# Would you do it again?



## glypnirsgirl (Apr 17, 2010)

Okay here is where I am sitting at the moment. I have won 3 excellent auctions on ebay for older voluntary weeks (SDO 2BR LO floating 1-52; and 2 SBP 2BR floating 9-43; 47 --- I don't know if that is Platinum, Gold or Silver). I have paid for all 3, but I have not given the sellers the deed information yet. 

I originally WANTED WKORV from having had a beautiful stay at WKORV-N (which I loved except for the lack of an oven - I actually cook on vacation) which I had rented. While at WKORV-N, I sought out a presentation and purchased WPORV becauce WKORV was sold out and I love Kauai. At the time of my purchase, I was offered SPG Platinum and I was thrilled with being able to use Starpoints because we enjoy trips to places where timeshares aren't. Any way, I rescinded, thereby saving myself $52K (thanks TUG!).

Before I made the two SBP purchases, I knew (from asking here) that if I wanted to retro any of these units, I should be going for platinum weeks and maximum StarOption points - but I could never figure out what the SO point value would be for retroing these sales. Any way, since I goofed up the first one, I got less enamored with the idea of making it to platinum 5* and just want to be able to trade into II and get different resorts than I get with my RCI points. 

I looked at a lot of the marriott auctions and decided that the MUCH LOWER up front fees with Starwood would take many years to be offset by the lower maintenance fees with Marriott. Now I am questioning my reasoning.

So, would you buy a Starwood Property at today's prices (each of my wins has cost me less than $2000 for all fees, MFs and purchase price) knowing what you know now?

elaine


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 17, 2010)

We own the identical units as you are purchasing.

If your goal is to do multiple off-season exchanges into WKORVN and/or WPORV, if you can plan and commit well in advance, and if you are okay staying in island view suites, you will be pleased with the results.  We have four such exchanges lined up for 2010.  Starwood bulk banks Hawaii weeks, and when these weeks are available, you must grab them.

The downside?  Starwood's out of control maintenance fee increases, lack of transparency, and ever changing rules.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Apr 17, 2010)

Robert - I see that you own at some of the mandatory resorts also. Did you retro any of your units? What is the story behind the multiple resorts?

elaine


----------



## tomandrobin (Apr 17, 2010)

I would have still gone on to become platinum. There is only one thing in hindsight, that I wish I would have changed. Well, besides finding Tug before buying my first unit. 

Instead of buying an every year unit at St John, I would have bought two EOY units, both falling on the same year. That way EOY I could go and and have two rooms each time.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 17, 2010)

No.  Aside from the really high MFs, which are well documented, I've discovered that I don't really like the confinements of TSing.

The biggest downside, in my personal experience, is the necessity of calling 365 days out in order to secure the best view in my view class.  (Though, admittedly, if I owned somewhere else, view would be far less important than it is at WKORV.)  The #1 complaint at WKORV is view.  No surprises there because, unlike Marriott, Starwood was very liberal in their interpretation of "ocean front" and "ocean view."  We paid a huge premium to have an ocean front villa, and I'd be very unhappy if I was put in one of the villas coded "ocean front" that sat 3 columns back.  So, I feel compelled to book at 365 days out.

But calling a year out is a royal pain.  We lead busy lives and sometimes don't know college schedules and wedding dates, etc., that far in advance.  Every year, I end up picking a random week and praying it'll work out. In retrospect, I'd much rather have signed up with Marriott where they have clear definitions of view class and will assign you that view even if you book  at 6 months out (provided it's available). 

Another huge downside to having to book so far out is that airlines don't release their award seats until 331 days out, so there's a month gap between the time I have to book my villa and can secure award seats.  I much, much prefer booking my flights FIRST and then securing my lodging because award seats are getting more and more difficult to get.  With airfares hovering around $1100 pp from Cincinnati, getting award seats is essential if we want to bring the kids.  Complicating the matter is that most award seats are for Tue/Wed travel and TSing has Fri/Sat/Sun check-ins. 

The last reason I feel confined by TSing is because SVN's network is extremely limited, especially for those living in the East.  I joined in '07.  I've already exchanged into WSJ.  If/when I pull off an HRA trade, I'll have visited all the SVN resorts on my wish list, because Aruba was scrapped.  Marriott, on the other hand, has many more resorts to choose from, including resorts that we could drive to. Too bad Starwood's network is so limited because I really do like the ease of exchanging in SVN, as well as the fact that I'm not penalized for being a mere one-week owner (unlike Marriott).

Ah, well.  Live and learn.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Apr 17, 2010)

Would I buy another *wood? I've lucked out that Lakeside Terrace's HOA seem to have some sort of handle on their budget. Only single digit increases compared to some of the  numbers I see from the other resorts.

Over the last few years, I've found that I prefer a points system, than the traditional TS week. I can stay less than a week or hoard points and go with a bigger unit. Works out great with the kids 4 day weekends. The Wyndham points made it easy to book 3 nts in HNL and take advantage of FF upgrade on the direct flight that is Westbound mid week. 

I just had to cancel an RCI exchange for Xmas week 2010, because the school district changed Xmas break from the original official schedule. Explanation: parents don't want the full 2 weeks off at Xmas time.  

Would I buy another *wood resort? No, there are no locations that I'm particluar interested in going to on a regular basis even  EOY. 

We've talked about buying a Marriott, but where exactly?  The 13 month window for multi week owners  , see enough threads on the Marriott forum about that. As much as I would like to trade in LT for a Marriott in Park City, I don't think I would. It's been very easy to get the week I need with Starwood at 12 months.


----------



## l2trade (Apr 17, 2010)

I would do it again, except only buy one 2BD LO unit.  If I really, really wanted a second week, I'd research and buy another brand for the 2nd week.  I think availability of getaways and diversity of ownership would allow me to do more for less money and less risk.  Exchanging with II (or someday RCI) is central to my ownership usage wants.  If you already paid for it and can afford the yearly dues, you might as well take the deeds and enjoy it.  I'm sure there is always someplace worth exchanging to.

I agree with the earlier comment about Hawaii and airfare and planning headaches.  I've been through that many times.  My happiest timeshare experiences are for locations I would rather drive to.  For this reason, I would not want to own Hawaii or any other place that requires my to fly to it.  It is difficult (sometimes impossible) to coordinate the very best airfare sales with timeshare reservations.  Right now, we have extremely cheap airline tickets (non-refundable) we bought to one island.  We have an awesome timeshare exchange to another island at a different time.  I am waiting to get a unit for my first trip or end up in a hotel (yuck!).  I am waiting up to the last minute to find an airfare sale on my other trip or I'll have to pay 3 times what I paid on airfare for the first.  My poor planning means we will probably go to Hawaii twice, but we may overpay for accommodations (or rough it) on the first and overpay on airfare for the second.  I just don't like to pay full price!


----------



## gmarine (Apr 17, 2010)

If I could go back and do it over, I wouldnt purchase a Starwood unit even though my units were purchased for very little money. This is especially true with SBP since maintenance fees went up over 20% in 2010 to over $1100 for a two bedroom lock off. I expect fees to go up substantially again for 2011 My two bedroom lock off SBP 9-43,47 was purchased last year for $600 ish and now I look back and I wish I didnt buy it.
Starwood has shown they dont care about owners and I dont like the feeling of being taken advantage of.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 17, 2010)

Boy -- this is a hard one for me to answer.  I've been a resale Starwood owner since 2002 or 2003 and have had MANY wonderful trades.  My units have paid for themselves many times over.  I learned about mid-way through my Starwood journey that even though I had been lucky enough to trade into HRA and WSJ multiple times, I loved those two resorts enough to want to own them.  I bought at both to ensure annual availability on my terms.  Even though I'm disgusted with the maintenance fee increases, I still love the resorts and don't regret those decisions.

I made one recent and final tweak to my mandatory Starwood units, to help secure a second Harborside unit from time-to-time (knowing there are no guarantees, but we go in May when there's historically been SO availability).  And, I'm probably going to dump all but one of my voluntary units the minute they start selling for even $1 on ebay again!  I just don't need them anymore -- I've learned I can find equal if not better vacations without relying on the Starwood preference period in II.  There's a whole other world out there folks -- you just gotta look for it!  

So -- I guess my answer is mixed.  I would still buy at HRA and WSJ because we love going there, they're relatively easy to get to, etc.  Any purchase costs are "sunk" at this point, and although the maintenance fees are undoubtedly overblown due to mismangement and/or lack of caring about owners' wallets, we feel we get our money's worth vs. maintenance fees (again, ignoring sunk, non-recoverable purchase costs).  But, I'm getting out of the voluntary trading game (again, will probably keep one just for the occasional great trade) and wouldn't start over again given my feelings about Starwood's management of the program.  Yes, they run some great resorts, but I don't have anywhere close to the same "warm and fuzzy" feelings I get by being a Hyatt or Hilton owner.  

Having said all that, if I were a newbie with some level of travel flexibility, I would try Starwood out by buying a cheapie voluntary resort before I'd throw down the bigger bucks to buy a mandatory resort and essentially "drink the koolaid" that says the mandatory experience (when trades are intended) far exceeds the voluntary experience.  As an owner of a combination of voluntary and mandatory resorts, I just don't see it.  But, that's just me.


----------



## jarta (Apr 17, 2010)

gmarine,   ...   $600ish initial investment for a 2-br lock-off.  

2 bedrooms and 2 baths with 2 kitchen facilities, balcony, 2 washers/dryers, 4 color TVs, 1 King and 1 Queen bed, 2 sitting areas, 2 dining areas, whirlpool bath, a walk-in shower, 1,300 sq. ft. or more and can sleep 8 for less than $160/night ($1,100/7) in Myrtle Beach at a gated, fairly nice resort with indoor/outdoor pool, additional pool, hot tub, barbecue grills, tennis, fitness center, small lazy river and close to all that MB golf, the real beach and Broadway on the Beach.

Plus all those 2 for 1 trading opportunities by using II for only $160 a night at a resort with far greater MF.

And, you say it's too expensive for you and you are being taken advantage of?  Where else can you get all that cheaper?  And, if you can, why not dump the week, take a $600ish loss and make it up in 2-3 years by buying a week elsewhere?     ...   eom


----------



## l2trade (Apr 17, 2010)

$1,100 in MF is too high for a week you supposedly own.  I thought the whole intent of 'paying to own' is to get more and spend less.  Rent compared to ongoing ownership costs is beside the point as I see it.  So too, is the ability of some folks to find a way to trade-up their units.  Every time someone gets a 2 for 1, someone else gets a 1 for 2.  If maintenance fees were reasonable, resale prices would be much, much higher.  This simple formula is far more persuasive of reality:

$600 x 52 weeks = $31,200 per 2BD

I do not doubt the units are as nice as you describe.  So, what's up with the resale prices?  Would SBP be worth more to dissolve and sell as condos?

It certainly seems the market sees things more the way gmarine describes it.  $160/night is simply too much!


----------



## gmarine (Apr 17, 2010)

jarta said:


> gmarine,   ...   $600ish initial investment for a 2-br lock-off.
> 
> 2 bedrooms and 2 baths with 2 kitchen facilities, balcony, 2 washers/dryers, 4 color TVs, 1 King and 1 Queen bed, 2 sitting areas, 2 dining areas, whirlpool bath, a walk-in shower, 1,300 sq. ft. or more and can sleep 8 for less than $160/night ($1,100/7) in Myrtle Beach at a gated, fairly nice resort with indoor/outdoor pool, additional pool, hot tub, barbecue grills, tennis, fitness center, small lazy river and close to all that MB golf, the real beach and Broadway on the Beach.
> 
> ...



Read it again,I didnt say it was too expensive, I said I wouldnt do it again. 

I can rent for the same price or less than I pay in fees and not be locked into the ever rising fees. Since the resort is so great, maybe I should rent it out.  I had a July SBP 2/2 unit up for rent on Redweek and myresortnetwork for $1300 and I never got an offer above $1000. I lowered my price to $1150 and never got an offer above $1000. I'm not a fan of renting for lower than my maintenance fees. 

And without getting into the whole Starwood argument again, yes, they take advantage of owners. Maybe you would be ok with Starwood violating ownership rights, I'm not. 
Instead of defending Starwood as usual, try answering the OPs question.


----------



## jarta (Apr 17, 2010)

l2trade,   ...   "Every time someone gets a 2 for 1, someone else gets a 1 for 2."  

That statement is entirely untrue.  I suspect you are joking.  Overall supply in II always exceeds overall demand.  

A lot of people do not pay attention to TS reservation policies, get caught short making a desired reservation and drop their weeks into II and never, ever, use them.  The weeks are not good traders (no 2 for 1s) and the II depositor gives up searching for something good (even a 1 for 1 week) or the II depositor forgets about the week deposited.  It's what the 2 for 1 people rely on.  It's their bread and butter and their admirable attention to details and timing results in those 2 for 1 Starwood lock-off trades.

Perhaps a better way to state it is "every time someone gets a 2 for 1, more than that number of people either forget about the deposit, walk away or give up because their week deposited in II can't pull as much as Starwood weeks can."

And, the Starwood preference period in II is just an important added bonus for those looking for 2 for 1 trades.  Please spare me the crocodile tears about less than $160 per night being a ripoff for week at a 2-br lock-off at SBP.   ...   eom


----------



## l2trade (Apr 17, 2010)

The OP asked if we would do it again.  Rather than take this thread further off topic, I assume the answers for the OP are:

l2trade - maybe (for only one 2BD LO, but not more than one)
gmarine - no
jarta - yes?  (I didn't get a clear answer from your previous posts...)


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Apr 17, 2010)

Would I buy again?  Nope.  I don't love *woods system.  I own Marriott and Disney and I find their systems easier to use.  We did buy from the developer at WKORV and love the location of the timeshare and I love the beach and the reef for snorkeling.  I don't like the wind in the area.  I feel there is less wind by Whaler's Village area.  I do like the entry point into the ocean at WKORV better than Marriott area.  But overall I like the Marriott system better.  In general we expect MFs to be high in Hawaii but these fees are just too high.  We also own at Waiohai on Kauai.  I wish we had waited and bought at Maui Marriott.  But at the time they didn't have full kitchens and that was very important to me.    Also, I find the starwood time share locations very limiting.  I did make the mistake in thinking that since they are "big" company with hotel presence all over the world that they would expand their locations.  I thought, if we get in early we'll get the best deals.  I'm not saying that Disney and Marriott are perfect either but they are just better fit for my family's lifestyle.  Good luck deciding...


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 17, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> Robert - I see that you own at some of the mandatory resorts also. Did you retro any of your units? What is the story behind the multiple resorts?
> 
> elaine



We like Hawaii and have tried multiple ways of getting what we want there:  cheap Starwood exchangers (SDO; SBP), resale purchases in Hawaii (WKORV; MAW), StarOption exchangers (WKV), and rentals (usually MMO or MKW).   All of our purchases were resale (thank you, TUG), so retro has never been an option -- or a goal.

What we have learned over time, but what I said only between the lines in my initial response, is that for us, it is all about view.  If we are going to Hawaii, we want to look at the ocean.  Our WKORV-OF is stunning; the units we get via exchange suffer by comparison.

We are therefore in the process of reducing our Starwood holdings (the increasing MF's and Starwood's corporate arrogance helps in this decision). We will keep our best units plus one or two traders to use opportunistically.  We will rent whatever else we want, based on view.

My answer to OP's question is therefore the same as l2trade -- we would buy, but not as many units as we did.  But YMMV, depending on how important view is to you.


----------



## SDKath (Apr 17, 2010)

I would do it all again in a heart beat.  Now granted I discovered TUG before my purchases so I got a great deal on all my TSs including the resales and the developer purchases.  But that aside, I would still do it all again.

Before we owned, we took little hotel trips that were 3-4 days in small rooms with the kids cramped inside.  We paid to eat out all the time even though the hassle factor was HUGE given the little kids.  And we never looked at a lot of the places to vacation that we now go to.

Since becoming 5*, we have travelled all over, taken longer vacations, had WAAAY more comfort than when we were in little hotel rooms and have not paid for a single airplane ticket with cash!  Not only that but we got upgraded to super nice suites at hotels and could travel to Europe and stay at amazing resorts that we could otherwise not afford ($1500 for a room in Venice?!?! -- would rather pay 12,000 SPs a nite).

So all in all, I would recommend reading the great stickies on TUG, learning as much as possible about the system and then deciding to buy what's right for you.

By the way, we routinely trade into WKORV via II, even after the new rules.  

Katherine


----------



## barndweller (Apr 17, 2010)

No, I would not buy a Sheraton managed non-Starwood Network timeshare again. I bought both my units with the intention to use them since I like them. But I also like to exchange them for something else occassionally. Prior to Starwood's new system with II, I would make a reservation for my own use and them could search now and then for other possiblities and make an exchange if I wanted to do so. I could put in a request and still keep my reservation if my request didn't come through. Now I can't do that. Starwood took control of my exchanging flexability by forcing me to call them and jump through their hoops when dealing with II. As a non-SVN owner, why should the management company of my resort have control of my reservation? I'm not part of their system yet they dictate how I use my unit.  At II, I have been penalized for owning Sheraton managed resorts.

In addition my MF have gone up to the point where I could rent at my own resorts for the same or less than the MF. 

As managers they stink. The outfit seems to be sneaky. This whole broo ha ha over the new exchange system has soured me on Starwood and I want out. I'd be happy to just give my units away and replace them with resorts managed by companies that operate for the owner's benefit, not the corporation's bottom line.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 17, 2010)

Probably not, due to the escalating maintenance fees, and new II rules.

We bought our WKORV week from the developer before we found TUG.  At the time, the MF was about $1,100 - now it is $2,300.  The first year we really liked the resort and enjoyed being out of the hustle and bustle of the main part of Ka'anapali, but now with the addition of WKORVN, and everything else that has been built around it, it's way too busy for us.  We have been able to rent it for a profit for  the last 3 years, but with the economy and the escalating maintenance fees, I am afraid that is not going to last forever.  A few days ago someone listed one on the TUG Last Minute Rental Board for $700.  It was probably a II exchange, but still, it's a sad comment on the rental market.  I definitely wouldn't buy it, even resale, if I had it to do over again. [I just noticed that it's actually a WPORV week on the LMR Board.]

I bought my SDO week several years ago, resale, and paid a lot more than they are going for now.  Due to DH getting "down-sized" and losing all but 2 weeks of vacation, we have yet to use it.  It rents for enough to cover the MF and it has been a good trader, but with the new II rules, I wouldn't buy it, if I had it to do all over again.

