service and sales personnel are not in possession of solid information. They form opinions on their own. Indeed, it has been my experience that strategic thought  never passes to anyone beyond those responsible for formulating it.  Just the implementation facts are communicated.

Having said this, Starwood leaves itself open for such conjecture.
They have, without question, chosen a timesharing model designed to siphon value away from the owners. 
They are not alone. Diamond Resorts, Wyndham, Westgate, and others are notorious like models.

Timeshare operators either do, or do not, view the inventory as belonging to its owners completely.

By way of example, I remember a time when Marriott would literally call an owner to advise them that a reservation had not been made (after the reservation season had passed). They volunteered to deposit a week with I.I. so use was not lost to the owner.
As they grew larger, the phone calls ended, but deposited a week  automatically!  Later still, the automatic deposits ended, but Marriott maintains an active owner rental program. Commissions are large, but the owner did get cash most of the time.
Marriott did, and does, skim inventory when an owner converts to Marriott Reward points. IMO, they have a right, because its the owners choice to do so, and receives value. But, that is as far as it goes.
Contrast this with the Starwood model.
Sadly, this ethic appears to be changing. Marriott is considering a point based internal exchange. The ONLY reason to do so is to benefit from the lack of transparency points provide.
That is why I never trust point-based schemes. 

A much more refreshing model is one based on the non-branded variety of timesharing operations management, such as with Trading Places (TPI). 
Hawaii is a challenging cost environment for owners. Yet, with a true partner owners benefit from all adversity. Check this out. 

Foreclosures, no problem. They are sold to owners at deep discount.
Revenue goes to the HOA, and the non-performing share is performing again.
Vacancies are rented for a commission. The balance goes to the HOA . 
Etc, etc. The timeshare use belongs to the owners, not the operator.

A time is coming when owners will revolt at the practices of the branded operators who view use as something to be taken if not managed within strict parameters. 

 Unfortunately, Starwood owners have just cause for their attitudes.
It is not the magnitude of the abuse. It is simply that owners do not wish to be made fools.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 28, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Jim - Since you haven't been with Starwood for more than 10 years, and they now have a CEO who came from Westgate, which is known for unsavory business dealings, isn't it possible that things have changed dramatically since you were there?



It is absolutely possible and I expect that many things have changed dramatically. It has only been three years (I'm not _that_ old!!!)  

A CEO (new or tenured) is not going to give such specific direction nor is likely to understand or have specific knowledge of the processes that impact inventory/owner usage at that level.

I expect that there has been direction (high level) which flows downward to develop ideas and make change where there is potential to increase revenue and impact the bottom line. With that, I go back to the idea that preventing a small percentage of owners from depositing specific weeks so that they can rent them out seems to me like it would be too big of an overhaul for such a tiny gain.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Oct 28, 2009)

gmarine said:


> I was told very simply that Starwood knows this new system isnt owner friendly. This is why there has been no announcment. Starwood chose a "soft rollout", because they anticipated large numbers of unhappy owners contacting Starwood if they sent notices to all owners. They also anticipated plummeting resale prices as a result of an announcment. They preferred keeping it quiet and telling owners only when they called to exchange.
> 
> The new system was not put in place to make SVN owner and non SVN owners equal. It was put in place for purely financial reasons. Under the new system Starwood will be able to rent more prime season units than before. Previously owners would deposit high season units leaving only low season units as available for rentals. I assumed the new system would mean more availability for owners and SVN owners. I was told that I was wrong, that it it will not necessarily mean more availability for owners. I was also told that it will be just about impossible to trade one high season unit to another via Interval.



Both the above "facts" make sense to me. Yet, I'm having a hard time going from these facts to the "Starwood is out to get owners" conspiracy theory that seems to underlie many of the posts.

