# New rules on upgrading resales !!!



## SPjunkie (May 5, 2009)

Hi everyone,
my SVO rep gave me some bad news yesterday:
SVO is reportedly implementing new rules by the end of this week !!
Until now, SVO would give you "credit" when you upgrade a resale with them for whatever the original owner had paid for that unit. From now on, they say they will give credit for what YOU have paid for that resale (usually substantially less). 
That is in addition to the new $20K minimum "new monies" they need to get when upgrading (in continental US)....!
Has anybody heard the same thing ????
The rationale would be that SVO is trying to push more "direct"  developer purchases as opposed to resales....
I have an email into SVO management to give them some feedback on yet another puzzling change....(looks like they make it a habit to pull the rug from under our feet and change the rules on the fly....!)


----------



## Troopers (May 5, 2009)

I have not heard that (yet).

My rep did tell my about the 20k/40k new money about 2 weeks ago.


----------



## SDKath (May 5, 2009)

How do they know how much you paid???  Katherine


----------



## Joshadelic (May 5, 2009)

That's ok.  You can put any amount of money you want to on the documents when you buy a week resale.  I sold a week recently and the guy at the closing company put $10 on the paperwork.  Obviously, I didn't sell it for that.


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 5, 2009)

SDKath said:


> How do they know how much you paid???  Katherine



Good question. Now we know why they were so curious about what we paid for our five resales when we attended our owners' update yesterday.  When we told them we paid between $75 and $1,701 each for our Sheraton traders, they didn't even mention the concept of a trade-in.   The moral of the story -- for those who want to do a requalification -- is not to tell them how much you paid for your resale purchases and just negotiate a credit.

They did mention the $20,000/$40,000 of new money on a developer purchase in order to requalify a resale purchase; that has been policy for nearly two years; see
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56532

Our salesperson was disarmingly honest when we asked why all future resorts would be voluntary; she said that Starwood wanted to depress resale values and thus control the resale market.  But she couldn't answer our follow-up as to why Starwood never exercises ROFR.


----------



## Ken555 (May 5, 2009)

This is just yet another reason not to go for Elite status at all. And, it makes those mandatory sales even better for those of us who don't care about Elite. Even so, I don't like how SVN manipulates their own system.


----------



## SPjunkie (May 5, 2009)

Agree with these comments,
bottom line, there will be some "manipulation" going on around actual prices paid for the resales...
but I really think (and reps agree on this) that they will not successfully manage to control the resale market....


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 5, 2009)

Welcome to STARKWOOD
'a better way for you to see what we want you to see'
'your soul will be replenished by our control'


{TV series 24 reference...}


----------



## BocaBum99 (May 5, 2009)

It seems to me that Starwood has multiple programs depending on who you talk to, check out this thread:

Complimentary SVN enrollment thread

Jim


----------



## oneohana (May 5, 2009)

SDKath said:


> How do they know how much you paid???  Katherine



Right of First Refusal.


----------



## ginsun88 (May 5, 2009)

*ROFR'd at Westin Mission Hills*

Last week, I was bummed to find out that Starwood did not waive ROFR for a platinum plus week at Mission Hills.

I really had no immediate plans to upgrade, requal, etc.

I just wanted to use the resort and occasionally trade in II.

Still batting zip on Starwood's board, 
Grace


----------



## tlpnet (May 5, 2009)

SPjunkie said:


> Hi everyone,
> my SVO rep gave me some bad news yesterday:
> SVO is reportedly implementing new rules by the end of this week !!
> Until now, SVO would give you "credit" when you upgrade a resale with them for whatever the original owner had paid for that unit. From now on, they say they will give credit for what YOU have paid for that resale (usually substantially less).
> ...


 
I've heard something similar. What I heard is that the "new rule" regarding the amount of resale credit given toward an upgrade has not yet been officially set, but that it will be somewhere between developer price paid and resale price paid (possibly a percentage of developer price paid). I've also heard that it will go into effect by the end of the week.

-tim


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 5, 2009)

gvdelizo said:


> Last week, I was bummed to find out that Starwood did not waive ROFR for a platinum plus week at Mission Hills.
> 
> I really had no immediate plans to upgrade, requal, etc.
> 
> ...



If the deal is dead, would you please post the week and the price?  It is such an unusual data point (Starwood seldom exercises ROFR) that many of us would be curious.