A very nice Tugger gave us the SVR week.  It has been a pleasant surprise, because it's a fixed week 16 it falls before or after Easter Sunday 60% of the time so it's a good rental week.  Also, because it's a true fixed week, it does not fall under the new II rules, so I can still deposit the actual week, and do "request first."  I probably will hold onto it, unless the MF continues to escalate.


----------



## pointsjunkie (Apr 17, 2010)

i would do it over again in a heartbeat also BUT i would have bought at different resorts. i would not have bought as many in Orlando and would have bought more at WKV. but can't change anything, i have learned all the ins and outs on this Starwood timesharing thing and it works very well for us. we are going places we would never be able to afford. we travel 1st class on airplanes which we certainly would never could afford. i never have to pay for a hotel room again unless i want too and can fly for free 6-8 times a year. do i like the MF's, no i do not. but i try to rent out units so they help offset most of my costs. 2 years in a row the mf's zereoed out, and still working on this year. but i am already at half.

if you figure out the system, it can work for you.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 17, 2010)

pointsjunkie said:


> fly for free 6-8 times a year




Barbra - are you saying that you convert your timeshares to points and use them for flights, or are talking about points you earn with your AMEX, etc.?

How many Starpoints would you say you earn in a year? - Besides the timeshares


----------



## yumdrey (Apr 17, 2010)

If I start it all over again, I would not buy any voluntary resort, Hawaii resort or Orlando resort. I would buy WKV platinum season which hold its value still quite good. When I buy a timeshare, I always consider the situation that I need to sell it someday (just in case). If I think I would not sell it or get rid of it easily, I would not buy that timeshare.


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 17, 2010)

*All over again*

Yes, I would do it again.  We own an annual at KORVN, one EOY at KORVN and EOY at KORV, one odd one even.  We also own at Vistana Villages,just a little 37,000 option.  We live on the Far East Coast....almost as far as you can get.  We like the flexibility of exchanges and Starwood Points.

Until this year we have been able to spend 2 - 3 weeks in Maui virtually free, we rented our options for enough to cover main. fees and a bit more.  This year we were able to get 1/2 paid and stay in Maui for 18 nights....it works for us because:

1. We are both semi retired and have very flexible schedules.
2. We do not have children/grandchildren who travel with us and whose schedules we have to consider.
3. Travel is our joy....we spend our money on it.
4.  We are willing to stay in smaller units and give up the view if it means we can stay longer.
5.  We have not paid for an airline ticket, except for quick flights, since 2004...our last 3 flights since Oct 09 have been first class with points.

Originally we bought because we felt we would be priced out of Maui if the hotel rooms continued to rise.  Yes, there are certainly less expensive options than the Westin Villas in Ka'anapali, but we enjoy the resort and are confident that our stay will be safe, secure and clean.  We have been going to WKORV since 2004 and know many of the people there now...that makes a difference for us.
We've exchanged into Palm Springs, Vistana and HRA and all have been good experiences.  We live 2 hours from the airport so we usually stay at a Sheraton (with points) the night before we leave.  
I do like the points better than the weeks, we also have 256,000 Wyndham points every year and we generally either rent those out or use them for "drive to" vacations....

Taking care of the timeshares is like taking care of anything else we own, we have to pay attention and maximize the value....and make sure there are enough resources to pay the MFs......just in case they don't get rented out...

I'm happy enough with Starwood, I don't think any of the others are any better and I don't like Marriott's management philosophy.   I worked for Hilton for year when I was a lot younger and they have their problems too.....so that's my 2 cents.


----------



## jarta (Apr 17, 2010)

Would I do it again?  In a heartbeat.  And here's why:

I had always been healthy until about 6 years ago when I came down with a grade 3 (very aggressive) form of cancer.  After 3 years of chemo and 2 more years of careful watching by my doctors (plus a little luck and some help from upstairs), I was declared cancer-free (for now) about a year ago.

I know, I know.  Good for jarta!  But, I'm not asking for or looking for sympathy or applause.  My illness merely sets the backdrop for my Starwood TS purchases and why I'd do it all over again.

I have always reveled in working hard and playing hard.  However, as my businesses expanded I spent more time working like a dog and less time playing.  I was always too busy to make time to get away.  Without my realizing it, life had become a grind.  My bout with cancer changed all that.  For a time, I thought I'd have to buy a permanent place in a warmer climate and commute every once in a while to a smaller place in Chicago to oversee my businesses.  Since I have recovered, there is no need to move from the city I love living in - for 8 months a year.  All I need is to break up the chill and snow and outright gloom of Chicago winters until the weather becomes nice and bright and warm again.

So, since I have always vacationed first class, I decided that the flexibility and ease of use and reliability of quality of the Starwood TS products were the best decision for me (and, I admit, maybe not for you).  I have not been disappointed in any of those aspects.

Since last November, I have been in and out of Chicago for 8 whole weeks.  Each time I was at a resort where the accommodations were similar to those found in my home.  I felt comfortable at all of them.

I find that planning out the use of my 6 Platinum weeks of 2-br or larger takes work.  However, it also forces me take the time off - and that's good.  And, when I finally retire, I can play the "2 for 1 game" and drive to some corner of the US for a month or 2 or even 3 straight to avoid winter.

Fortunately, I can afford the MF and any further increases similar to what has already occured.  I am sorry for those who can't.  Our economy now stinks.  But, over the last 5 years, how about those gasoline and air fare prices and the cost of living in general?  Why, over the last 5 years, my property taxes have risen sharply and the MF at the gated community I live in are way up.  I was on our HOA board and I know I wasn't stealing for my own use or handing out fat contracts to my brother-in-law.  The maintenance bills had to be paid to keep property values up and to avoid kicking the maintenance expenses down the road to unsuspecting new owners.  

Of course, TS owners are struggling.  A substantial percentage of property owners of all types are struggling.  One of my neighbors lost his job, 2 homes and his wife in the last 3 months (don't know about his dog).  Both homes are in foreclosure. 

I find TUG an odd place and TUG members even odder.  TUG saved me mucho money in getting to 5 Star Elite.  But, the people here seem so hung up on complaining about their TS ownership (and not just about Starwood) that they no longer seem to enjoy going on vacation.  That's pretty sad.  Enjoying vacations is what TS ownership is all about.  If it isn't what's it about?  But, I think I now have a different perspective from most people on things like enjoying life.

My advice?  Enjoy your TSs.  Owning a TS is a lousy financial investment but a heck of a lot of vacationing fun.  I'd do it all over again.      ...   eom


----------



## barndweller (Apr 17, 2010)

> My advice? Enjoy your TSs. Owning a TS is a lousy financial investment but a heck of a lot of vacationing fun. I'd do it all over again.



I agree totally. I just wouldn't buy a Starwood. I like their resorts. I like the quality. I just don't like them controlling my use of my unit. I own it, not Starwood. They have no right making me give up my reservation just to put a request into II for an exchange that may not even happen. Their new system at II has penalized me compared to how I can use my other ownerships. This is not an enhancement for those of us who are not network members. It is a penalty. If they think it will encourage me to join the network, they are sorely mistaken. What I will do, however, is discourage others from buying into Starwood and send them to the competition. Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Disney or an independent....anything but Starwood. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but non of the others have been as underhanded as Starwood. Yet...we'll have to wait and see how Marriott handles resale buyers when they start their internal system.


----------



## jarta (Apr 17, 2010)

barndweller,   ...   "I just don't like them controlling my use of my unit. I own it, not Starwood."

Actually, you and I merely disagree on the extent of the rights you acquired when you bought at the SVO resort.  

You have a contract directly with II for external exchanges if you are not an SVN member and covered under the resort's SVN contract.  II reserves the right to change its contract terms from time to time.  You cannot force II to accept from you a week it is not willing to accept.  So, you are stuck with giving II a week it will accept.  Your remedy if you are unhappy is to cancel your contract and not use II.  (And possibly sue for damages - assuming you have any.  Often, but not always, non-SVN members using II can end up with much better trades than SVN members can with Staroptions exchanges.)   However, nothing requires you to renew your II contract for another year with the onerous contract terms you feel are part of your II contract.

Starwood is not playing favorites against non-SVN members.  SVN members, who, BTW, pay dues yearly to II, have no more rights in dealing with II than you do.  Starwood is not forcing you to join SVN - or II.  If you joined SVN you would acquire no more rights in dealing with or trading through II.

If you don't believe me, please consult your own choice of lawyer to get a professional, informed answer about what rights you actually own and what II can and cannot do regarding your personal contract for external trading via II's system.  See if anyone will take your case and file a suit.  IMO, they won't.   ...   eom


----------



## zcrider (Apr 18, 2010)

I love my harborside ownership and would buy it again, but there is no other starwood resort that I would be interested in owning except for maybe WKV.  That is b/c the MF's are out of control.  At Harborside at least I can rent one side and stay in the other and pay very little for my week of usage.........most places don't have that advantage.  It is far cheaper to own a Worldmark points account and trade into our starwoods for half or less the MF cost!!!!  And Worldmark owners LOVE worldmark.  IF I were going to buy another TS to trade with I would probably pick that one.  Starwood is not taking care of it's owners and it shows by how many owners are complaining on here!  
  I don't think we hate our timeshares, we bought them b/c we love them, but over time the management has been poor and has considerably changed how people feel about starwood.  
  I like the management of my Marriott week MUCH better, and unless Marriott does something in June to make owning there less appealing then I will continue to prefer that company.  Don't get me wrong I slightly prefer the starwood quality over Marriott quality and if MF's and managent were only a slight gap appart I would be happy, but they are far worse I am sorry to say.  On top of that Marriott has many more locations and treats owners with respect, keeping them much happier.
  It has NOTHING to do with being able to afford the MF increases or not............it has to do with no more value for the extra costs.  Nobody wants to over pay for something they can get for a much better price somewhere else.  It is called getting ripped off!!!  And yes I feel starwood is ripping off the owners b/c we are 'stuck' owning there for now and they are using us for an ATM machine.  It is working in the short term, but will bite them in the butt quicky as their reputation is getting tarnished.  I am very sorry this is happening b/c I personally really like the high quality of starwood, but the cost is no longer worth it.  Other brands are almost just as good and for far better MF prices and better managment as well making the value of owning elsewhere much better.  I am only willing to pay more when I am getting equally more for my $$ spent.  
  I would only recomment starwood ownership if you want to return to that resort year after year in a prime week and never trade. 
  I personally think it is possible these new II rules might help some owners in the near future b/c now that starwood controls what gets deposited into II it seems they only put in off season weeks making it harder for someone else to trade into our resorts with a low cost week else where and get anything of great value out........so that should help rental prices since people will have to rent from an owner directly to get the good weeks now!  This will make owning a prime starwood week more actractive.  Where they messed up is in taking away our ability to hold a reservation and do an ongoing search at the same time...........who wants to risk losing their good home week just to see if maybe they can find a trade they want or not??? This limits you to just internal starwood trades and they simply do not have enough locations or availability to make that appealing enough........so owners who may want to trade into a new location to visit that starwood has not built at are rightfully pissed! 
  As I see it if starwood would #1 limit MF increases and #2 give back the ability to hold a reservation at the home resort while searching II they would be a much better company.


----------



## barndweller (Apr 18, 2010)

Jarta, Our disagreement about Starwood is not simply about their contract with II. It is about their roll as a resort manager. Since when does a company that has been hired to oversee the daily operation at a resort get to control the inventory? That is exactly what Starwood has done for anyone who belongs to II. No other management company does that, only Starwood. Don't tell me that it is II that is unwilling to accept my reserved week at a Starwood resort! II accepts any week I offer from the other 4 resorts where I own. Rather it is that Starwood is unwilling to give II the week I have reserved. I believe that is the reason for the new contract terms. Starwood wants to control the weeks that are deposited at II. You apparently don't mind that Starwood dictates what you can do with your reserved week. I do. There is, of course, nothing I can do about this agreement between II and Starwood except to take my business elsewhere which I have done. II will not get any Starwood week from me as long as this contract is in place. 

My timeshare is not points or options or any other club type deal. It is an actual week. Once I have reserved a date, that is the actual share of time that belongs to me. Starwood should not have the ability to keep me from trading *that actual week* for something else. But they have now taken control of *MY* reserved week. Only Starwood does this. For this reason, I would not buy a Starwood managed resort again and will never recommend this outfit to anyone.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 18, 2010)

Exactly on point barndweller.  It's fine for Starwood to control the network weeks (after all, we signed agreements allowing them to do so and it's possible/probable that new rules make the _network_ run more efficiently).  But, it's not fine by any stretch of the imagination for Starwood to control the_ non-network _weeks.  That's called "having their cake and eating it too," and does display a level of arrogance that goes beyond the role of manager.  Starwood can claim that the new II rules were designed to benefit "all owners," but those of us with prime non-network weeks (by choice), know that's simply not true and never will be, despite attempts by Jarta and others to spin it as such.


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2010)

barndweller,   ...   If you had a fixed week deed that gave you a right to actual use in a specific unit at the resort for a specific week, I would agree with your definition of your rights.  Apparently, so does Starwood since fixed weeks still may be used for deposit first.

But, since you merely have a deed that gives you a right to reserve a week's use during a floating use period, we still disagree on the external trading rights you possess by being an owner.  Starwood is merely depositing exactly what you actually are entitled to reserve - a floating week in your use season at the resort.  SVN or non-SVN, every SVO owner of a float week is treated exactly the same.  

By reserving a week you do not take title to that week.  You merely have a possessory interest that can be abandoned by you and/or regulated by the resort.  II understands this concept and has made it part of its rules for accepting Starwood deposits.   ...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Apr 18, 2010)

jarta said:


> barndweller,   ...   If you had a fixed week deed that gave you a right to actual use in a specific unit at the resort for a specific week, I would agree with your definition of your rights.  Apparently, so does Starwood since fixed weeks still may be used for deposit first.
> 
> But, since you merely have a deed that gives you a right to reserve a week's use during a floating use period, we still disagree on the external trading rights you possess by being an owner.  Starwood is merely depositing exactly what you actually are entitled to reserve - a floating week in your use season at the resort.  SVN or non-SVN, every SVO owner of a float week is treated exactly the same.
> 
> By reserving a week you do not take title to that week.  You merely have a possessory interest that can be abandoned by you and/or regulated by the resort.  II understands this concept and has made it part of its rules for accepting Starwood deposits.   ...   eom



Jarta, 

I agree that Starwood has the "right" to substitute a week in the season owned. But, doing so is one of those moves that is detrimental to owner value.

There is no good reason (from an owner perspective) to do this.  
Starwood benefits at the expense of the owners. That is why so many object to it.


----------



## pointsjunkie (Apr 18, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Barbra - are you saying that you convert your timeshares to points and use them for flights, or are talking about points you earn with your AMEX, etc.?
> 
> How many Starpoints would you say you earn in a year? - Besides the timeshares



i don't normally convert my timeshares to starpoints. i think i have converted 2 times in all the years i have been doing this.

i average 5000-6000 per month.


----------



## barndweller (Apr 18, 2010)

Jarta, You make a valid argument regarding *depositing* a week of equal value in a floating weeks system. I still disagree that Starwood, as simply the hired help, has any right to manipulate the inventory of non network owners at my resorts. 

But I was not talking about depositing a week at II.  Please explain to me why I have to relinquish my reserved week simply to put in a "request first" search at II. Only Starwood imposes this restriction. It is a major concern for me since I rarely deposit first at II. The search first feature and the ability to put in a request first before deposit made II my exchange company of choice. I do not belong to Starwood's network and have no "options" to use for a new reservation in their system should I cancel my request at II. I now have to try to make a new reservation and can only do so at the resort where I own. My original reservation date may no longer be available and, in fact, there may be nothing left that I would be able to use. Network members have the option of choosing from a larger pool of availability. Starwood should not be able to take back my reservation and place it in their network since I am not a member. The only reason for this new rule Starwood has imposed as far as I can tell is to keep control of inventory for use in their network. Since I am not a member, why am I subjected to their rules? *What justification does Starwood have for making me give up my reservation if I am not making an actual deposit at II? *


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Apr 18, 2010)

pointsjunkie said:


> i don't normally convert my timeshares to starpoints. i think i have converted 2 times in all the years i have been doing this.
> 
> i average 5000-6000 per month.


  I'm not following.  I understand that you fly free 5 to 6 times a year.  However, you don't need to own a Starwood timeshare to use the points.  The points are from an independent transaction that has nothing to do with your time share.   I would have to agree with you that the credit card program is awesome but it has nothing to with the timeshare other than you can convert your timeshare for credit card points.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 18, 2010)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I'm not following.  I understand that you fly free 5 to 6 times a year.  However, you don't need to own a Starwood timeshare to use the points.  The points are from an independent transaction that has nothing to do with your time share.   I would have to agree with you that the credit card program is awesome but it has nothing to with the timeshare other than you can convert your timeshare for credit card points.



That was the point I was trying to make - pointsjunkie's free flights are not connected to her TS ownership.  

Also, to earn 5,000 - 6,000 points per month, you much be charging a great deal on your credit cards?  I have noticed on your blog that you purchase a lot of things specifically to earn points, like dining out at expensive restaurants twice a week, spa certificates, sending flowers, etc.  Are those purchases you would normally make if you weren't trying to accumulate points?  If not, it doesn't seem like you are really flying for free, because you are spending extra money, to earn points.

[Edit - sent by private message, instead.]


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Jarta,
> 
> I agree that Starwood has the "right" to substitute a week in the season owned. But, doing so is one of those moves that is detrimental to owner value.
> 
> ...



I don't get it.  If, as you say, Starwood has the "right" to do it I guess the II trader doesn't have a "right" to stop Starwood from doing it.  So, why shouldn't Starwood do it?  Because people who don't want to stay at their resort in that prime week don't like it?  What about the SVN and non-SVN owners who like having another prime week available at their home resort that they have an opportunity to reserve?   ...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Apr 18, 2010)

*Fredm, if it is done across the board for all float owners, could you explain how it is detrimental to owner value? Value in the marketplace on resale? Value in II trading? And, could you please quantify how much detriment?*

Sure. Be happy to.

A trip down memory lane is in order. Everything is based on the current compared to the past. Or, put differently, it's all relative.

Starwood began with a system with two distinct parts. SVN owners and non-SVN owners. 