IMHO, a Starwood bean-counter saw this as an opportunity to make "some" extra income. In the grand scheme of things the number of weeks/owners impacted by this is likely to be trivial. I simply don't believe that Starwood will remove *all *prime weeks if they haven't been booked during the home resort reservation period. Yes, these weeks will not end up in II so we exchangers are out of luck. Hence I will probably dump my TS if I find that I cannot rent out a prime home week at rates above MF.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 28, 2009)

Fredm said:


> James,
> 
> gmarine is reporting what he has heard. He was careful to qualify that it is based on conversation(s), not anything that could be attributed to an official source.
> 
> ...



Very well said. Nice post.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 28, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> Denise - I think you mean 2 years (James said '07), and I'm pretty sure that Rivera has been there longer than that. He was co-CEO or something like that.
> 
> -tim



Oh-duh!  My little pea brain read "97" - sorry!


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 28, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Oh-duh!  My little pea brain read "97" - sorry!



Something tells me that your brain is quite larger than a pea Denise. No worries.


----------



## SDKath (Oct 28, 2009)

This is all Starwood's fault.  If they would actually TELL the owners some way that they made major changes to the II relationship, we would not be guessing what badness they are trying to force upon us.  But there is ZERO communication.  Imagine if you are one of the 99% of owners who don't use TUG!  You would never know what on earth was going on.  That's just wrong!

Katherine


----------



## Politico (Oct 28, 2009)

SDKath said:


> This is all Starwood's fault.  If they would actually TELL the owners some way that they made major changes to the II relationship, we would not be guessing what badness they are trying to force upon us.  But there is ZERO communication.  Imagine if you are one of the 99% of owners who don't use TUG!  You would never know what on earth was going on.  That's just wrong!
> 
> Katherine



I suspect they won't tell because it is THAT bad.  It's one of the worst marketing / "customer service" moves I've ever seen.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 28, 2009)

SDKath said:


> ...we would not be guessing what badness they are trying to force upon us.
> 
> Katherine



My first reaction after a careless glance at your sentence above: starwood wants all of us to be "bald"? :hysterical: 

I had to read it again and then I realized you meant to say that starwood is just acting like a villain (although many villains tend to be bald also).


----------



## SDKath (Oct 28, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> My first reaction after a careless glance at your sentence above: starwood wants all of us to be "bald"? :hysterical:
> 
> I had to read it again and then I realized you meant to say that starwood is just acting like a villain (although many villains tend to be bald also).



ROFL!  I bet the CEO and executive staff are all bald.  :rofl:


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 28, 2009)

Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 28, 2009)

First - I am very glad when I purchased resale SVO VOIs I was only interested in Home Ownership and SVN exchanges (for WKV only), and stayed away from any need to use II. It appears that in hindsight that this was a good decision based on what I can interpret from the recent changes to II.  I am glad that these II changes only affect me indirectly, and sorry to hear so many of my TUG friends that were negatively impacted. I had friends interested in inexpensive SVO V resorts that were interested in using them for II based on my advice and have been able to stop them from following thru on purchasing.

I do suspect that the majority of SVO Owners do not even know about these changes, and are not aware (and do not care) of how these changes impact them.  Sadly, Tuggers only represent a very small percentage of SVO Owners - although I do suspect there are many lurkers, and that number will grow rapidly as they do become impacted by increasing MFs and aware of the II changes.

That said - putting aside corporate greed (with intended and unintended consequences) - the elephant in the room is the impact on MFs for SVO Resort Owners of the other Owners who are deliquent on their MF and/or defaulting on their VOIs.

It appears to me that this is the biggest impact on the increase in MFs.  For example - a 25% increase in the base MFs at WSJ (Hillside) is in large part to non-payment of MFs.  While SVO mangement blows this off to increases on STJ - this is BS since MFs (non-SA) have increased 50% over a 5 year period (and the cost-of-living on STJ has not increased 50%) - and we all know that this is BS.  You may asked yourself - if WSJ is so popular - then why would WSJ Owners default?  Well... beyond the rapidly increasing MFs - many WSJ Owners got in very cheaply prior to Starwood taking over (still grandfathered in for RCI usage) and have gotten years of usage and may be walking away due to the incredible increase in MFs and Special Assessments.