----------



## SDKath (May 5, 2009)

vacationtime1 said:


> If the deal is dead, would you please post the week and the price?  It is such an unusual data point (Starwood seldom exercises ROFR) that many of us would be curious.



Hmmm, that's strange.  I didn't think there was such a thing as Platinum Plus week at WMH.  The weeks are platinum, gold or silver with platinum including weeks 51 and 52.  Could you let us know the details?  This would frankly be the 1st or 2nd ROFR reported on this board EVER from Starwood.

Are you sure you are not thinking of a Marriott week, where Platinum Plus does exist for the Palm Desert properties and is usually NY and Xmas...?

Katherine


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 5, 2009)

gvdelizo said:


> Starwood did not waive ROFR for a platinum plus week at Mission Hills.



Do you mean that SVO exercised their ROFR? Meaning - SVO rebought the unit at the offered resale price?
If so - what was the unit-week type and at what price?
This could be an important data point for WMH owenrs/buyers.


----------



## silkey21 (May 5, 2009)

SPjunkie said:


> Agree with these comments,
> bottom line, there will be some "manipulation" going on around actual prices paid for the resales...
> but I really think (and reps agree on this) that they will not successfully manage to control the resale market....



Why does this make a difference ? the non mandatory resort are worth next to nothing and the places like WKV and WMH and SVV are still 30-40% of what the resorts sell them for. So the only thing that I could think of is the mandatory resorts should go up a little in value. + is Starwood building any new places ?


----------



## SDKath (May 5, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> Why does this make a difference ? the non mandatory resort are worth next to nothing and the places like WKV and WMH and SVV are still 30-40% of what the resorts sell them for. So the only thing that I could think of is the mandatory resorts should go up a little in value. + is Starwood building any new places ?



It makes a huge difference in your out of pocket expenses.  If your SBP was purchased for $250 and you got $15,000 worth of credit toward an upgrade, you are much better off financially than if Starwood only gave you the resale value credit of $250!  It could mean tens of thousands of dollars for those of us who are still trying to do the whole upgrade/retro thing.

Katherine


----------



## jarta (May 6, 2009)

SDKath,   ...   "It could mean tens of thousands of dollars for *those of us who are still trying to do* the whole upgrade/retro thing."

I thought you were "DONE -- REALLY."  lol!

And, aren't you glad you are?  Others who try to get to 5* Elite will now find it more costly because they didn't appreciate - or care about - the 5* Elite benefits and that Starwood could abruptly close the cost loopholes that TUG members are familiar with.  But, we have certainly been speculating about Starwood's ability to close loopholes like ROFR or the base allowed for upgrading or the ability to retro at all (next to go?) over the last 1.5 years.

Enjoy those Platinum upgrades at the St. Regis Monarch Beach!  It seems you made an effective, pragmatic decision based on what you learned here at TUG.   ...   eom


----------



## silkey21 (May 6, 2009)

SDKath said:


> It makes a huge difference in your out of pocket expenses.  If your SBP was purchased for $250 and you got $15,000 worth of credit toward an upgrade, you are much better off financially than if Starwood only gave you the resale value credit of $250!  It could mean tens of thousands of dollars for those of us who are still trying to do the whole upgrade/retro thing.
> 
> Katherine



understood, but what effect does it have on the actual resale prices ?


----------



## tlpnet (May 6, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> understood, but what effect does it have on the actual resale prices ?


 
Mandatory resorts ALWAYS have a higher resale value than Voluntary resorts. A simple example would be the prices of SVR (Voluntary) and SVV (Mandatory). Take a look at that.

Mandatory resorts sell for more because SVN transfers with the sale. By selling only Voluntary in the future, Starwood contends that they will make more developer sales because people will buy from them to get SVN.

I agree that it's likely that Mandatory resale prices will most likely increase. I also think it's likely that Voluntary resale prices will decrease as more units become available.  That's the effect this decision will make on resales IMO.

-tim


----------



## tlpnet (May 6, 2009)

gvdelizo said:


> Last week, I was bummed to find out that Starwood did not waive ROFR for a platinum plus week at Mission Hills.
> 
> I really had no immediate plans to upgrade, requal, etc.
> 
> ...


 
I'm highly suspicious of this. Starwood prepares a ROFR document that they send to the closing company on properties that have ROFR. Did the closing company send you a copy of this document? I think maybe something else may have happened here (seller cold feet??). If I were you, I would ask for a copy, and if that doesn't work, call SVO Portfolio Services at (800) 743-7654 to inquire about the ROFR paperwork. I will give you names of who to speak to at SVO PS if you PM me.