Starwood always controlled the inventory of SVN owners. 
That is, inventory used to fill deposit requests was selected by Starwood. The inventory did not have to represent either the resort or season owned. Nonetheless, SVN owners still interacted with I.I. on the same tried and true rules of the road that have been in place for over 25 years. Owners could either Request First or Deposit First.
Each had very distinct advantages. 

Starwood attempted to implement the same methodology with non SVN owners. They succeeded for some years, because most owners did not know the difference.  

Starwood made a mistake by writing its rules specifically for SVN members. Non SVN owners were excluded. This error of omission enabled non SVN owners to press Starwood for the right to use their reserved week for deposit to I.I. (just as every other timeshare system does).  Although difficult to obtain, Starwood relented only in those instances where the owner demanded it be done. Legally, the non-SVN owners could not be denied.

To correct its systemic error, Starwood had to revamp how it handled the external exchange inventory of all owners on an equal footing. So, last August it introduced an entirely new deposit procedure with I.I. for all owners under a unified system of external exchange. 
In so doing, several things happened:
 -  SVN owners benefited because Starwood abandoned the practice of assigning off season weeks at unrelated resorts.This is the price it was willing to pay to capture control of non SVN owner inventory.
 -  Non SVN owners lost the ability to deposit a specific reserved week.
 -  All owners lost the ability to choose between Deposit First and Request First. Indeed, all owners lost the ability to retain a reservation if an exchange request was made.

To understand the impact on "value" one must consider the disposition of the inventory itself. 
Unlike internally exchanged inventory using StarOptions, there is no control on the use of the week surrendered when requesting an exchange with I.I. 
Consequently, prime weeks can be retained by Starwood for their benefit, as they see fit. They need not be deposited to I.I. 
(an average blended week is deposited). The owner base at large does not have good opportunity to exchange into them, via I.I. It is, therefore, possible for these weeks to be retained by Starwood for rental, while surrendering weaker weeks to the exchange pool.

In an inventory sum game, value retained by Starwood is value extracted from the owner experience. It is FAR easier, LESS expensive, and LESS complicated to simply allow an owner to control what is reserved. The complicated, high overhead, system exists to allow Starwood to capture value. Otherwise, there is no purpose to it. Not when a  simple, straightforward deposit of a reservation provides more advantage to the owner.
I might add that owners pay for this unnecessarily high overhead. 

Systematically, the owner is also disadvantaged by the deposit rules which prevent the unrestricted ability to Request First (in its true sense). A reservation cannot be retained. 
From a value perspective it limits the utility of the ownership. This is difficult to overstate. The reason Starwood shares have lost so much secondary market value compared to Marriott shares specifically lies in this lost utility . Starwood shares are less desirable in the marketplace, by comparison. 

Having said all this, Starwood still trades very well with I.I. as a matter of fact. 
Strictly from a use perspective owners will, on average, receive very good exchanges with I.I. under the current system. 
Not as good as a savvy owner could obtain otherwise. And not to prime Starwood weeks. 
Not being able to retain a reservation is a biggie, though.

 ALL of this is simply unnecessary if owner utility were the overriding principle. Starwood has taken utility away from non SVN owners, without substituting a single advantage.

Starwood has a great (limited) collection of resorts. 
Owners who buy to enjoy their home resort are typically quite pleased with their ownership (fees aside for the purpose of this discussion).  SVN owners are better off than they were prior to the August changes. Non SVN owners have every right to be mad as hell.

Starwood has a "right" to do it.  That does not make it right.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 18, 2010)

Fred -- your explanation is the best one I've seen yet -- thank you.  Starwood did this for its benefit and its benefit only as it relates to non-SVN member weeks.  SVN members like to think they're benefiting (some think everything Starwood does is wonderful ), but they miss the point that they don't have access to non-SVN inventory.  

Having said that, there is one GIANT impact to all owners, SVN and non-SVN alike, and that is the impact on delinquencies.  When desperate (or disgruntled) owners can't even sell for $1 on ebay, there's no enthusiastic, new owner steps in to make maintenance payments.

By the way, the jury is still out on this one, at least according to one state regulator I spoke to recently:



> Starwood has a "right" to do it.


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2010)

Fredm,   ...   Nice history lesson.  But, what about this:

"Consequently, prime weeks can be retained by Starwood for their benefit, as they see fit."  

Maybe Starwood can retain the prime weeks turned in by II users for the Starwood rental pool (but not legally under the SVN agreement).  Do you have any evidence that Starwood is retaining returned weeks for its own use rather than putting them into the SVO reservation pool until 60 days from arrival?  Or, is it just a guess on your part?  

Remember, Starwood can rent whatever weeks it owns itself at any time.  That seems to be 10% of the units at places like WSJ and WKV.  Do you think Starwood sold off all the prime inventory and only kept dog weeks for its own use?  Maybe Starwood comes up with prime week rentals because it retained them by not selling them - rather than by stealing them from II turn ins.  

And, once the new II system is understood by all, there just will not be reservations made for prime weeks by people who intend to trade in II because they will know there will be no II benefit gained from reserving the prime week.  Those prime weeks are only turn ins from II traders this year.  In future years they will not be returned by anyone who intends to use II at the time the reservation is initially made.  In other words, the prime weeks will be rented by home resort in-season SVO owners (SVN and non-SVN) who intend to use the prime weeks.

You might see that as a bad thing.  I don't.  And, I bet there are a lot more SVO owners who agree that opening up the prime weeks for in-season use by SVO owners at their home resort - rather than by II trade ins - is a good thing.     ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2010)

jerseygirl,   ...   I agree that whether Starwood has a "right" to do it will finally be determined if and when a suit is filed.

So, when will it be filed?  Until it is filed and is successful, it is obvious that nothing is going to change back to what it was.   ...   eom


----------



## pointsjunkie (Apr 18, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> That was the point I was trying to make - pointsjunkie's free flights are not connected to her TS ownership.
> 
> Also, to earn 5,000 - 6,000 points per month, you much be charging a great deal on your credit cards?  I have noticed on your blog that you purchase a lot of things specifically to earn points, like dining out at expensive restaurants twice a week, spa certificates, sending flowers, etc.  Are those purchases you would normally make if you weren't trying to accumulate points?  If not, it doesn't seem like you are really flying for free, because you are spending extra money, to earn points.
> 
> [Edit - sent by private message, instead.]



i only buy things i use, when we travel we like to go to spas so i bought the gift certificates ahead of time instead of paying for them with a credit card while on vacation. we would b going to the restaurant anyway and i buy flowers for people 3-4 times a year. i could go directly to FTD and order but then i would not get 20 miles per dollar and i would not be accumulating miles.

the free flights are not connected directly to the TS's except it was a TS salesman who told me about how to use starpoints to fly for free or upgrade to first class.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 18, 2010)

Fredm said:


> To understand the impact on "value" one must consider the disposition of the inventory itself.
> Unlike internally exchanged inventory using StarOptions, there is no control on the use of the week surrendered when requesting an exchange with I.I.
> Consequently, prime weeks can be retained by Starwood for their benefit, as they see fit. They need not be deposited to I.I.
> (an average blended week is deposited). The owner base at large does not have good opportunity to exchange into them, via I.I. It is, therefore, possible for these weeks to be retained by Starwood for rental, while surrendering weaker weeks to the exchange pool.



So Fred, what you are saying is that the new II exchange system does not leave more prime weeks in the system for owners to reserve (as some people keep claiming) - it actually allows Starwood to cherry pick the best weeks to rent!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 18, 2010)

jarta said:


> And, once the new II system is understood by all, there just will not be reservations made for prime weeks by people who intend to trade in II because they will know there will be no II benefit gained from reserving the prime week.  Those prime weeks are only turn ins from II traders this year.  In future years they will not be returned by anyone who intends to use II at the time the reservation is initially made.  In other words, the prime weeks will be rented by home resort in-season SVO owners (SVN and non-SVN) who intend to use the prime weeks.



Is it just me .... or can someone who understands II please interpret this paragraph for me?


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 18, 2010)

jarta said:


> jerseygirl,   ...   I agree that whether Starwood has a "right" to do it will finally be determined if and when a suit is filed.
> 
> So, when will it be filed?  Until it is filed and is successful, it is obvious that nothing is going to change back to what it was.   ...   eom



I know this isn't the "lawyer joke" thread -- but, typical lawyer response -- thinks a lawsuit is the only recourse.  I'm still under the impression that here in the good old USA, citizens still have the right to work with government regulators.  And, before you ask, under my "rights," I'll share no further information with you.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 18, 2010)

I don't understand it either.  I don't understand the part about* "prime weeks being turned into II" *- that would indicate that Starwood is depositing reserved weeks - which they aren't.  

And I don't understand this part at all -*"In other words, the prime weeks will be rented by home resort in-season SVO owners (SVN and non-SVN) who intend to use the prime weeks."* 

Why would SVO owners rent prime weeks???  Why wouldn't they use their owned week or do an SO exchange?


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

Yeah -- I'm afraid this is the result of a non II-user attempting to explain the intricacies of the Starwood-II system!


----------



## J&JFamily (Apr 19, 2010)

*Non-lawyer response*

Maybe we should try to use common sense and not explain things "legally".  The reason that so many are upset with Starwood is that they are the ONLY major timeshare company that has implemented the rules in the manner that they have (with II).  Am I correct in that statement?  To my knowledge, NO other major timeshare developer (Marriott, Hilton, etc.) has decided to use this type of system.  

Whether they can do so legally is a moot point to most owners.  They are ruining their reputation with the owners and that is just bad customer service.  It really is a shame because they do have some of the nicest resorts.  We have stayed at several of the timeshare resorts and even more hotels, and are almost always pleased with the facilities.


----------



## Henry M. (Apr 19, 2010)

I am still pretty happy with my ownership. I bought in Maui where I still like to go every year, so exchanging is a nice perk but not at the top of my list. I haven't seen many locations in II that would interest me, and the few nicer locations (e.g. Disney properties that are now on RCI) were not really available as they never got deposited.

I travel to Europe a lot so the Starpoint conversion is useful and a decent deal for the few times I can't use all my weeks in Maui. Platinum upgrades make the deal even better. I get more money by renting out, but there is added flexibility with the Starpoint conversion since I have until October 1 to decide what to do. It is also a lot less hassle than finding renters.

When I purchased my timeshares I assumed the end  value would be 0, but I didn't intend to sell so it didn't matter that much. I did want to eventually leave them to my children, but if the maintenance fees keep going up as they have that may not be an option.

The maintenance fee is still in the range where the cost of going to WKORV or WKORV-N is a much better deal than trying to get a similar hotel room. Even with a package deal it would be over $1,000/night to rent two suites at the Sheraton, and you wouldn't have a full kitchen and washer/drier. The room would not be as spacious and nice as WKORV either.

I could possibly rent from an owner, but usually the rooms go for more than the maintenance fee so if I know I will be going to Maui often, I'd rather just own there. To me that location is like a second home more than just a vacation destination.

I would not want to get rid of my units and still intend to get a lot of use out of them.

Having said all that, at this time I would probably hold off on buying. I would at least wait to see how things develop. The rate of increase of the maintenance fees is not sustainable. Yearly double digit increases was the one thing I did not take into account. I expected increases on the order of the rate of inflation and perhaps an occasional special assessment after several years. If I could be assured the maintenance fees would remain somewhat stable, I'd still do it over (using resale units and requalification). However, having seen the reality of how the fees actually go up I would not.


----------



## jarta (Apr 19, 2010)

DeniseM,   ...   "Why would SVO owners rent prime weeks??? Why wouldn't they use their owned week or do an SO exchange?"

I think you know what I meant.  But I used the wrong terminology.  I used rent rather than reserve.  The prime weeks will not be reserved by II traders since there is no advantage.  They will be available for SVO owners to reserve.

The prime weeks turned in by II traders this year who thought they would get an II advantage by reserving one are being turned back in.  Those prime weeks cannot be "stolen" under the resort's agreements with Starwood.  They must be returned to the SVO reservation pool.

In future years there will be fewer (and virtually no) prime reservations returned to the SVO reservation pool.  The prime weeks will not be reserved by people who intend to trade in II.  They will never leave the SVO reservation pool.  They will not be sucked up by II traders who have no intention of vacationing where they own.

For this year there is a chance (but no evidence) that Starwood might not return the turned in prime weeks to the SVO reservation pool.  For years after 2010, when people who trade in II no longer make the prime reservation first, there will a lot less (and maybe no) prime reservations turned in by those traders.  So, as I said, Starwood then cannot "steal" the prime reservation by not returning it to the SVO reservation pool because it never leaves the SVO reservation pool.

Thanks for pointing out the inappropriate language (rent v. reserve).  But your pointing it out merely emphasizes that words have a meaning, we all should be careful and precise in defining what is and is not not guaranteed and recognize there is no transfer of ownership rights when a reservation is made.  Reservations are able to be abandoned and are subject to regulation by a resort's HOA - unless the provisions of the deed are violated.

For float weeks, the deed merely guarantee that a week in a season may be reserved.  For true fixed weeks, the deed merely guarantees the right to occupy the exact unit in the exact week mentioned in the deed.  For fixed-float weeks the deed fixes the use but the deed, or sometimes the association's binding declaration, allows the owner to abandon the fixed week reservation and reserve in a particular float season.

There is a difference.  Starwood and II recognize the difference.  Many people on TUG do not.  Fredm recognizes the difference, too, but believes that the policy is unwise and discriminatory.  I believe that many SVO owners are quite happy with the new policy.  They do not consider it unwise and applaud the fact that the policy applies to both SVN and non-SVN owners at a resort.   ...   eom


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

J&JFamily said:


> Maybe we should try to use common sense and not explain things "legally".  The reason that so many are upset with Starwood is that they are the ONLY major timeshare company that has implemented the rules in the manner that they have (with II).  Am I correct in that statement?  To my knowledge, NO other major timeshare developer (Marriott, Hilton, etc.) has decided to use this type of system.
> 
> Whether they can do so legally is a moot point to most owners.  They are ruining their reputation with the owners and that is just bad customer service.  It really is a shame because they do have some of the nicest resorts.  We have stayed at several of the timeshare resorts and even more hotels, and are almost always pleased with the facilities.



Excellent, common sense response -- you've summed it up very well!  Some of the other hotel brands who rely on point systems (e.g., Hyatt and Hilton, where even resale purchasers have the option to use club points) use somewhat of a similar system and no one complains because ALL owners have the same options when it comes to trading.  In other words, all can use the internal or the external network on the same terms.  Starwood is unique in its discrimination against resale purchasers -- but most of us knew and accepted that when we purchased our resale trading units and didn't care as we found our value in using the II system.  Now, Starwood has found a way to devalue that aspect of our ownership and even further discriminate against resale buyers.  Although we may be a small minority, we're a fairly loud and whiny one (and proud of it!).

On the "request first" front, Starwood is the FIRST and ONLY major timeshare system to harm its owners (both resale and developer purchases) on that front.  No one has come up with any reasonable explanation for doing so, which is what leads to the speculation that it was done to benefit Starwood.

I am in full agreement that Starwood runs some wonderful resorts -- but the II issue is not the only management-related problem.  There's the fact that our maintenance fees are escalating at a pace that FAR exceeds the increase pace at the other majors.  And, although there are some who drink the "koolaid" and buy Starwood's blame on "prior management" for the numerous, outrageous special assessments -- the fact is that Starwood ran each and every resort that's had a special assessment for at least ten years prior to the special assessments.  What did they do to fix the situation during that period?  There's only two answers -- and neither are reflective of good management: (1) NOTHING, or (2) CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROBLEM.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 19, 2010)

jarta said:


> Fredm,   ...   Nice history lesson.  But, what about this:
> 
> "Consequently, prime weeks can be retained by Starwood for their benefit, as they see fit."
> 
> ...



Jarta,

I will answer your questions with a few questions.

As an SVN owner with StarPoints, what happens to the week you surrender when converting it for StarPoints?
I know it's a different issue than an I.I. deposit. But, what week do you think Starwood retains? A leftover dog week, or a prime week in the season converted?
What does Starwood do with the week it keeps?

As the documents indicate, Starwood 'anticipates" the demand for StarPoints conversions, and sets aside inventory accordingly. What inventory do you think is set aside?

Back to I.I. deposits.

When Starwood captures value is not the issue. Be it at 6 months or 2 months. It's just a funnel. If shoulder weeks are placed in the top of the funnel, then shoulder weeks drop out the bottom. If prime weeks are in the funnel, prime weeks fall out, whenever they are harvested for use.

Starwood prevents owners from depositing specific weeks with I.I.
As with StarPoints, it is they who select what is in play and what is not. Starwood also "anticipates" this use.  Does this disadvantage an owner? Sure it does.

The overriding issue is not how this process may (or may not) benefit the reservation calendar. But, how an owner chooses to  exercise their ownership (or prevented from). 

Starwood has every right to administer its internal system as they see fit. That is why SVN exists. Members sign up (informed or otherwise).  Closing loopholes to capture non SVN inventory while not permitting non-SVN members access to it (either internally, or limiting it externally) is not fair. Simple as that.

I am not a Starwood bash-er. I do not go around looking for reasons to blame Starwood for every woe. I have defended against much of what else has been said about the system. All I am doing here is trying to explain why owners are understandably angry with this aspect of their ownership.


----------



## jarta (Apr 19, 2010)

[Deleted - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## jarta (Apr 19, 2010)

Fredm,   ...   I know you are not a Starwood basher.  Why bash any product you are trying to sell and make your broker's commission on.  You interest is in keeping resale prices as high as possible.

As for what happens to the unreserved units when an SVN Staroptions reservation is made elsewhere at 8 months, why don't you just say Starwood steals them?  Your question (what do they do with the weeks they keep) assumes they are kept by Starwood, not kept in the SVO pool.  So, why ask me?  Make the accusation if you have proof that Starwood removes the weeks from the SVO pool and keeps the weeks and eventually rents them for its own sole profit (and ignores the 50/50 split with the HOA).   ...   eom


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

jarta said:


> jerseygirl,   ...   "the fact is that Starwood ran each and every resort that's had a special assessment for at least ten years prior to the special assessments. What did they do to fix the situation during that period?"
> 
> For WSJ, management proposed 2 special assessments for repairs that the owners turned down.  DavidnRobin recognized that repairs were sorely needed at WSJ Hillside.  He was trying to buy a new couch for his unit with his own funds.
> 
> ...