Back to the MF problem... from what I can gather there are 2 types of SVO Resort Owners (Developer and non-Developer {us}).  Asuuming that Developer Owned VOIs are not being defaulted - the question becomes what happens to those deliquent and defaulted MFs by Owners.

For the deliquent MFs that are eventualy paid - it is easy - that monies goes back to the SVO Management Associated for that specific resort.

The problem is what happens to those MFs that do not get paid?  Those Owners will not get usage of their resort VOI (or be able to exchange via SVN/II) as per CCRs.  However, they are turned over to SVO Management which becomes very murky on how the VOIs are dealt with and where the money goes to.  And this I believe is a key issue that can be dealt with that has a high impact on Owner.

{Note - had to stop... more later...}


----------



## Captron (Oct 30, 2009)

To avoid duplication and gatting my hand slapped.... (got a ruler in there Denise???)

Please see the following thread for a related issue/question:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109308


----------



## zcrider (Nov 24, 2009)

*Pissed at Starwood*

 I just bought a starwood week and this new Starwood/II agreement change took place during my transaction.............I am totally pissed at Starwood.  So they only care about their $ and not about the owners who buy their weeks and pay the MF's being able to use their purchase fairly!!!!!  This is crazy.  I had origionally planned to purchase a few starwood weeks both resale and developer weeks to get to a 5 star level within starwood.  Now, there is no way I will purchase another starwood week unless they revise this and promise not to mess with our ability to use/trade our weeks we bought again!!!!
  If there this a class action lawsuit against starwood count me in!
My husband travels everyweek for work and he will not stay in a starwood hotel now either!  This business about this being "better" for the owners b/c we can deposit our week into II on Dec. 31 for the same trading power..........who cares you took away much more then that!  This is a HUGE down grade to lose our reservation at our home resort in order to see if II has something we want..............we all know the good reservations get taken up quick so you get screwed to even look at II now.  Plus, we used to get the vouchers for an extra week if you deposited into II now you don't!!!  Double screwing us!  Our Starwood MF's are so much more then other timeshare owners and we can't even trade outside starwood now without getting doubly ripped off.  
  I think starwood is trying to get us to trade our staroptions into the starwood system only and not go thru II, but I will not let them limit me like that and reward them with my staroptions.  I will use or rent my home resort and pay cash for my vacation else where and leave both II and Starwood out of it completely if I have to!!!!
  This is most likely also Starwood's way of taking our good weeks and using them for rental income and not letting us have them if we even look at wanting to travel out of our home resort!  
  Thanks Starwood, Thanks a lot!!!!!!  :annoyed:


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

zcrider said:


> I just bought a starwood week and this new Starwood/II agreement change took place during my transaction.............I am totally pissed at Starwood.  So they only care about their $ and not about the owners who buy their weeks and pay the MF's being able to use their purchase fairly!!!!!  This is crazy.  I had origionally planned to purchase a few starwood weeks both resale and developer weeks to get to a 5 star level within starwood.  Now, there is no way I will purchase another starwood week unless they revise this and promise not to mess with our ability to use/trade our weeks we bought again!!!!
> If there this a class action lawsuit against starwood count me in!
> My husband travels everyweek for work and he will not stay in a starwood hotel now either!  This business about this being "better" for the owners b/c we can deposit our week into II on Dec. 31 for the same trading power..........who cares you took away much more then that!  This is a HUGE down grade to lose our reservation at our home resort in order to see if II has something we want..............we all know the good reservations get taken up quick so you get screwed to even look at II now.  Plus, we used to get the vouchers for an extra week if you deposited into II now you don't!!!  Double screwing us!  Our Starwood MF's are so much more then other timeshare owners and we can't even trade outside starwood now without getting doubly ripped off.
> I think starwood is trying to get us to trade our staroptions into the starwood system only and not go thru II, but I will not let them limit me like that and reward them with my staroptions.  I will use or rent my home resort and pay cash for my vacation else where and leave both II and Starwood out of it completely if I have to!!!!
> ...



You purchased a week at the Harborside Resort to trade with II?


----------