-tim


----------



## Cathyb (May 6, 2009)

Starwood has been -- as you say -- "manipulating its own system" for years now.  They are only interested in the bottom line, not their owners


----------



## SDKath (May 6, 2009)

Cathyb said:


> Starwood has been -- as you say -- "manipulating its own system" for years now.  They are only interested in the bottom line, not their owners



Every company is interested in the bottom line.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It's only a problem when you personally find yourself in a negative situation with them.  If that happens more than once, you are likely going to say "forget it" and go with another company.  There are too many choices in travel to be forced to deal with poor customer service.

Jarta:  I am done!  I swear.  :hysterical: Never mind that DH asked me last night why we didn't buy a week 52 at Riverfront!   He wants to ski for NY.

Silkey:  I bet resale prices will stay low because MOST buyers have no idea how to retro/upgrade.  However, when you buy, you are going to have to really carefully look over the documents to make sure that the "price" is what you want it to be, not the $1 you paid for the week on eBay.  We are a rare bunch here on TUG.  I am sure Starwood hates us for finding all the little loopholes.  

And now they are actively slamming doors to keep people from doing the upgrades and retro's.  Unfortunately, they don't realize that they are creating a downward spiral.  Then again, maybe they do.  Because in reality no one is going to pay full price for their units.  By preventing these upgrades from occuring, they are are chasing away their best and most frequent customers.

It's like when a restaurant starts to go under.  What do they do?  They raise prices so they can make more money to account for less customers and less profit.  What happens?  Even more customers leave.  Business goes down even more.  So the restaurant cuts portion sizes to save more money.  More customers leave.  Eventually, restaurant closes and customers are having nice meals somewhere else.

Starwood is pretty much cutting portion sizes right now....

Katherine


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 6, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> I'm highly suspicious of this. Starwood prepares a ROFR document that they send to the closing company on properties that have ROFR. Did the closing company send you a copy of this document? I think maybe something else may have happened here (seller cold feet??). If I were you, I would ask for a copy, and if that doesn't work, call SVO Portfolio Services at (800) 743-7654 to inquire about the ROFR paperwork. I will give you names of who to speak to at SVO PS if you PM me.
> 
> -tim



I agree - I am considering this WMH ROFR as it didn't happen unless TUG receives a reasonable response explaining what happen.


----------



## silkey21 (May 6, 2009)

Cathyb said:


> Starwood has been -- as you say -- "manipulating its own system" for years now.  They are only interested in the bottom line, not their owners



Starwood is not really building new resorts, once they sell out of what they are building what are they going to sell ?. Also I understand increasing the retro prices, but what difference does it make for them how much they will give you back on your unit. Example now you would buy 2 cheap units on Ebay with one you would do the upgrade and the other one they retro. With the new way you would buy one unit on Ebay and one unit from Sheraton and have the ebay retro'd in to the system. Is my way of thinking wrong ?


----------



## ginsun88 (May 6, 2009)

*ROFR happened*

Hi folks,

Sorry to the OP for taking away from the thread.  Just wanted people to be aware that Starwood is exercising its option to buy back weeks as stated below (copied text from the e-mail I received).  In an earlier thread, I mentioned that FredM also posted that Starwood exercised its option on WHM Gold?

I won't post the sales price since I'm still actively searching for a week at this resort.  PM if you like...

Regards,
Grace


From: Martinez, Jennifer 
To: *****
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: ****/**** A/C# *****, Unit ****, Week 50 Westin Mission Hills, Request For Waiver


****,


We will exercise our option to refuse this sale and buy back the ownership.  Also, we will be in contact with the owner from here.   

Thank you for your patience and enjoy your week. 

Jennifer Martinez
Loan Servicing Specialist 
Starwood Vacation Ownership Portfolio Services 
" A Better Way to See the World" 
Toll Free: (800) 743-7654  
Direct: (407) 903-4700 
Fax: (407) 903-4701 

Or you can Visit us at www.Mystarcentral.com


----------



## TomH (May 6, 2009)

*Another point of view*

I may be in the minority here but SVO customer service has been excellent during my 1st year of ownership.  I did take advantage of cheap resales with a couple upgrades/retros to reach 4*.  This loophole that we have been enjoying during the last few years was just that, a loophole.  I just wish that SVO upgrades/requal rules were better disclosed to us and not only available to sales reps.  