As usual, you make all sort of unfounded assumptions in your post.  I too was all for the special assessment as the units *were* indeed in need of refurbishment.  When I purchased, I was told a completely different story about how the refurbishments (without which I would not have purchased) were going to be funded -- a story which turned out to be completely untrue (no suprside there on my part).

My point, which you apparently missed, was that Starwood most definitely could have gradually increased the reserves from the first day they took over the management of the resort.  They (and it is a Starwood-controlled board) chose not to do so and instead let the problems pile up for years, which resulted in an excessive special assessment.  You can choose to believe them that the blame belongs with the prior management (why doesn't that surprise me?).  I see it differently.  We can agree to disagree as I have nothing further to say on the subject.  I won't get pulled into one of your usual pi$$ing matches -- you don't even own there.  You've made one visit ... and chose to drink the koolaid and believe everything they told you.  Until you own there (and probably even if you purchased), your opinion is meaningless to me.  And please don't assume I'm in favor of throwing out Starwood as the management company.  Do I wish they would sell to Hyatt or Hilton?  You betcha!  But, I've repeatedly stated I'm not in favor of a lawsuit on this particular issue.  I truly hope the owners' group can grow large enough to effectively work WITH Starwood to run the resort in the owners' best interests, as it should be run.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

jarta said:


> Fredm,   ...   I know you are not a Starwood basher.  Why bash any product you are trying to sell and make your broker's commission on.  You interest is in keeping resale prices as high as possible.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ....is there a chance you've decided that buying a much higher end fractional product would have better met your needs and that's why your posts are designed to keep resale prices as high as possible?

Just thinking out loud, making unfounded assumptions!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

[Response to deleted post removed. - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## Fredm (Apr 19, 2010)

jarta said:


> As for what happens to the unreserved units when an SVN Staroptions reservation is made elsewhere at 8 months, why don't you just say Starwood steals them?  Your question (what do they do with the weeks they keep) assumes they are kept by Starwood, not kept in the SVO pool.  So, why ask me?  Make the accusation if you have proof that Starwood removes the weeks from the SVO pool and keeps the weeks and eventually rents them for its own sole profit (and ignores the 50/50 split with the HOA).   ...   eom



Jarta, I give you more credit than this.

The proof is in the pudding. You know it as well as I do.

Just like at a casino poker table. The house skims a drop from the pot. Its the house advantage. Every player knows it.
Starwood is not alone in house advantage with points conversions. 
Every branded operator does the same thing.  

However, house advantage with owner exchange inventory is another matter. Be it rental, or capturing inventory from non SVN members to use in SVN trades, the house is skimming the pot of non-SVN owner inventory to enrich its ends. 

Please do not place the burden of  "proof" beyond the abstract result of the system rules themselves. They exist.

I repeat, closing loopholes to capture non SVN inventory while not permitting non-SVN owners access to it (either internally, or limiting it externally) is not fair. Simple as that.


----------



## jarta (Apr 19, 2010)

Fredm,   ...   So, you have no proof that Starwood is not splitting rentals with the HOA and is stealing unused or turned in weeks from the SVO rental pool without the HOA's consent for its own use.   ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Apr 19, 2010)

[Deleted - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

[Response to deleted comment removed - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 19, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Actually, all I am is unimpressed and unintimidated by blowhards who think they know everything!



Plus 1.

I requested the Mods do something about this subjugate-style of abuse - but to no avail.  The ignore feature is the only solace in reprieve. It works well except people who quote the inane banter of the ignored.


----------



## lprstn (Apr 19, 2010)

I wouldn't do it again. I would purchase a points system from the start simply because of the flexibility, the internal resort exchange comparison and the fact that I get more use from it.

In fact, I'm thinking about selling the one I have currently.  Only reason I won't is because with it I can have a membership with II. Now with Wyndham I have an RCI account and with Starwood I have a II account.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 19, 2010)

[Response to deleted comments removed. - DenseM Moderator]


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 19, 2010)

A gentle reminder - if you see a post that violates the TUG posting rules, please click on the triangle in the bottom left corner of the post, and it will be reported instantly.  That is the quickest way to notify the Mods/Admin, and to document the infraction.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 19, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> So Fred, what you are saying is that the new II exchange system does not leave more prime weeks in the system for owners to reserve (as some people keep claiming) - it actually allows Starwood to cherry pick the best weeks to rent!



Denise, it is not that straightforward. "Cherry pick" may be the wrong term. But, among other uses it is an end result. 

Bottom line is non SVN prime inventory goes into uses that do not benefit non SVN owners. 

Some of it is available to Starwood for StarPoints conversion. These are a source of Starwood's rental inventory. Starwood does not share the rental revenue. They "paid' for it with StarPoints. Yet the inventory was "contributed" by non-SVN owners.

Some of it is cherry picked to prop up SVN inventory, to the extent that the system needs it. Although the operator is the sole judge of what that is.

Some of it is dropped into the top of the "available" funnel. What is not assigned to owner reservations falls out the bottom for rentals.

Of course, none of this is compartmentalized. The inventory pool is managed to maximize its utility to Starwood.  Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT non SVN owners do not benefit from it.

Is this directly  "cherry picking"?  At the end of the day, it is the result. Just took a curved road to the basket.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 19, 2010)

I have deleted all the inappropriate comments, and responses in this thread.  

Let's stay on topic.  Attack the issues, not other posters.

*It's simple - don't make it personal!*

As suggested, the "ignore feature" is another good option:
Click on the user's name.
Select "view public profile" from the drop down menu.
Click on "add _user_ to your ignore list" - in the blue bar.
In the future, you will never see this user's posts.​


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Apr 19, 2010)

*are they maintaining with the maintenance fees?*

I was originally interested in Starwood because of the SPG awards. I have always loved Westin Hotels and was favorably impressed with the WKORV N - it is a beautiful resort. The beds were heavenly. I loved everything about my stay there (except for the lack of a true oven). 

I have heard complaints about the massive increases in maintenance fees - which really seem out of line with inflation, especially given that construction costs have decreased, not increased, in our area. So, I am still concerned with the massive increases in maintenance fees. 

Ka'anapali is the only Westin/Sheraton resort that I have visited. It certainly seemed well maintained. I understand from reading parts of the St. John thread that there have been maintenance issues there. Aside from St. John, have the resorts been maintained?

Elaine


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 19, 2010)

Sheraton Vistana Resort also had a large special assessment, recently.  I am concerned about the other older resorts.

My MF at WKORV has more than doubled since I bought there, so they better not charge us a special assessment!

WKORV and WKORVN are in the newer group of resorts - built by Starwood.  At least in the near future, it's the older resorts that Starwood bought from other developers that are more likely to have a SA.


----------



## DanCali (Apr 20, 2010)

jarta said:


> Fredm,   ...   So, you have no proof that Starwood is not splitting rentals with the HOA and is stealing unused or turned in weeks from the SVO rental pool without the HOA's consent for its own use.   ...   eom



Going through all that trouble to change a system that worked and seemed fair to almost everyone involved (or at least was on par with all other systems) just doesn't smell right to me.

Starwood may get away with this because as jarta points out, it is hard to unequivocally prove any of these allegations. That's probably why Starwood can be so brazen.

However the court of public opinion does not have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshhold. Starwood is losing the battle on this front...


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 20, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> Ka'anapali is the only Westin/Sheraton resort that I have visited. It certainly seemed well maintained. I understand from reading parts of the St. John thread that there have been maintenance issues there. Aside from St. John, have the resorts been maintained?



I don't think many people have complaints about the condition of the resorts. They are always very nice, IMO.  The main complaint is how much we have to pay for our nice resorts. High MFs not only tick off current owners, but they drive prices and demand down.  There are some Starwood owners who literally cannot give away their unit.  It's certainly not the quality of the unit that drives people away; the only thing left is the cost.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Apr 20, 2010)

If the MFs get to the point that you are better off (financially) staying in a hotel, it makes sense that no one would want to have the fixed costs associated with the timeshare. Even those people that are II afficionadoes will not want to be locked in to future increases where they are at the mercy of out of control increased costs. 

I know the first timeshare presentation that I ever saw, the salesman had this cost comparison chart about paying present dollars for future stays. He did a whole cost analysis based on inflation for MFs and hotel costs. And the timeshare purchase was supposed to save money for a lifetime of vacations. If the MFs climb at 8X the inflation rate as Denise's have, it blows the whole financial analysis out of the water. 

Elaine


----------



## okwiater (Apr 20, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> I know the first timeshare presentation that I ever saw, the salesman had this cost comparison chart about paying present dollars for future stays. He did a whole cost analysis based on inflation for MFs and hotel costs. And the timeshare purchase was supposed to save money for a lifetime of vacations. If the MFs climb at 8X the inflation rate as Denise's have, it blows the whole financial analysis out of the water.



So true. :annoyed: 

In our most recent presentation, the sales guy did a complex calculation showing how I would pay $100K for hotel rooms over the next 20 years, and he included something like 8% inflation on hotel prices over those years.

Then he compared it to timeshare-ing, and he demonstrated how the initial purchase price + MFs would only be $60K. In those calculations, the MFs were projected at 3% increase! :hysterical: 

So I asked him, "can you please show me a chart of the historical MFs for this resort?" He could not.


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 20, 2010)

I own 3 different starwood units, a small 1 bedroom SDO, a 2 bedroom WMH unit, and a small 1 bedroom PGA, all eoy. While I probably would get rid of some just because starwood's recent actions have made me nervous, they all trade pretty well in II. Each has its good points: my WMH is a lockoff, giving me added flexibility; SDO is an excellent trader in II and a low MF (for starwood) and my PGA unit can trade into Vistana for NO exchange fee should I decide to do that (I forget what it's called but it works like Marriott's FL club). Each has its downsides, too: WMH's mf is pretty high, SDO is the older of the 2 starwoods in the area and not as sought after, and PGA is a weaker trader than sdo. So. Overall I would probably not have bought one of them, but it is tough for me to decide which one to get rid of. They are all dear to me for the great vacations they bring me.


----------



## gregb (Apr 21, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Bottom line is non SVN prime inventory goes into uses that do not benefit non SVN owners.



Fred, 

I appreciate your thoughtful explanations.  But I guess I don't fully understand this point.  

Except for fixed unit-week owners, I guess I don't see how one can distinguish between SVN and non-SVN units in the pool of unit available.  Is the distinction time related?  

When you make a reservation at your home resort during the owner preference reservation period (12-8 months), my understanding is it doesn't matter if you are SVN or non-SVN.  Both types of owners are competing for the same pool of available units.  

After the 4 month Owner preference time, I understand that SVN owners can still reserve at their home resort, although without their view preference.  (Effectively a StarOptions rental.)  I guess I don't know how non-SVN owners make reservations at their home resort during this period.  I would expect they can also make reservations during this time, just like SVN owners, but I have not studied this.  But I still don't see how one could distinguish between SVN and non-SVN units in the available pool.

I agree it is not clear how SVO decides which unit-weeks should be pulled from inventory when it "anticipates" Staroption and Starpoint conversions.  But even for these unit-weeks, I don't see how one can segregate them into SVN and non-SVN units.  

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 21, 2010)

Fred -- I too would love it if you can provide a good explanation for how SVN and non-SVN inventory is segregated (or should be segregated).

GregB -- My research (admittedly limited) on the matter suggests that it's a matter of state law -- at least in some states.  When a week is not part of a club system (i.e., non-SVN weeks), the developer/manager is generally required by law to hold the inventory for owner reservations only until the 60-day mark.  When a week is part of a club system (i.e., SVN weeks), the club rules dictate the holding perioid (in the case of SVN, 4 months).  This would indicate that SVO cannot co-mingle the two inventories at voluntary resorts. 

When you overlay "float weeks" with two inventory pools, it seems as if it would get complicated.  I've always guessed that at the big non-SVN resorts -- SVR (although that may have changed depending on how many owners took them up on their offer to join the network after the Special Assessments), SBP, SDO, etc. -- the floating weeks would be assigned to SVN vs. non-SVN inventory on a pro-rata basis (e.g., if 50% of weeks are SVN, 50% of each week's inventory would be given to each pool).  That wouldn't be overly difficult to manage.  However, at the newer voluntary resorts, there are probably very few non-SVN weeks (just the resale buyers). I suspect it could be very difficult to manage within state regulations. 

Perhaps JamesNY has some insight into the matter as well.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 21, 2010)

gregb said:


> Fred,
> 
> I appreciate your thoughtful explanations.  But I guess I don't fully understand this point.
> 
> ...



Greg,

My point was not as inventory is allocated to reservations. Someone else took it there.

My explanation was about non-SVN owner inventory when an external exchange is requested.

You are correct in stating that there is no segregation of owner inventory once an exchange request is made.
Because a floating week owner cannot deposit a reserved week, the week physically deposited to fill the trade is selected by the operator. The week must correspond to the resort and season owned. 
Although a blended value is assigned to request the trade, a physical week is ultimately surrendered by the operator. 

From the same pool of inventory, weeks are allocated in anticipation of StarPoint conversions.

Non-SVN owners who exchange are not reserving at their home resort (by definition). Nor are they permitted to access inventory retained for internal StarOptions exchange. The opportunity to access Starwood inventory is therefore limited to what Starwood physically deposits to I.I.

If Starwood would actually deposit the prime weeks, on average, in season to the exchange there would be no issue.  But, of course, they do not. If they were, there would be no reason to not permit an owner to deposit a specific reservation.

The argument that the inventory remains in the reservation pool for access by all owners does not address several pertinent issues.

 - Starwood cherry picks which inventory it reserves for StarPoint conversions. Among the inventory available for this purpose is the use-week surrendered by the non-SVN owner who requests a trade.
There is no distinction between SVN and non-SVN owner inventory. The prime weeks are selected for use by Starwood. Starwood exclusively benefits from these.

 - The physical week surrendered by any owner to fill a trade is removed from the availability pool. The corollary is that perhaps higher demand weeks are retained for SVN member internal exchange. But, non-SVN owners cannot access this inventory at all.

Yes, non-SVN owners who do not exchange may request a reservation at their home resort. So what? At the 8 month window they must compete with SVN owners who do not own there. It is not as if home resort owners can graze upon the pasture of home resort inventory. If they could, there would not be an issue in this regard. No other system in the entire industry relegates home resort owners to second class status, as this does.

The dynamics of the system then effectively works like this:
Non SVN owners can compete with all owners at their home resort months 12-8, and have zero access to other Starwood inventory within SVN. At month 8, they must compete with the entire SVN member network for access to their home resort. SVN members benefit, but not non-SVN owners. Their inventory is effectively used to benefit Starwood's ends. 

Meanwhile, all Starwood owners have diminished availability of prime weeks via I.I.  This was not an issue prior to the August  methodology change, as non-SVN owners were able to deposit a reserved week (if they tried hard enough).

It is easy to cloud the discussion by stating that remaining inventory is available to the reservation pool. IT IS NOT, if a non-SVN owner for the reasons stated. Bottom line is that non SVN owners contribute the very inventory they have, at best, restricted access to.

The entire purpose of system rules as they exist is to provide the operator complete control of inventory for its ends. One can argue that the system "works" for SVN owners. That is a subjective  matter.  But, there is no question that it is at the direct expense of non-SVN owners. One cannot separate the exchange inventory surrendered from the benefit it provides SVN. Its a fact of life. Which is why the system has been designed the way it is. 
As jerseygirl has stated, Starwood has its cake and gets to eat it too.

I have mentioned a number of times, Starwood has the right to manage its system this way. It just is not right.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 21, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred -- I too would love it if you can provide a good explanation for how SVN and non-SVN inventory is segregated (or should be segregated).



jersey, please see my response to Greg.

The 8 month home resort reservation window throws any inventory segregation out the window, as it may apply to non-SVN owners.


----------



## jarta (Apr 21, 2010)

Fredm,   ...   "From the *same pool* of inventory, weeks are allocated in anticipation of StarPoint conversions. ... *Starwood cherry picks which inventory it reserves for StarPoint conversions*. Among the inventory available for this purpose is the use-week surrendered by the non-SVN owner who requests a trade.

There is no distinction between SVN and non-SVN owner inventory. The prime weeks are selected for use by Starwood. *Starwood exclusively benefits from these*."

These are very serious allegations.  Are you sure:

1.  That it is the SVO pool (and not the retained Starwood unsold units - usually about 10% of inventory).

2.   Assuming it is not retained Starwood units that are used, that the resort HOA (not all are Starwood controlled) has no idea or control over what units are selected.

3.   There is not an in lieu payment made to the resort of the equivalent of 1/2 the net rental (not suggesting that it would be adequate of the units are really cherry-picked).

As a practical matter, do you have an opinion how many SPG people would use Starpoints to go to the SVO resort as opposed to a Starwood hotel?   ...   eom


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 21, 2010)

*Svn and non svn?*

Fred:

I'm a bit confused...are you saying that outside exchange companies like II have the access to the same units that SVN owners have at the 8 month window?  
I did an internal exchange with SVN...KORV S to KORV N for 18 nights.  I lost my view categories and exchanged into a studio in the North for approx. 170,000 StarOptions.  We did not have to move.  I made the call at 9 am on the first morning of the 8 month window.  I did get Island View, but it was in Building 6 - Floor Six corner unit and we did have an Ocean View from the deck and the room.

Are you saying that Starwood holds the better units to rent out or to use for SPG points?  If so I don't agree...they mostly rent out island view units or keep them for promotions.  I've questioned the management at KORVN more than once and they assure us that the Ocean Front are always reserved for owners...and there is no shortage of reservations by owners.  

If they are doing this what is the advantage to them?  Are they renting these to for high hotel room nights or using up Starwood Points...
Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see the value to Starwood here.


----------



## pathways25 (Apr 21, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> Are you saying that Starwood holds the better units to rent out or to use for SPG points?  If so I don't agree...they mostly rent out island view units or keep them for promotions.  I've questioned the management at KORVN more than once and they assure us that the Ocean Front are always reserved for owners...and there is no shortage of reservations by owners.



At the owner's update that I went to last week, the sales guy told us that renters get the rooms with the crummiest views.  The idea was that the renters would then investigate how they could get into rooms with better views by buying.  He said it was a pretty effective sales strategy.  

Makes sense to me...


----------



## James1975NY (Apr 21, 2010)

jeromechen said:


> At the owner's update that I went to last week, the sales guy told us that renters get the rooms with the crummiest views.  The idea was that the renters would then investigate how they could get into rooms with better views by buying.  He said it was a pretty effective sales strategy.
> 
> Makes sense to me...



The only problem with that statement is that I can get online and rent rooms at WKORV or WKORV-N based on view. I will pay more for better views but I can choose to do so.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 21, 2010)

jeromechen said:


> At the owner's update that I went to last week, the sales guy told us that renters get the rooms with the crummiest views.  The idea was that the renters would then investigate how they could get into rooms with better views by buying.  He said it was a pretty effective sales strategy.
> 
> Makes sense to me...



Sorry...I don't believe this at all.


----------



## James1975NY (Apr 21, 2010)

jarta said:


> Fredm,   ...   "From the *same pool* of inventory, weeks are allocated in anticipation of StarPoint conversions. ... *Starwood cherry picks which inventory it reserves for StarPoint conversions*. Among the inventory available for this purpose is the use-week surrendered by the non-SVN owner who requests a trade.
> 
> There is no distinction between SVN and non-SVN owner inventory. The prime weeks are selected for use by Starwood. *Starwood exclusively benefits from these*."





jarta said:


> These are very serious allegations.  Are you sure:
> 
> 1.  That it is the SVO pool (and not the retained Starwood unsold units - usually about 10% of inventory).



SVO does NOT use their owned inventory for purposes of paying the bill for owner conversions to SPG points. They will use their inventory for straight rental and cover their HOA portion, pocket the money.

SVO budgets in advance what the pay-back cost will be for SPG redemption. They will in advance select inventory that will adequately cover the bill. They also realize what the peak demand weeks are and will NOT kill the pool of inventory "because they can". They are conscious of owner demand and work to balance owner usage and SPG conversion effectively.



jarta said:


> 2.   Assuming it is not retained Starwood units that are used, that the resort HOA (not all are Starwood controlled) has no idea or control over what units are selected.



Correct. I would expound here but I do not fully understand if there is a question here or simply a statment.


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 21, 2010)

If I was visiting on a promotional presentation, and I got the worst possible view, that would encourage me NOT to do business. If I am already being treated like sh*t before being asked to fork over, literally, thousands of dollars, that would make me think twice about dealing with a company. Once I am tied to them the treatment will only get worse. You would think they would put you in the best possible view so that you will want that, "try before you buy" and all that. Typical for starwood.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 21, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> > I'm a bit confused...are you saying that outside exchange companies like II have the access to the same units that SVN owners have at the 8 month window?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 21, 2010)

*Continuing this thought*

To end my confusion,

What the discussion seems to be is that:

I book my Ocean Front or similar for a prime week, in any SVN resort.  Then I decide I can't go but want to deposit the week with II.  When I make my deposit II does not honor the fact that my reservation is for a prime week, but just drops in a pool with all the others and I lose a perceived value to the reservation.  

Then Starwood takes that reserved week and rents it/does something or other with it and reaps the value that should be mine in an II exchange.....is that what you are talking about?   So if I wanted to exchange into a Marriott resort at the same type of Prime unit I would get no consideration for my Hot Red Week?  and you are saying that this is a Starwood prerequisite.  and Starwood pays the annual fee to Interval, but the SVN owner pays the exchange fee.

OR is the issue that only non-desirable rooms/views are available to II exchangers INTO Starwood properties? and keep the prime roms for their use?  I used StarOptions once for a one night stay at KORVN on a quick flight over from Oahu and it was a pretty bad room, ADA room right over the childrens pirate pool.  I also sent someone there on the promotion and they also got the pirate pool area!!  Another time I reserved a 2 bedroom through II at SVV and they liked it (not much money for them), but seeing the photos I could tell it was probably an older room.   

I own a resort week at a non-SVN and I deposit it with II.  It is White time, not desirable, but my experiences with exchanging with both RCI and II, have not been good, I hope not to have to use them at all.  
As someone who worked in hotels in the 70s and 80s (ancient history) we tried our best to please the customers who were standing in front of us at the front desk.  I'm not at the Starwood front desk so I can't speak for them, but I do think they treat their owners well, and hopefully not at the expense of exchangers/renters.

I've been trying to understand this issue for a while and I THINK I might have it at this point?????
Marie


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 21, 2010)

Marie - with a mandatory resort, you have never been able to reserve and deposit a week with II.

This is what happens [with your mandatory week]:

You reserve your ocean front  2 bdm. unit for 4th of July with Starwood.

6 mos. later you decide that airfare is too high, and you are going to deposit it with II instead.

You call Starwood and cancel the Resv. - that week goes back into the pot, and you no longer have any claim on it.

Starwood notifies II that you are going to use you week for a trade, and II puts a generic place holder in your acct. to trade with.  It's not a real week - it is a generic token, that has the average trading power of the resort/season you own.  It will not be designated "ocean front."

Once you make an exchange, Starwood will give II an actual week, but we don't know what.  We do know it won't be designated for any particular view - it won't be ocean front or a holiday week, like the Resv. you canceled.

Then, when the person who exchanges for that week arrives at the resort, the desk can assign them any unit of the right size.  As a II trader they are most likely to get an island view, or if the resort isn't full, maybe an ocean view.  They are very unlikely to get ocean front, because every Starwood owner, and SVN exchanger there that week, has more priority than they do.

What happens to the OF week you own?  That's what we are debating here.  That week goes back into the mysterious pot of weeks controlled by Starwood.

So what's the big deal?  

Before the rules changed, voluntary week owners could reserve and deposit the week of their choice, and therefore could actually deposit a prime week to get the most trading power.  So you could deposit a 4th of July week, if that was a prime week at your resort.  Now, Starwood gives you a week that has the average trading power of the season you own.  So if you own a week that's 1-52, then your trading power is the average of all 52 weeks.


----------



## jarta (Apr 21, 2010)

DeniseM,   ...   "What happens to the OF week you own? That's what we are debating here. That week goes back into the mysterious pot of weeks controlled by Starwood."

Yes, but then Fredm went beyond that. To him it is not mysterious.  Here's what he said:

"The argument that the inventory remains in the reservation pool for access by all owners does not address several pertinent issues.

- *Starwood cherry picks which inventory it reserves for StarPoint conversions*. Among the inventory available for this purpose is the use-week surrendered by the non-SVN owner who requests a trade.
There is no distinction between SVN and non-SVN owner inventory. *The prime weeks are selected for use by Starwood. Starwood exclusively benefits from these*."

Then, Fredm adds:

"Yes, non-SVN owners who do not exchange may request a reservation at their home resort. So what? At the 8 month window they must compete with SVN owners who do not own there. *It is not as if home resort owners can graze upon the pasture of home resort inventory. If they could, there would not be an issue in this regard*. No other system in the entire industry relegates home resort owners to second class status, as this does."

Again, this is true at the 8 month window.  That is the SVN system.  However, non-SVN owners have the same right to reserve any available week during the 12-8 month window on the same basis as SVN owners.  Nothing prevents a SVN or non-SVN owner from grazing on the pasture of home resort inventory in the 12-8 month window.  In fact, isn't that what they usually do because the competition is limited to home resort owners in that season?

And letting in SVN owners to reserve in the 8-0 month window is entirely unrelated to any statement that Starwood is poaching the prime weeks from the SVO pool for Starpoint use by SPG members.  Perhaps that's the reason for the confusion concerning what Fredm posted.   ...   eom


----------



## barndweller (Apr 21, 2010)

Jarta said





> And letting in SVN owners to reserve in the 8-0 month window is entirely unrelated to any statement that Starwood is poaching the prime weeks from the SVO pool for Starpoint use by SPG members.



So...what is the justification for denying non-SVN members from holding their reservation while placing a request first at II? Under the old system at II we held our reservation like every other subscriber to II. Now, Starwood makes us give up our reserved time. WHY?


----------



## Fredm (Apr 21, 2010)

Marie, while everything Denise has said is so, my part of this discussion relates to how non-SVN inventory is handled. Specifically, how it benefits Starwood and SVN members at the expense of non-SVN owners.

I am sorry that a certain understanding of the Starwood system is necessary to follow my comments.

I do think that my posts # 37, 51, 65, and 76 cover the matter.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 21, 2010)

Marie,

At Fred's request, I'll try to explain the issues/questionable practices.  The discussion is more about the "bigger picture" than any one owners' view, II rights, etc.

-- Only WKORV/N owners are entitled to the view they purchased and only if a week in their view category is available when making a reservation between 8 and 12 months.

-- At Marriott and Hyatt (Starwood's 2 biggest competitors that also do business with II), an owner can keep his/her reservation and make a "request first" with II.  One of three things generally happens thereafter:

(a)The owner's request is filled.  At Marriott, the exact reserved week is deposited to II.  The person who trades into the Marriott is not guaranteed the view category (there's always small print), but Marriott deposits are coded with a view and in virtually all cases, the exchanger gets the view assigned to the particular owner's week.  With Hyatt, the exact week may not be deposited as Hyatt owners use points for II deposits -- sort of a hybrid between Marriott and Starwood.  But, the important point is that the Hyatt owner can keep his/her reservation while the II request is pending.  He/she realistically doesn't care what happens on the other side.

(b) The owner sees something else they want with the deposit, makes an instant exchange, and the same exact things happen as described above in (a).

(c) The owner's II request is never filled and they never find anything else they want.  The Marriott and Hyatt owners then use their originally reserved weeks.  That's what "Request First" is all about, and it gives II a huge competitive advantage over RCI.  But, Starwood owners lose their reserved week (and corresponding view category if applicable) when they make the II request.  If a Starwood owner cancels the II request before the 8-month mark, they have a chance of obtaining a similar reservation (and view category, if applicable, albeit with a less desirable timestamp) at their home request.  But, once the 8-month passes, they're subject to SVN trades based on availability.

There's a reason Starwood chose to require owners to cancel reservations.  No one is sure what it is, but it's not good for the owners involved (whether SVN or non-SVN).  Therefore, it leads to speculation that it benefits Starwood.  Note that they can't just rent weeks at whim once an owner makes an II request.  But, they can rent owner weeks once a certain date passes (usually 60 days, but check your resorts' documentation to be sure).  So, there is some benefit to Starwood when weeks go unreserved.  Realistically speaking, all available "good weeks" will be gobbled up by other Starwood owners at the 8-month mark, so it's not as if Starwood has free reign to start renting weeks originally reserved by owners who subsequently make II requests.  But, when II requests are initiated later in the game, there's a much greater chance that "unreserved good weeks" will exist under the new policies than the old policies.  This is not an accusation -- it's simply common sense based on what we know (how the new rules were designed) and what we don't know (why did they choose to remove II's most popular feature from their owner base?).  

That's one issue.

A second and completely separate issue is rental inventory.  Starwood can only rent units as follows:

(a)  Inventory they own.  No one questions their right to rent their own inventory.  But, there are two questionable practices -- questionable due to lack of transparency.  (1) Do they have a head start at making reservations for prime float weeks (i.e., do they make their reservations BEFORE the call center opens at 9:00 AM).  (2)  Do they rent their weeks ahead of those rentals designed to benefit owners (see below).  *I'm not accusing them of either of these practices.  I'm just stating what we don't know due to lack of transparency, which leads to speculation.*  There are recent accusations on the Marriott board regarding Marriott and head starts.  I don't think it's possible to prove any bad behavior without a full-scale reservation audit.  

(b)  Inventory on behalf of owners.  In this case, an owner would make a reservation and then ask Starwood to rent it for them.  Starwood keeps a hefty percentage, but it can be lucrative for owners at some of the most popular resorts during the most popular weeks.  No room for bad behavior unless Starwood doesn't have a clearly defined rental priority policy -- see (2) above.  

(c)  Lockout weeks when owners haven't paid their fees.  Starwood has not published details with regard to how this process works.  It can't be completely straight-forward where float weeks are involved.  If reservations aren't made for the rental pool before the 8-month mark, all good rental opportunities will be gobbled up by SVN trades -- yet the owners at any particular resort deserve to have the best efforts made to obtain rental revenue to offset the delinquencies.  Starwood needs to be WAY more transparent on this issue.  I'm told details are forthcoming for WSJ, which I'm very anxious to see.

(d)  Unreserved weeks -- again, usually at the 60-day mark, but check your resorts' documentation for an accurate date.  As any timeshare matures, people lose interest.  Weeks go unreserved.  Starwood benefits from this (as does any developer/manager).  I don't think anyone has an issue with it except to the extent that policies (such as the II policy and the liberal cancellation policy) are designed in a way that could lead to more good weeks being eligible for Starwood rentals (as opposed to rentals to offset delinquencies, for example.).  Again, I'm not making any accusations, just trying to explain the speculation due to lack of transparency.

(e)  Starwood is permitted to reserve weeks for rental in anticipation of SPG conversions.  Above, James states, "<Starwood realizes> what the peak demand weeks are and will NOT kill the pool of inventory 'because they can'. They are conscious of owner demand and work to balance owner usage and SPG conversion effectively."  Transparency on this issue would go further than James' word -- nothing against James, of course.  The bottom line is "they can" and they don't provide owners with any sort of reconciliation.

The bottom line is that "straight week-for-week" timeshares do not have most of these issues.  There are a lot of benefits to having a network, but the network also provides Starwood with a tremendous amount of "wiggle room" to make additional money.  Is that a bad thing?  If you're a shareholder, no.  If you're an owner ... maybe.  

Marriott owners who are in favor of a new point system might want to "be careful what you wish for."  They essentially have an internal trading system now through II.  Yes, some owners may be able to get "2 weeks for 1" with a new point system, but they have some version of that now with ACs (bonus weeks they get that Starwood doesn't negotiate into their II contract).  In my opinion, the "wiggle room" that comes with a "club system" is not necessarily better than what Marriott has now.

I hope this helps.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 21, 2010)

Note to Fred:  PLEASE feel free to correct any inaccuracies in the above.  I don't want to misrepresent what you were trying to say.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 21, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Marie, while everything Denise has said is so, my part of this discussion relates to how non-SVN inventory is handled. Specifically, how it benefits Starwood and SVN members at the expense of non-SVN owners.



Sorry - I should have clarified that.  I was trying to explain to Marie what HER situation is, since she asked what happens when she deposits her OF WKORV week.


----------



## oneohana (Apr 22, 2010)

*Of Wlr*

Has anyone else been offered a OF WLR? They tried to get me to upgrade my other WLR units for an OF for $16k. All I had available to retro was a SDO 1-52 float week. If I had a true platinum SDO week, that would've been tempting (178K *options for $16k and no added mf's).


----------



## jarta (Apr 22, 2010)

barndweller,   ...   See DeniseM's response 87.  I drafted mine without re-reading hers.  Her response is more succinct.   ...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Apr 22, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Note to Fred:  PLEASE feel free to correct any inaccuracies in the above.  I don't want to misrepresent what you were trying to say.



Thanks jerseygirl.

You have represented all accurately.

I will only add that there seems to be some objection to statements of fact I have made. I stand behind them.

The operator does "anticipate" demand for StarPoints conversions.  It selects inventory in advance. The very definition of the term "cherry picking".
There is nothing wrong with this practice IMO. All the branded companies do it. As mentioned in a prior post, it is the house advantage.
 The operator is the exclusive beneficiary of these weeks. They are disposed of to the exclusive benefit of the operator. They paid for them with StarPoints.

While some seem to think this is a serious allegation, it is nothing of the sort. It is simply a statement of fact. 

HOWEVER, the operator takes this common and recognized practice one step too far. Among the pool of available inventory are the weeks the operator retains in the pool because of external exchange requests. These are also "anticipated".  The operator has the sole discretion of what physical weeks are surrendered to I.I.  Not the owner.

The ultimate disposition of these retained weeks is the issue. Without question, they are either selected for StarPoints conversion, or allocated to fill StarOptions exchange requests. Non-SVN owners have contributed inventory to both, and benefits from neither. Starwood utilizes this inventory to further is ends. That is not an accusation. I am merely explaining it.

That others may not have pondered the implication of the practice is for them to consider. I am simply stating that, IMO, it is not fair. 

Likewise, regarding the 8 month reservation window. It is the SVN system. A home resort owner must compete with SVN owners system-wide to make a reservation at their home resort. That is the system. No argument. BUT, non-SVN owners do not get reciprocal rights..  Either allow all to participate, or, provide the home resort owner with preemptive reservation rights up to the 60 day window. They have neither. Again, not fair IMO. 

My explanation of the system are statements of fact. They are not arguable. (except for my opinion that they are unfair to non-SVN owners).


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks for further clarifying Fred.

I am curious about one thing.  Do you not think that any of these practices may also ultimately be disadvantageous to SVN members as well, despite the fact that we authorized them upon purchase?  I don't mean "wrong/illegal/etc." -- just not necessarily in the best interests of *any* owner, whether SVN or non-SVN.  Would like your opinion.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 22, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Thanks for further clarifying Fred.
> 
> I am curious about one thing.  Do you not think that any of these practices may also ultimately be disadvantageous to SVN members as well, despite the fact that we authorized them upon purchase?  I don't mean "wrong/illegal/etc." -- just not necessarily in the best interests of *any* owner, whether SVN or non-SVN.  Would like your opinion.



That's a good question.
Those who are SVN members have an obvious advantage in the Starwood system. Seen from their perspective the system may work quite well.

 I.I. exchange methodology does limit the utility of ownership for all. I have opined in this thread that it has made Starwood shares competitively less desirable on the secondary market. How much it has affected price is hard to tell. But, it is a negative for all.

The disastrous impact on Voluntary resort resale prices, caused by the very issues I have been discussing here, has resulted in a number of "upside down" owners.  In the current economic dislocation it is not unreasonable to assume that this has contributed to the number of foreclosures and other non-performing shares. The burden, therefore, falls on all performing owners at a given resort.

Finally, in non-economic terms, there is little question that withholding prime inventory from I.I. diminishes the external exchange experience for all owners. You must remember that although SVN members can request an exchange internally at 8 months, some would prefer to plan and secure an exchange in advance of 8 months. 
Having been intimately involved in the industry for many years I can say with some conviction, a system that encourages owner control of their reservation results in a more vibrant and pleasing owner experience, overall. Of course, YMMV. A large number of  owners are quite pleased with the status quo.


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 22, 2010)

*Thanks all*

Thanks for all the clarification....it is obvious that Starwood Owners benefit under the present system, at least as far as exchanging/reserving is involved.  

It probably does impact some resale value and it also might reflect the fact that Starwood does not have as many resorts as Marriott so they hold on to whatever inventory they can get.  

It took me 3 years to finally understand how they handle the rooms at the KORV north and south and now I do have a better experience.   

Marie


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 22, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> Thanks for all the clarification....it is obvious that Starwood Owners benefit under the present system, at least as far as exchanging/reserving is involved.



Marie - I'm sorry, but I think you missed our point.  The new II/Starwood system is not good for owners - it's good for Starwood, because it gives them control of our timeshares, with little or no transparency, and it takes away valuable exchanging rights, from owners.


----------



## gregb (Apr 22, 2010)

Fredm said:


> HOWEVER, the operator takes this common and recognized practice one step too far. Among the pool of available inventory are the weeks the operator retains in the pool because of external exchange requests. These are also "anticipated".  The operator has the sole discretion of what physical weeks are surrendered to I.I.  Not the owner.
> 
> The ultimate disposition of these retained weeks is the issue. Without question, they are either selected for StarPoints conversion, or allocated to fill StarOptions exchange requests. Non-SVN owners have contributed inventory to both, and benefits from neither. Starwood utilizes this inventory to further is ends. That is not an accusation. I am merely explaining it.



So I think what you are saying is that the operator pulls a set of weeks out of the general reservation pool to satisfy "anticipated" Starpoint and Staroption conversions.  Lets give that pool a name, how about Conversions pool?  The operator selects which weeks will be pulled out of the general reservation pool and put into the Conversions pool.  This I understand.  

You then say that Starwood uses the units in the Conversions pool to further its own ends.  From what I understand, Starwood uses those weeks to fulfill II exchange requests and to rent out to recover the costs of the StarOptions conversions.  You already agreed that renting out units to recover the StarOptions conversions is an accepted and expected practice.  So I don't see how Starwood providing units to II to fulfill owner trades in II furthers Starwood's ends.  I see it as fulfilling its obligations.



> Likewise, regarding the 8 month reservation window. It is the SVN system. A home resort owner must compete with SVN owners system-wide to make a reservation at their home resort. That is the system. No argument. BUT, non-SVN owners do not get reciprocal rights..  Either allow all to participate, or, provide the home resort owner with preemptive reservation rights up to the 60 day window. They have neither. Again, not fair IMO.



Sorry but I don't agree here.  When you purchase a unit in the resale market, you pay a lower cost than if you purchase from the operator.  However, buying at the lower cost means you give up some features.  It is kind of like buying a Chevy and then being disappointed because it doesn't have all the options that the Cadillac has.  If you want the Cadillac options, they you have to buy the Cadillac.

Greg


----------



## Fredm (Apr 22, 2010)

gregb said:


> > From what I understand, Starwood uses those weeks to fulfill II exchange requests and to rent out to recover the costs of the StarOptions conversions.  You already agreed that renting out units to recover the StarOptions conversions is an accepted and expected practice.  So I don't see how Starwood providing units to II to fulfill owner trades in II furthers Starwood's ends.  I see it as fulfilling its obligations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 22, 2010)

The first issue that is critical to understand is that within a season, there are 1) cherry weeks (holidays and other high demand), 2) middle of the road weeks (average demand for the season), and 3) relative dog weeks (lesser demand for that season). Assuming there are 3 seasons being sold at a resort, there are 9 bands of differently valued weeks. There may be more or less in real life, but let's use this rubric for now.

The issue is not that a conversion pool exists, it's what in there. More precisely, this should be thought of as two pools, the "conversion to starpoints" pool, which then become available for starwood to rent out. This strictly consists of SVN owners' surrendered weeks. What has been stated is that starwood 'cherry picks' the best weeks to put in this pool to maximize rental revenues. These will be the category 1 weeks from my example above, for each respective season. There is a second pool, let's call it the "surrender to ii" pool. In theory, we are told that starwood gives ii a generic week of average power, which would imply category 2 from my example. In actuality, it is more likely to be from category 3 - if only because the system is opaque and no one really knows what weeks are given to ii. 
So after the 8 month reservation mark, all svn owners can access what's left at resorts other than their own, whatever inventory is left to reserve - which is likely a blend of categories 2 and 3. The problem and complaint is that the inventory of non-svn owners is being put in that 8 month inventory that non-svn owners cannot access. 
Also, those that bought at resale bought a used cadillac, it is still the same product at heart, it's just that they try to strip the features off the car before selling it! Anyway, allowing all owners in to SVN would stop the bleeding on the horrific resale prices. Starwood created and exacerbated their $0 resale value themselves with this mandatory and voluntary nonsense.


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 22, 2010)

*Opinions of Value*

I do understand the point, I simply don't agree.

We are talking about 2 things here...experience and perceived value.  It is possible that Starwood is devaluing resale because of the way they handle exchanges.  That does not mean that the Starwood owner's experience using the property is devalued. The owners experience may actually be enhanced by restricting the best use to owners, particularly to owners who bought from the developer and not in the resale market.  This experience is subjective and particular to each owner.

Resale and how Starwood handles it is a different matter.  They probably would prefer that no units are sold in the resale market.  It does affect their ability to sell to new owners or add inventory to existing owners.  

Fred is right, it isn't fair, but it is reality.  

As owners we need to be looking at how we can retain value of our timeshare ownership..and perhaps offering more  forums to try and help people who are behind in fees and payments and help them keep their timeshares instead of dumping them on the market for pennies on the dollar.  I know there are forums for it, but perhaps TUG could mention it more in the newsletter or just do a brainstorming session.


----------



## gregb (Apr 23, 2010)

Fred,

I thought that you had agreed that Starwood renting out weeks from what I called the Conversion Pool to was OK to cover the weeks they had turned into StarOptions.  You said:



> The operator does "anticipate" demand for StarPoints conversions. It selects inventory in advance. The very definition of the term "cherry picking".
> There is nothing wrong with this practice IMO. All the branded companies do it. As mentioned in a prior post, it is the house advantage.
> The operator is the exclusive beneficiary of these weeks. They are disposed of to the exclusive benefit of the operator. They paid for them with StarPoints.



But I guess I was wrong.

From my perspective, SVN vs non-SVN is directly tied to developer sales vs resales for voluntary resorts.  The only way that you become a non-SVN owner is to purchase resale.  We all believe that Starwood makes the resorts voluntary is so the developer can demand a higher price than resale.  Without some added value, why would anyone buy from the developer?  Now one can discuss if the actual value of SVN is worth the big difference in price between resale and developer sales.  But that is not the discussion at this point.

I believe that mandatory resorts are holding their value on the resale market better than voluntary resorts.  That difference in value, I believe, can be attributed to the value of being in SVN. 

If I understand your suggestion correctly, after the 12-8 month owner reservation window, Starwood should segregate the remaining inventory into SVN and non-SVN weeks and only allow SVN members from other resorts to use weeks from the SVN pool.  Is that correct? 

The reason for this is because non-SVN owners do not have the same ability to reserve weeks at another resort that SVN owners do.  So allowing SVN owners to reserve units from the non-SVN pool is transferring value to Starwood?  

First, I don't see how Starwood could realistically divide the floating week inventory into SVN and non-SVN weeks.  No matter how they did, someone would complain that it was unfair.  

Second, I don't really see how this transfers value to Starwood.  Rather, if anyone gets value, it is other SVN owners, not Starwood.

And third, this is difference between SVN and non-SVN is one of the reasons one buys a voluntary resort from the developer and not resale.

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Apr 23, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> We are talking about 2 things here...experience and perceived value.  It is possible that Starwood is devaluing resale because of the way they handle exchanges.  That does not mean that the Starwood owner's experience using the property is devalued...



I guess I disagree here.

If I lose $5000 in Vegas playing blackjack does it make it any better is my experience is enhanced by getting a comped suite and "free" cocktails? At the end of the day I still lost $5000...

Because of Starwood's changes and MF hikes, many owners lost 30K-$40K over a short 5 year period after they bought *resale* on Maui, not to mention the owners who bought directly from Starwood and lost even more over the same period (most of it on day 8)... Excluding the fuzzy math that values 12,000 SPs in Europe at $1500 or Harborside weeks at AFF rental rates (or a comped suite and a few cocktails at $5000), pretty much all those owners would have been better off renting than buying, and would have had the same experience and a lot more money left in their pockets...

The fact that it's a "paper" loss doesn't change anything. If Starwood does something that truly benefits owners it would be reflected in resale prices (because a new owner would get the alleged benefit, so even a competitive ebay auction would bid up prices). The fact that it's not reflected in resale prices means there was no real value added... Prices going down can only imply value of ownership was reduced.


----------



## gregb (Apr 23, 2010)

alexadeparis said:


> The first issue that is critical to understand is that within a season, there are 1) cherry weeks (holidays and other high demand), 2) middle of the road weeks (average demand for the season), and 3) relative dog weeks (lesser demand for that season). Assuming there are 3 seasons being sold at a resort, there are 9 bands of differently valued weeks. There may be more or less in real life, but let's use this rubric for now.
> 
> The issue is not that a conversion pool exists, it's what in there. More precisely, this should be thought of as two pools, the "conversion to starpoints" pool, which then become available for starwood to rent out. This strictly consists of SVN owners' surrendered weeks. What has been stated is that starwood 'cherry picks' the best weeks to put in this pool to maximize rental revenues.


That has been asserted several times.  But just saying it is so does not make it so. In fact, as far as I can tell, we do not know how Starwood selects the weeks that they put into the "conversion to starpoints" pool for rental.  So to state as fact that they take the best weeks may not be fair.



> These will be the category 1 weeks from my example above, for each respective season. There is a second pool, let's call it the "surrender to ii" pool. In theory, we are told that starwood gives ii a generic week of average power, which would imply category 2 from my example. In actuality, it is more likely to be from category 3 - if only because the system is opaque and no one really knows what weeks are given to ii.
> So after the 8 month reservation mark, all svn owners can access what's left at resorts other than their own, whatever inventory is left to reserve - which is likely a blend of categories 2 and 3. The problem and complaint is that the inventory of non-svn owners is being put in that 8 month inventory that non-svn owners cannot access.



Correct me if I am wrong, but a non-SVN owner may still reserve a week at her home resort after the 8 month reservation mark.  So I don't see now they are not able to access the pool.  Now it is true they cannot access inventory at other resorts.  But that is what membership in SVN is all about.



> Also, those that bought at resale bought a used cadillac, it is still the same product at heart, it's just that they try to strip the features off the car before selling it! Anyway, allowing all owners in to SVN would stop the bleeding on the horrific resale prices. Starwood created and exacerbated their $0 resale value themselves with this mandatory and voluntary nonsense.



I believe Starwood would like all resorts to be voluntary.  It gives them more value for purchasing from the developer.

Greg


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 23, 2010)

> The owners experience may actually be enhanced by restricting the best use to owners, particularly to owners who bought from the developer and not in the resale market.



I'm not sure what you mean by this, but under the current rules, Starwood cannot and does not restrict the best use to owners who bought from the developer.  You know that you don't have to buy from the developer to be in the SVN, right?  For instance, all resale owners at WKORV and WKORVN, where you own, belong to the SVN, and can reserve their home resort, make SO exchanges, and II exchanges exactly like you can.  They have the same access that you do to the "best use."

Marie - Let me ask you a slightly different question on this issue:   If you deposit your prime week with II, are you OK with it if Starwood gives II an off-season, low-demand week, puts your prime week in their rental pool, rents it, and pockets the money?  Does that enhance your owner experience?


----------



## DanCali (Apr 23, 2010)

gregb said:


> That has been asserted several times.  But just saying it is so does not make it so. In fact, as far as I can tell, we do not know how Starwood selects the weeks that they put into the "conversion to starpoints" pool for rental.  So to state as fact that they take the best weeks may not be fair.



Sure - that's what jarta has been arguing too. But unless Starwood increases transparency or allows us (owners) to audit their inventory management then we can only infer what is happening. If we make the reasonable assumption that they try to maximize profits then these assertions explain the obscurity. Otherwise, why change a working system.



gregb said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but a non-SVN owner may still reserve a week at her home resort after the 8 month reservation mark.  So I don't see now they are not able to access the pool.  Now it is true they cannot access inventory at other resorts.  But that is what membership in SVN is all about.



Here is an example (I think) - Take a Platinum WMH and assume, for simplicity, it includes only weeks 1-21 (exclude 50-52). In theory, you could get to Oct 1 of the previous year (or whenever the SP window opens for week 21) and all the platinum season gets filled up with SVN exchangers. If you are a resale owner in that season you would be unable to book a reservation if you planned to book an April week in December. You can still hope for a cancellation, but otherwise you are forced to deposit in II or forfeit your week. This would not happen if the non-SVN inventory was separated.

Note that in my example above even if the inventory was separated, you may not have April weeks available in December but at least you'd be guaranteed a week in your season was available (as long as you book before the season starts)...



gregb said:


> I believe Starwood would like all resorts to be voluntary.  It gives them more value for purchasing from the developer.



Sure they would - but the internet is changing the game. The days of selling to clueless buyers who are ok with losing 95% of their investment because they think it actually appreciates are coming to an end.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

No one should overlook the obvious problems that occur (increased delinquencies) when it becomes impossible to sell one's ownership or ownership no longer has value.  That affects ALL remaining owners.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 23, 2010)

jarta said:


> These are very serious allegations.  Are you sure:
> 2.   Assuming it is not retained Starwood units that are used, that the resort HOA (not all are Starwood controlled) has no idea or control over what units are selected.





James1975NY said:


> Correct. I would expound here but I do not fully understand if there is a question here or simply a statment.



Jim - I'd really appreciate it if you would expound on this - with your expertise, I think you could shed some light on this for us - thanks!


----------



## gregb (Apr 23, 2010)

> [Quote DanCali]  Here is an example (I think) - Take a Platinum WMH and assume, for simplicity, it includes only weeks 1-21 (exclude 50-52). In theory, you could get to Oct 1 of the previous year (or whenever the SP window opens for week 21) and all the platinum season gets filled up with SVN exchangers. If you are a resale owner in that season you would be unable to book a reservation if you planned to book an April week in December. You can still hope for a cancellation, but otherwise you are forced to deposit in II or forfeit your week. This would not happen if the non-SVN inventory was separated.
> 
> Note that in my example above even if the inventory was separated, you may not have April weeks available in December but at least you'd be guaranteed a week in your season was available (as long as you book before the season starts)...



DanCali,  this is an interesting example.  I own at WKORVN, which does not have seasons, so I had not considered how seasons affect things.

In theory, it is possible for anyone in a floating week system to get frozen out.  Here is an example of how.  For simplicity lets work with a single unit, with 52 owners.  (This is equivalent to a sold out resort.)  Now assume that for the first week of the year, none of the 52 owners wanted to stay in the unit, so it remained empty (or was rented to a non-owner).  At this point, there are 52 owners wanting a week during the year, but only 51 weeks are available.  Someone is not going to get a week.  

Now when you consider that resorts are almost never completely sold out (developer may keep units for rental), and there are many more than a single unit, and not every owner wants to stay at their home resort, the probabilities of this happening are next to nil.  But it is possible.

So the question becomes, how often does the scenario you describe actually happen?  

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Apr 23, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Note that in my example above even if the inventory was separated, you may not have April weeks available in December but at least you'd be guaranteed a week in your season was available (as long as you book before the season starts)...






gregb said:


> In theory, it is possible for anyone in a floating week system to get frozen out.



I realize this can happen - that is why I emphasized that my example is most illustrative if you assume you want to book before your season starts. If inventory was separated you cannot get locked out in that case, while in the current system you can.

How often does it happen? I don't know... As luck would have the it most highly demanded resorts (for reservation purposes) are mandatory, with the exception of WSJ phase II. I would not be surprised if some of the Platinum and Gold season owners who don't book there at least 8 months in advance get locked out by SVN exchangers. If we had more transparency, we could answer that question better...


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 23, 2010)

*Trading*

If I could not go to my resort and could not rent it and did not want to exchange into another 
SVN resort or convert to Starwood Points then as a last resort I would deposit with II.

I have done that with a Wyndham resort and a Cape Cod resort (low season) and the experience as not been good.  I would consider an II deposit a last resort and worse case scenario and my expectation of what I would get for any week is considerably low.  So I may not be the one to ask that question.

And, just a quick return to my other point....in every newsletter I get from TUG they highlight that timeshares can be bought for almost nothing.. see below from this week's newsletter

_*This thread is a PERFECT example of someone yet again finding TUG in time to discover the resale market, and avoid what could be an extremely expensive purchase from the developer when they could find the exact same item for pennies on the dollar in the resale market*_! 

TUG seems to promote keeping timeshare resales very low.  I would suggest again that more time spent on TUG helping owners keep their resorts rather than dumping them on the market for "pennies on the dollar" would be a great idea.  Saying buy as low as possible, but expect all the benefits that people who paid a lot more than you did is disingenuous.  

Perhaps an article like:  What to do when you can't pay your fees" might help some owners.or your loan...there seems to be a number of people with timeshare sales,etc. background here.  This might also stop the bleeding of timeshare resales in premium resorts faster than getting Starwood to change their reservation system.


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 23, 2010)

*A couple of random points. . .*

1) Palua, I can assume you bought from the developer. No one here has a problem with that, per se. You talk a lot about helping owners keep their weeks. If this starwood timeshare is supposedly as valuable as the developer price initially paid (just because of the product's inherent use value) then no one would have to worry about resale prices, they would be very high. They are NOT high in voluntary resorts because steps have been taken by the developer to devalue onwership. If you purchased a voluntary resort from the developer, this wouldn't bother you until you needed to sell. Then I guarantee getting $1 for your timeshare would bother you quite a bit. In what other industry can a developer continue to resell the same (used) inventory at full boat? In the condo industry? No, once a building is sold out, the owners there can resell at will and there is nothing the developer can do about it. In the used car business, then? No, once the car leaves the lot, the manufacturer has zero control over how many times it gets sold after that. In both the examples above, the manufacturer/developer made their profit once already. What is it about timeshares that people think the developer should make more money repeatedly on the same interval? 

2)To the teeming millions that do not think so, Starwood is a business with shareholders, not a hippie co-op/collective/charity. To say that because we can't prove that Starwood is cherry picking weeks for their spg conversions or for their own holdings, that it's not happening; or worse, that somehow that's a serious allegation against Starwood, makes little sense. If Starwood were your business, you would a) craft the rules so you have a house advantage, even if almost imperceptible, b) maximize your profits at all times and c) put the shareholders ahead of the users (timeshare interval owners) because its the shareholders that hold the purse strings. And if you also had starwood's apparent goal of minimizing resales, you would also d) create an advantage for SVN users over non SVN users. And finally, you would e) find a way to control reservations and send all the undesirable stuff out the door to a third party (the new II rules). To think otherwise, or imagine that starwood or any timeshare business is going to altruistically save the best weeks for their users and keep the worst weeks for themselves, defies common sense and business sense. All these companies pay lawyers and mba's and other people to figure out exactly how to carry out in great detail, what I have very generally described above.


----------



## paluamalia (Apr 23, 2010)

Yes Starwood is a business, but owning timeshares is not a business...or is it?  

I didn't buy thinking I would need to sell, I bought it to use it.  If I am forced to sell in tough times I have to take a loss.  No one ever told me that I should expect my purchase of a timeshare to increase in value over time...they told me I would enjoy my vacations and I have.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

alexadeparis said:


> 2)To the teeming millions that do not think so, Starwood is a business with shareholders, not a hippie co-op/collective/charity. To say that because we can't prove that Starwood is cherry picking weeks for their spg conversions or for their own holdings, that it's not happening; or worse, that somehow that's a serious allegation against Starwood, makes little sense. If Starwood were your business, you would a) craft the rules so you have a house advantage, even if almost imperceptible, b) maximize your profits at all times and c) put the shareholders ahead of the users (timeshare interval owners) because its the shareholders that hold the purse strings. And if you also had starwood's apparent goal of minimizing resales, you would also d) create an advantage for SVN users over non SVN users. And finally, you would e) find a way to control reservations and send all the undesirable stuff out the door to a third party (the new II rules). To think otherwise, or imagine that starwood or any timeshare business is going to altruistically save the best weeks for their users and keep the worst weeks for themselves, defies common sense and business sense. All these companies pay lawyers and mba's and other people to figure out exactly how to carry out in great detail, what I have very generally described above.



Your points are very valid, but I don't completely agree.  If it were my business, I would also place a HUGE priority on keeping current customers happy.  


It's 6-7 times more expensive to gain a new customer than it is to retain an existing customer.
-- Source - Bain & Co study in the Harvard Business Review​-- Although not completely relevant since we become "sticky customers" by virtue of the product sold, I think this stat also says it's easier to sell to existing customers than it is to sell to new customers.​

Happy customers tell 4 others of their positive experience.  Dissatisfied customers tell 12 how bad it was.
-- Source - Business e-coach​-- This stat is probably completely outdated by the ever growing popularity of blogs, internet forums, etc.​

Companies that make customer service a high priority see twelve times the return on sales than those companies with a low emphasis on service.
--Source: International Customer Service Association​
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you're bored already, as am I!    My point is that the best companies understand that client loyalty and reputation are very linked to long-term profitability. 

I think Starwood has simply decided that it's impossible to turn a resale buyer into a developer buyer (they can't sell them on the value of the added benefits), so why bother to even try to keep them happy.  And, I can sort of understand that perspective.  But, where I think the're missing the boat is the harm their policies do to developer buyers who may need/want to sell at some future point.  To not care about that population is a big mistake.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> I didn't buy thinking I would need to sell, I bought it to use it.  If I am forced to sell in tough times I have to take a loss.  No one ever told me that I should expect my purchase of a timeshare to increase in value over time...they told me I would enjoy my vacations and I have.



That's very generous of you, but I'm not sure the people who have hugely upside-down loans, lost their jobs, etc. will necessarily agree with you.  And, when they default, it costs you more money -- significantly more money in some cases.  Maybe that's okay with you as well, but I own far too many to not care about the impact of defaults.


----------



## DanCali (Apr 23, 2010)

paluamalia said:


> No one ever told me that I should expect my purchase of a timeshare to increase in value over time...they told me I would enjoy my vacations and I have.



Did they tell you that your equity will depreciate at a rate of $10K-$15K a year? Would you still have bought from Starwood if they had told you that?


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 23, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Marie - Let me ask you a slightly different question on this issue:   If you deposit your prime week with II, are you OK with it if Starwood gives II an off-season, low-demand week, puts your prime week in their rental pool, rents it, and pockets the money?  Does that enhance your owner experience?





paluamalia said:


> If I could not go to my resort and could not rent it and did not want to exchange into another SVN resort or convert to Starwood Points then as a last resort I would deposit with II...  *So I may not be the one to ask that question*.



Marie - I understand that you wouldn't deposit your expensive OF Maui week with II - trading an expensive week like that would be a terrible waste, even with the SVN, because it's nearly impossible to get something of equal value in return.  

_What I'm really asking is what you think about the fact that Starwood can manipulate the inventory this way - even with a week that's not in the SVN?  Because that's what we are discussing here - the new II/Starwood rules, and how they benefit Starwood._


----------



## Fredm (Apr 23, 2010)

This is a difficult topic to explain without individuals seeing the system from their personal perspective. The bane of one owner may be the joy to another. Depends on how value is perceived through its use. 

To those that enjoy their ownership, all I can say is: great. One cannot ask more from the purchase. 

Nonetheless, the exchange methodology implemented last August, among other matters, has removed utility from the shares of all owners.  Even if you do not individually perceive it. System-wide, that is the case. 
To repeat an earlier comment, utility lost results in value captured by the operator across the entire system. 

Drilling down, in my attempt to explain the logistics of the matter, has caused inevitable comment from those that "disagree" simply because it is outside their individual experience. 
This is understandable. 

I suggest that rather than disagree, you consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Not as it relates to your personal experience. How the entire system works, and to the benefit of whom.

Want "proof"? Sorry, there are only system rules. Rules designed with great attention to an engineered outcome. I suggest that the "proof " lies in the abstractly logical outcome of the rules themselves. They exist for a reason. 

We pedestrians inevitably look to comparative models to get a relative understanding of how rules are implemented, who benefits, and how they are perceived by those that function under them.
Comparative models are a great way to actually see how different rules result in different outcomes. 

It is not hard to understand that a system that takes inventory from one owner, but does not permit that same owner to participate in the use of that system on equal terms, is rigged.
Justify (or explain it away) all you want. 

The outcome is this:
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=31

and this:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106264


Both have great resorts.
Both have service-oriented staffs.
Both charge a bunch for their product.
Both allow direct owners to exercise hotel loyalty point alternatives, and prohibit resale buyers from doing so.

Yet:
 The former has retained a higher resale value than the later.
 The former, based on yesterday's 1st Quarter conference call, obtains *45% of all new sales *from exisiting owners and their direct referrals.

The singular operational difference between them is how owner inventory is managed. 
The former absolutely respects owner use rights. 
They provide a reservation service, and gets out of the way. No if's, and's, or but's. 

The  former's "internal' exchange process is the most successful in the industry for its owners precisely because it is freely available to all, without  intervention, substitution, exclusion, etc. (just look at the survey results for an indication of this).

I cannot explain the logistics any clearer than I have in my prior posts.  Consider the possibility that the rules produce exactly what they are written to allow, or force to occur. Why would you not?


----------



## gregb (Apr 23, 2010)

> [Quote DanCali] I realize this can happen - that is why I emphasized that my example is most illustrative if you assume you want to book before your season starts. If inventory was separated you cannot get locked out in that case, while in the current system you can.



Actually, thinking about it some more, (I am an engineer, after all  ) there are other possibilities as well.  This is a zero sum game.  There are as many resort weeks as there are owners (counting multi-week owners as multiple owners for this discussion.)  Anytime a non-owner is allowed to reserve a week that was not first surrendered for an exchange by an owner, you get an imbalance in the owners -- weeks numbers, i.e. more owner interests than weeks available.  This can result in an owner, either SVN or non-SVN, not being able to reserve a week at their home resort even if she tries to reserve her week before her "season" starts.  

While theoretically possible, does it actually happen?  I have been on Tug for over a year now, and I have not heard of this happening to anyone yet.  If it did happen, I would expect it would be a hot topic and get lots of discussion.  Now maybe I just missed it.  But the "laws" of statistics say that if pool of units is large enough and Starwood manages the inventory well, the probability of this happening are very small.  And my engineering background tells me that if a problem does not occur, we are better off worrying about things that do happen.  

Now this does not address the issue of how Starwood selects the units it will pull out of the pool for rentals or II exchanges.  I have to think about that one some more.

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

Greg -- I'm certain* it happens with popular weeks, but people who do not call a full year in advance are simply told that "Week X" is no longer available.  There are probably other weeks available within the season -- until it gets to the very end of the season/year, at which point Starwood takes advantage of its bulk banking process and is able to offer the owner a previously deposited II week as an alternative.  Owners have no way of knowing if a parituclar week (or _any_ week in the case of end of season/year) is not available because non-owners traded into the week(s) requested through the SVN system, or other owners reserved all the weeks.

*I've definitely been unable to get a prime summer week at SBP when I've forgotten to call a full year in advance -- always just assumed other owners had booked them all -- the season is so "wide" that it's entirely possible for that to happen. 

I can only state that I am shocked (horrified??) to learn that inventory is not segregated.  I've always assumed it was because -- well --- it just seemed like the only ethical/legal possibility.  I can't understand for the life of me how one ownership pool (SVN members) can be permitted to access weeks owned by a different ownership pool (non-SVN members) that does not have reciprocal rights.  That absolutely does change the zero-sum game!  

I have looked at state statutes that have absolutely supported the segregation theory.  For example, the following is language from Hawaii's statutes (bold added by me):

_*One-to-one use-right to use-night requirement. (a) A developer shall not offer or dispose of a time share unit or a time share interest unless the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is currently satisfied and will continue to be satisfied for the duration of the time share plan.*

(b)The time share instruments shall contain provisions assuring satisfaction of the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement for the duration of the time share plan except during temporary periods of noncompliance due to casualty or condemnation.

(c)The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is satisfied:

(1)*If the time share plan has more than one class of time share interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class;*

(2)Only use nights available and protected from blanket liens for the duration of the time share plan shall be counted; provided that if time share interests are classified by duration, then as to each class, only use nights available and protected from blanket liens for the entire duration of that class shall be counted; 

*(3)A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class;*

(4)No individual time share unit may be counted as providing more than three hundred sixty-five use nights per calendar year (or more than three hundred sixty-six use nights per leap year);

(5)The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner's use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise. Use rights attributable to unsold time share interests shall be counted;

(6)Use rights of nonowners shall be counted. Use rights of the developer and its affiliates in excess of those attributable to unsold time share interests shall be counted;

(7)Use nights reserved by the association or plan manager for the purpose of performing maintenance and repairs to a time share unit shall not be considered;

(8)Use rights borrowed from a subsequent year or carried over from a prior year shall not be considered; provided that such practice is not established for the purpose of evading the requirements of this section; and provided further that any such acceleration or deferral of use rights is appropriately balanced and restricted; and

(9)The director may adopt rules identifying additional criteria to be used to calculate whether the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is satisfied.

(d)*This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the time share instruments from including provisions permitting rental by the association or the developer, or reservation and use by owners, of use nights which remain unreserved as of sixty or fewer days in advance of the use night. Any such use rights shall not be considered in determining whether the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is satisfied.*_

It doesn't make sense to me that Starwood can run a voluntary resort in the state of Hawaii (WPORV) and not segregate inventory.  Are we absolutely certain they don't?  Has James weighed in?

At one time, I was able to find similar language in the Florida statutes ... but I can't find it at this moment (not sure if things have changed or I just haven't found it).


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 23, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Your points are very valid, but I don't completely agree.  *If it were my business, I would also place a HUGE priority on keeping current customers happy.  *
> . . . snip . . .
> I think Starwood has simply decided that it's impossible to turn a resale buyer into a developer buyer (they can't sell them on the value of the added benefits), so why bother to even try to keep them happy.  And, I can sort of understand that perspective.  *But, where I think the're missing the boat is the harm their policies do to developer buyers who may need/want to sell at some future point.  To not care about that population is a big mistake.*



And these issues are just part of the timeshare business. For the most part, you are "stuck" within your ownership, it's not as easily saleable as ordinary real estate, in some cases with 1) mortgages that are more than the resale value or 2) with maintenance fees that exceed what you could rent the unit from someone else. In those two cases, ANY timeshare company really doesn't care and will not help you. So much for customer service and keeping customers happy. I have never been in this position myself, but I imagine it is no fun. Since they are really no longer generating any real, new revenue (I don't count maintenance fees here) they are in a sense no longer customers. Yes, some people buy more than one unit, but most probably do not. Once you are stuck with a unit(s), they probably don't care how you feel about it. Again, this is a business that needs to make profits, they are not really concerned with feelings. The few that do complain probably get taken care of, but most people don't escalate customer service issues.

I agree that these anti resale polices are no good in the long run. They backfire because it DOES AFFECT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER. They paid full price for something, and because of the developer's actions (and Starwood is by no means alone on this) the resale value is next to nothing. Which is HORRIBLE when there are valid and urgent reasons to sell your developer-purchased timeshare, like a job loss, family illness or death, divorce, needs change as kids get older, etc, etc. I have never purchased from the developer, so I don't know how this feels. I imagine that someone that is in this position due to their circumstances is going to feel like they have been kicked when they're down, when they find out that what they paid $25 or $30 grand for is worth less than $500 today because the SVN doesn't transfer when they sell it  . In fact, I would venture that the average owner that does not read tug, (of which we are a small minority of owners of course), would feel downright BETRAYED   by this "no SVN for resale buyers" devaluation.  This is very sad for the owner and VERY preventable. Starwood could make a lot of revenue from allowing resale purchasers to join the SVN. They might even be able to lower their maintenance fees :hysterical:  because people could sell to buyers that were willing to catch up on MF's and pay to join SVN!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

Once again, I agree with your above comments ... with one exception:



alexadeparis said:


> ... Yes, some people buy more than one unit, but most probably do not.



From Fred's excellent post (above) regarding the differences between Marriott and Starwood and the implications:



			
				Fred said:
			
		

> The former [Marriott], based on yesterday's 1st Quarter conference call, obtains 45% of all new sales from exisiting owners and their direct referrals.



45% is a little less that "most," but I would think it would be extremely important to any sales organization.


----------



## gregb (Apr 23, 2010)

JerseyGirl,

Thanks for the useful information.



jerseygirl said:


> Greg -- I'm certain* it happens with popular weeks, but people who do not call a full year in advance are simply told that "Week X" is no longer available.  There are probably other weeks available within the season -- until it gets to the very end of the season/year, at which point Starwood takes advantage of its bulk banking process and is able to offer the owner a previously deposited II week as an alternative.  Owners have no way of knowing if a parituclar week (or _any_ week in the case of end of season/year) is not available because non-owners traded into the week(s) requested through the SVN system, or other owners reserved all the weeks
> 
> *I've definitely been unable to get a prime summer week at SBP when I've forgotten to call a full year in advance -- always just assumed other owners had booked them all -- the season is so "wide" that it's entirely possible for that to happen.



Calling at 7 months and not being able to reserve a popular week does not necessarily mean that Starwood has cherry picked those weeks.  They could have.  Or, since they are popular weeks, it could be that enough other owners reserved them to fill up all the units for those weeks.  They are popular week, remember.  There are 52 owners (or is it 51?) for each unit competing for those popular weeks.  Since Starwood has not told us how they select weeks to put into the rental/II exchange pool, I guess someone will have to sit at the front desk during a popular week and ask each group as they check-in if they are owners at that resort (yeah I am joking).  



> I can only state that I am shocked (horrified??) to learn that inventory is not segregated.  I've always assumed it was because -- well --- it just seemed like the only ethical/legal possibility.  I can't understand for the life of me how one ownership pool (SVN members) can be permitted to access weeks owned by a different ownership pool (non-SVN members) that does not have reciprocal rights.  That absolutely does change the zero-sum game!



This may be my bad.  I had assumed that they don't segregate the units.  It seems like it might be difficult to do.  But maybe it is not.  I believe that Fredm suggested that they do not segregate the units into SVN and non-SVN, and that, I believe, is the core of his argument.  So unless someone can offer an authoritative answer, we really don't know how they handle the units.  Does anyone in the group have facts to establish either case?

Another way to look at is is that, within the resort, there really are not two classes of units.  Within the resort, all owners, SVN and non-SVN have the same rights to reserve units at their home resorts.  Yes, after the 8 months window, some of the units may be taken by "foreign" SVN owners, but that is true whether you are an SVN owner or a non-SVN owner.  Either one of them could find themselves at the end of the year with a use-right and no use-night at their home resort available to satisfy it.  The difference between SVN and non-SVN is that the SVN member can use the internal exchange system to reserve a unit at another SVN resort.  The non-SVN owner must use II.  

Oh, and thanks for the following information.  Can you share with the group the link you used to find this?  It is great to have primary sources for these discussions.  Thanks.



> I have looked at state statutes that have absolutely supported the segregation theory.  For example, the following is language from Hawaii's statutes (bold added by me):
> 
> _*One-to-one use-right to use-night requirement. (a) A developer shall not offer or dispose of a time share unit or a time share interest unless the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is currently satisfied and will continue to be satisfied for the duration of the time share plan.*
> 
> ...



This is good information to have.  In reading it, however, I interpret it to mean that a developer cannot sell more use-rights then the resort has use-nights.  In other words, the developer cannot sell more than 365 use-rights per unit.  The part about classes of units, I believe, means that if they sell OF use rights, they must have enough use-nights in OF units to satisfy all those rights.  That is, they can sell no more than 365 OF use nights per OF unit.   If you break the resort into seasons, then they can only sell as many use-nights in a season as there are use-rights in that season.  I don't believe these statues require the operator to keep segregated pools for SVN and non-SVN units.

As I tried to explain in a previous message, even segregating units into SVN and non-SVN does not prevent an owner from been frozen out.  Each year, as soon as a unit sits idle for a night, there is an imbalance in the use-right (365) to use-night (365-1=364) ratio.  That means that someone has a right to a night that they will never be able to use at their home resort.  This imbalance is inherent in any floating week system.

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

gregb said:


> Calling at 7 months and not being able to reserve a popular week does not necessarily mean that Starwood has cherry picked those weeks.  They could have.  Or, since they are popular weeks, it could be that enough other owners reserved them to fill up all the units for those weeks.  They are popular week, remember.  There are 52 owners (or is it 51?) for each unit competing for those popular weeks.  Since Starwood has not told us how they select weeks to put into the rental/II exchange pool, I guess someone will have to sit at the front desk during a popular week and ask each group as they check-in if they are owners at that resort (yeah I am joking).



I agree -- we really have no way of knowing without full transparency on Starwood's part.



gregb said:


> This may be my bad.  I had assumed that they don't segregate the units.  It seems like it might be difficult to do.  But maybe it is not.  I believe that Fredm suggested that they do not segregate the units into SVN and non-SVN, and that, I believe, is the core of his argument.  So unless someone can offer an authoritative answer, we really don't know how they handle the units.  Does anyone in the group have facts to establish either case?



No ... it's not your fault.  Others have been trying to convince me there's no segregation for a long time, and it was just unfathomable to me.  I'm just slow to the party on this issue.  I would love an authoritative answer directly from Starwood (may write a letter and ask for one!).



gregb said:


> Another way to look at is is that, within the resort, there really are not two classes of units.  Within the resort, all owners, SVN and non-SVN have the same rights to reserve units at their home resorts.  Yes, after the 8 months window, some of the units may be taken by "foreign" SVN owners, but that is true whether you are an SVN owner or a non-SVN owner.  Either one of them could find themselves at the end of the year with a use-right and no use-night at their home resort available to satisfy it.



But, the SVN owner has the ability to choose from any available resort and the non-SVN owner does not.  That's the crux of the issue and why I believe segregation should be mandatory.  This very major difference constitutes two different classes of owners in my opinion.  I'll expound further below!




gregb said:


> Oh, and thanks for the following information.  Can you share with the group the link you used to find this?  It is great to have primary sources for these discussions.  Thanks.



You're very welcome and here's the link:

http://hawaii.gov/dcca/pvl/hrs/hrs_pvl_514e.pdf




gregb said:


> This is good information to have.  In reading it, however, I interpret it to mean that a developer cannot sell more use-rights then the resort has use-nights.  In other words, the developer cannot sell more than 365 use-rights per unit.  The part about classes of units, I believe, means that if they sell OF use rights, they must have enough use-nights in OF units to satisfy all those rights.  That is, they can sell no more than 365 OF use nights per OF unit.   If you break the resort into seasons, then they can only sell as many use-nights in a season as there are use-rights in that season.  I don't believe these statues require the operator to keep segregated pools for SVN and non-SVN units.



I think we're both right.  I agree with you that they can only sell as many use-nights in a season as there are use-nights in that season ... same with view, etc.  But, the actual language is not specific to "units," it says:

_If the time share plan has more than one class of time share *interest*, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class_

And the statute defines a "time share interest" as follows:

_Time share interest" means any interest in a time share unit or plan which entitles the owner or holder thereof to the use, occupancy or possession of a time share unit on a periodically recurring basis._

I firmly believe that because the usage rights of SVN members and non-members are indeed very different, they would be classified as different classes of time share interest.



gregb said:


> As I tried to explain in a previous message, even segregating units into SVN and non-SVN does not prevent an owner from been frozen out.  Each year, as soon as a unit sits idle for a night, there is an imbalance in the use-right (365) to use-night (365-1=364) ratio.  That means that someone has a right to a night that they will never be able to use at their home resort.  This imbalance is inherent in any floating week system.



I agree completely -- segregation would not in and of itself prevent an owner from being frozen out.  But, one "class" (SVN members) agrees to give up all rights to a "home resort" reservation at the 8-month mark.  The other "class" (non-SVN members) does not and generally has exclusive "usage rights" until the 60-day mark by most states' statutes.  "Non-segregation" means "outsiders" are being given access to their "exclusive usage rights" at the 8-month mark instead of at the 60-day mark (which would be permitted) -- which is why I couldn't believe it would true for so long.  I don't like a lot of Starwood's policies, but I've always thought they followed the law.  I can't reconcile "non-segregation" at a voluntary resort like WPORV with my interpretation (and the interpretation of others with whom I've discussed the situation) of the state statute.

But, legal or not, non-segregation seriously alters the "zero sum game" (as you so accurately named the inventory management situation earlier).  It wouldn't be a perceptible problem at a brand new resort like WPORV, but definitely will be problematic at older resorts like SDO, SBP, SVR ... and even WMH (where there has been significant resale activity).

Thanks for your insight!


----------



## DanCali (Apr 23, 2010)

It is likely we will never know what Starwood cherry picks. But the reality is that there are huge conflicts of interest all over the system... 

Starwood gets a 10% (unpadded) management fee from total MFs - thay would prefer higher MFs, owners prefer lower MFs.... in my eyes, MF history reveals where their loyalties lie.

Starwood gets to rent delinquent units and charge a large rental commissions - they don't care if delinquencies are high but owners pick up the tab in the meantime... the lack of info on where the money from rental goes reveals, in my view, where their interests lie.

Starwood gets to reserve weeks based on anticipated Staroption conversions and II deposits. Starwood wants popular weeks and so do owners.... In my view, the new rules and lack of transparency reveal their intentions.

Starwood wants to justify high retail prices so they make it impossible for an owner to sell the product they bought (voluntary resorts) - this obviously hurts their own customers... The existence of voluntary resorts tells us how much they care about our equity.

The list is much longer but dinner is ready... You can either trust that Starwood is looking after owners' interests or after it's own interests. Most people on here already have a stand on that and I doubt we'll convince each other otherwise... Nevertheless, this is a good discussion!


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

Greg -- I see you made edits after I started quoting your previous post.  Sorry about that -- I'm slow.  If your changes resulted in any material differences in my response, please let me know and I'll be glad to fix mine.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 23, 2010)

One more point -- I think "cherry picking" and "segregation" are two separate issues.  

Cherry-picking, if it's happening, hurts ALL owners.

Non-segregation of SVN and non-SVN inventory only hurts non-SVN owners who may be denied usage of their home resort because "their" inventory was released to a non-owner SVN member.  They've never been told they have to make reservations by the 8-month mark to be guaranteed home resort usage.  And, yes, the non-SVN owner would be given the option to use II.  But, just one issue with that resolution is that the owner is now being forced to spend additional money (membership fee, trade fee).  I don't believe forcing someone to use II is an "equal substitute" for denying them what should have been available to them at their home resort.

And, of course, the new II policies are a separate issue too!

They're all interrelated (as DanCali illustrates in his above post) ... but must be analyzed separately to be understood.


----------



## gregb (Apr 24, 2010)

JerseyGirl,

The edit was minor.  Just added the comment about frozen out SVN owners using SVN to get a unit at another resort, while non-SVN owners must use II.

Got to go to bed now.  And tomorrow will be busy.

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 24, 2010)

gregb said:


> And tomorrow will be busy.Greg



Yes, it will.  I've been stuck in a little corner in my bedroom for most of the week while painters were here.  Today, it's time to put the house back together again -- it's going to be so much fun -- I can hardly wait!


----------



## Fredm (Apr 24, 2010)

gregb said:


> Fred,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gregb (Apr 24, 2010)

Fredm,

Thanks for your perspective.  Let me try to summarize two point I believe you are making.  

Point 1.  When one purchases a week from the developer in a voluntary resort, one pays a premium to be enrolled in SVN.  When one later sells one's week, the resale purchaser does not get that membership.  When the resale occurs, the additional value of SVN membership "transfers" from the original owner back to SVN.  

I see that the value of the week drops when it is resold.  The resale owner loses the StarOption and StarPoint conversion privilege.  But I guess I don't see how that value transfers to Starwood.  Starwood has always controlled the inventory deposited in II for SVN owners, so if Starwood retains control over the deposit after the week is resold, I don't see how they gained value by keeping something they already had.  (Yes, I do understand the lost value for non-SVN owners when the II rules were changed.  But I don't think that is what we are discussing here.)  In fact, if exchanging weeks for Starpoints is as bad a deal for owners as many here suggest, then Starwood may actually be losing value because they don't allow resales owners to partake in the program that should be making money for Starwood.

Point 2.  It is assumed that inventory in the available pool is not segregated into SVN and non-SVN pools.  In that case, after the owner preference period, SVN members from other resorts can reserve units contributed to the pool from the non-SVN owners, AND the non-SVN owners do not have access to the SVN pools in other resorts.  

It seems that either allowing non-SVN owners to buy their way into SVN, or segregating SVN and non-SVN inventory would address Point 2.  Is that correct?  If so, at what price does the buy-in to SVN become unfair?  $1,000?  $5,000?  $10,000?

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Apr 24, 2010)

gregb said:


> It seems that either allowing non-SVN owners to buy their way into SVN, or segregating SVN and non-SVN inventory would address Point 2.  Is that correct?  If so, at what price does the buy-in to SVN become unfair?  $1,000?  $5,000?  $10,000?
> 
> Greg



I realize the question was addressed to someone else but regarding this last point it is not either or. If they keep voluntary resorts inventory should be separated. Charging owners for the option to join SVN doesn't relieve them of that obligation. Now if a voluntary owner chooses to join SVN, they can move a unit from one pool to the other, but as long as some owners are not in SVN inventory should be separated.

You also raised the point earlier that it may not be easy to do. But is the whole concept of two owner classes easy to manage to begin with? They could have just kept all resorts mandatory and none of these issues would exist...


----------



## Fredm (Apr 24, 2010)

gregb said:


> Fredm,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 25, 2010)

Fredm said:
			
		

> The resolution is to require SVN membership for all. Problem solved. Purely from an fairness perspective, why not?



100% agree.  The system is already confusing.  And Starwood obviously needs money because they keep raising our MFs.  Requiring all owners to join SVN would result in an annual influx of cash plus it would simplify their system.  While they're at it, they could streamline SOs and SPs to reflect reality, but that's a pipe dream.


----------



## Fredm (Apr 25, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> segregation would not in and of itself prevent an owner from being frozen out.  But, one "class" (SVN members) agrees to give up all rights to a "home resort" reservation at the 8-month mark.  The other "class" (non-SVN members) does not and *generally has exclusive "usage rights" until the 60-day mark by most states' statutes.  "Non-segregation" means "outsiders" are being given access to their "exclusive usage rights" at the 8-month mark instead of at the 60-day mark (which would be permitted)* -- which is why I couldn't believe it would true for so long.



Your comment (my emphasis) is the pickle that SVN finds itself in.

Home resort reservation rules preserve an owner's right to a reservation (based on availability) until 60 days. At which time the right is canceled. 
The problem for a non-SVN owner (and some State laws) is that it is not an "exclusive" right at 8 months. It is conflicting on its face, unless sufficient inventory were set aside (segregated) for every unreserved owner, at every week remaining on the calendar up to the 60 day window for each week (those selected by the operator for StarPoints conversions and I.I. deposits will have already been anticipated, subtracted and assigned).
The only weeks that could be released to SVN members are from the pool of owners at the home resort who exercised their StarOptions for an internal trade.

If this is what is being done, there is no problem as it relates to segregating inventory.
However, reservation system rules do state that a home resort owner must compete with all SVN members system-wide for a reservation at 8 months. 

You are right. Inventory segregation still does not address the the I.I. deposit issue.
That is a separate related matter dealing with non-SVN owners propping-up SVN.

This whole thing is sooooo unnecessary. The pains involved in managing this must be worth it to the operator.

PS: the pains and worth to the operator will both magnify over time. There are only six Mandatory resorts in the system.  All resorts developed after KOR North are, and will be, Voluntary.

PPS: I realize that much of internal system mechanics and system rules are not of interest to most owners. As is usual during such discussions, a simple statement spawns a number of tangential issues. The effect is to lose track of the point.

Utility lost is value gained by the operator. The system is engineered to do that. The rules say so, not me.
Is that bad?  Not if buyers and sellers like how it works for them.
Starwood is entitled to profit from its product. The market takes care of the rest.
Is it fair? I don't think so.

Good night Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


----------



## Fredm (Apr 29, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Jim - I'd really appreciate it if you would expound on this - with your expertise, I think you could shed some light on this for us - thanks!



James did post a comment in a different thread that directly relates to the allocation of inventory. 

James, please correct if you do not think it applicable in this context.
Thanks.


----------



## James1975NY (Apr 30, 2010)

Fredm said:


> James did post a comment in a different thread that directly relates to the allocation of inventory.
> 
> James, please correct if you do not think it applicable in this context.
> Thanks.



Fred, to be honest, I don't know. What is it that I am being asked to expound to? I have not been keeping up on this one so I am not sure how to respond.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

*deeds recorded*

I never did make a decision about what to do with these purchases. I ended up not closing on SDO - gave that one back even after making payment. The SBP deeds got recorded without my signature.

I had the file-marked deeds in the mail when we returned from Disney World. Right after receiving them, I saw the bulk-bank notice on the Starwood thread (I was happy for the heads up) and decided to move on getting the deeds submitted to Starwood so that I could use them.

I had a one day respite in which to do that between the time that I returned from Orlando and had cancer surgery - major surgery. So did not have much time to work. On top of that Jose Pagen was out of the office, so my deeds are still not showing in starwood. I have now updated with the recording section (thanks again to TUG for the link). I got an automated response from them telling me that they were busy. I guess I will call them at 9 am on Monday to make that deposit and see if there are any II trades still available. I know that I will be past the starwood preference period for this year. But still, I believe that I will be able to get some good trades for 2 TSs that I would have otherwise continued to just "sit on."

If anyone has any advice for me on what to do, i have plenty of time to do it for the next couple of weeks. My surgery recovery they are estimating to take 8 to 10 weeks. The good news is that they believe (pending the pathology report) that the cancer was caught in stage one and no other treatment will be necessary.

elaine


----------



## pointsjunkie (Jun 20, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> I never did make a decision about what to do with these purchases. I ended up not closing on SDO - gave that one back even after making payment. The SBP deeds got recorded without my signature.
> 
> I had the file-marked deeds in the mail when we returned from Disney World. Right after receiving them, I saw the bulk-bank notice on the Starwood thread (I was happy for the heads up) and decided to move on getting the deeds submitted to Starwood so that I could use them.
> 
> ...



hope you have a speedy recovery and  all the tests come back negative.then enjoy your timeshares.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

pointsjunkie said:


> hope you have a speedy recovery and  all the tests come back negative.then enjoy your timeshares.



Thanks - I really have not been worried about the cancer. I got diagnosed right before the trip to Disney and asked if we could delay surgery until after our vacation. My doctor was going to be on vacation that week as well. So, it worked out great. I had the vacation to distract me, then the deeds to distract me, now that I have had the surgery I have the starwood stuff to distract me!!!

My husband set my computer up so that I can work from a fully reclined position. It's great. 

I was only in the hospital for one night. They originally told me that it would be 3 to 7. 

Thanks for the good wishes.
elaine


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2010)

My advice is NOT to wait until 9 a.m. on Monday.  If you want one of those Hawaii deposits, I wouldn't wait, because once they are out of the Starwood priority period, they will be snapped up by non-Starwood owners. Right now, only Starwood owners can reserve them.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> My advice is NOT to wait until 9 a.m. on Monday.  If you want one of those Hawaii deposits, I wouldn't wait, because once they are out of the Starwood priority period, they will be snapped up by non-Starwood owners. Right now, only Starwood owners can reserve them.



Can I show the recorded deeds to II and make the trade requests now?

elaine


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> Can I show the recorded deeds to II and make the trade requests now?
> 
> elaine



No - you have to go through Starwood Owner Services, which is open 7 days a week.  (888) 986-9637


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

Denise, you are a treasure!

elaine


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2010)

I assume you already have an II Acct. set up to deposit them into?


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

yes - I used the two for one code so go two years (also from one of your posts)

elaine


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

*ARGHH! II membership kicked back!*

Good grief - I thought that I was on a roll ... and I find out that I am rolling because the rug has been jerked out from underneath me!

II is saying that they have not been able to verify my weeks with Starwood so they have cancelled my membership. I sent the deeds via email to both Jose Pagen (auto response: out until June 28th) and OOVO (overloaded due to billing we will be back to you in 2 - 3 weeks). 

II is saying that they cannot verify my ownership with Starwood --- not surprising given the above. I called Starwood and they say that they do not have my records yet, it will take two to three weeks.

Now where to go?

elaine


----------



## alexadeparis (Jun 20, 2010)

Just be patient it took about 4 weeks for each of my deeds to be recorded in the starwood system- just keep calling them every few days.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 20, 2010)

Jose Pagen is not the only one in that office who can record it for you.  You might try Faxing it instead of sending it to his email, so someone else will get it.

Just to clarify, you sent Starwood a copy of the recorded deed, correct?

***I merged your threads on this topic - for continuity, lets keep it in one thread, please.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

*I scanned and emailed them*

Once I learned that Jose pagen was out of the office, I sent the email with the scanned, file-marked (recorded) deeds to the general contact info also.

Thank you for merging the threads.

They are telling me at II that they cannot help me until they can verify with Starwood the ownership. I don't think that I can get anything else resolved until Monday when there is someone at Starwood who can actually look at the recorded deeds and verify the ownership. 

I think that I will probably be out of luck on this bulk deposit. I am looking at the other resorts in II and there are lots of beautiful (not as beautiful, but still beautiful) resorts in Hawaii. 

Any other suggestions?

elaine


----------



## SDKath (Jun 20, 2010)

Oh no!  Jose is out of the office???  How DARE he?  He's the only one who's gotten something done for me fast.  Otherwise it's months of waiting.   

My WKV recorded in about a week with the county recorder.  I really wanted to see it in my account this week so I can take advantage of those WKORV deposits too.  SIGH, SIGH, SIGH.

Katherine


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 20, 2010)

*Kathy ...*

I thought that you were "really done this time..."

elaine


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 21, 2010)

*Followed up today*

Today I called Starwood and talked to Julie Sabon's assistant, since Jose is not in. That did not work. She referred me to Ingrid Milman - and the assistant was not able to verify that they have the deeds yet. :annoyed: 

I will be checking again tomorrow to see if we can get this done.

elaine


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 21, 2010)

Have you tried Faxing them?  Fax them and then call immediately.


----------



## bxnd (Jun 21, 2010)

FYI - I emailed two deeds that were to be recorded directly to Ingrid Muelman.  It took almost 4 weeks to the day for each of them to be included in my account with SVO.  I was told "first in and first out" when I called both Ingrid and Jose at various times to expedite them.  Quite a bit different from some of the previous recordings I emailed that were accomplished in just one day.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jun 21, 2010)

I will try the fax then call immediately tomorrow. 

I am recovering from surgery and took a long nap this afternoon and missed that suggestion, Denise, or I would have done it today.

elaine


----------