I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then.  Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.

Tom


----------



## Troopers (May 7, 2009)

TomH said:


> I may be in the minority here but SVO customer service has been excellent during my 1st year of ownership.  I did take advantage of cheap resales with a couple upgrades/retros to reach 4*.  This loophole that we have been enjoying during the last few years was just that, a loophole.  I just wish that SVO upgrades/requal rules were better disclosed to us and not only available to sales reps.
> 
> I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then.  Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.
> 
> Tom




Thanks...very refreshing.


----------



## tlpnet (May 7, 2009)

TomH said:


> I am considering a cheap SMV winter resale to upgrade to Riverfont and although a rep assures me I can still do the upgrade at the current rules using the original purchase value and requalifying another resale, I am hesitant to do so as it will take a few months to close the resale and the rules may be unfavorable my then. Not to mention the maintenance fees >$2000.
> 
> Tom


 
Hi Tom,

If you have an exception form in hand that is signed by a VP *IN ORLANDO* that clearly spells out the details of the deal (when it will close, what value you'll be given for the resale, etc.), you should be OK. If you're serious about the transaction, ask your salesperson for it. I seriously doubt they'll get the VP signature, as it seems SVO is pretty serious about this new rule, but you can give it a shot.

-tim


----------



## Joshadelic (May 7, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> Is my way of thinking wrong ?



..........Yes.


----------



## dakotafamily (May 7, 2009)

*5* Status*

I have heard it mentioned different times that SVO is only allowing 2000 to become 5* Elite status. Do you think there are owners getting close to this number and they are trying to slow down the numbers? Just an idea?


----------



## James1975NY (May 7, 2009)

SDKath said:


> How do they know how much you paid???  Katherine



Document stamps on the deed.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 7, 2009)

As stated many times here on TUG...

Do not believe anything a SVO salesperson tells you unless you get it (or have it) in writing - there is a clause in the SVO sales contact (aptly named the 'negma clause' since he wrote about it here first - see requal thread) that clearly states that anything a salesperson has stated is not valid/enforcable unless it is specifically stated in the contact (yes... i am paraphrasing here - but you get the picture - hopefully).  They are in the business of selling TSs - and honesty does not play a role in that job (unfortunately).

This goes to everything - from number of 5*/PFL - to changing rules midstream - etc. etc. etc.


----------



## jarta (May 7, 2009)

DavidnRobin,   ...   A sale of a timeshare interest is a sale of an interest in land/real estate.  The Statute of Frauds applies to sales of land/real estate.

The Statute of Frauds says that a contract for the sale of land/real estate must be in writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds

Starwood is merely stating the law.  Every contract for the sale of land/real estate should (and, as far as I know, does) include such a clause.  The purpose of the Statute on Frauds is to prevent swearing contests about what was orally said right before a contract is entered into for a sale of land/real estate.  What's in writing in the contract is what counts.

But, you are right.  Don't listen to what the Starwood salesman says.  Read the written documents.  If you have questions, hold off until an attorney can review the documents.   ...   eom


----------



## SDKath (May 7, 2009)

dakotafamily said:


> I have heard it mentioned different times that SVO is only allowing 2000 to become 5* Elite status. Do you think there are owners getting close to this number and they are trying to slow down the numbers? Just an idea?



I don't think the 2000 is a hard and fast rule but I believe they increased the SO required from 559,000 to 649,000 to reduce the number of new elite members coming in.  Now they are trying to reduce the number who come in and stay in via TS purchases....

So the short answer is YES.  Katherine


----------



## Cathyb (May 7, 2009)

Kath:  It becomes a bad scene when the company changes its rules AFTER you buy and it affects your personal life (like kids trying to sell Westin Mission Hills after you die).  Why do you continually defend Starwood, just curious???


----------



## DeniseM (May 7, 2009)

Cathyb said:


> Kath:  It becomes a bad scene when the company changes its rules AFTER you buy and it affects your personal life (like kids trying to sell Westin Mission Hills after you die).  Why do you continually defend Starwood, just curious???



In which post is she defending them?  Kath has posted her displeasure with Starwood a multitude of times.  She was caught in the change-over when they upped the Staroption requirement for 5 Star Elite, and recently her Acct. has been locked, because of some kind of SW error.

Back to your point about WMH - it's not just WMH and it's not just you - all of us who purchased from the developer now own resorts worth thousands of dollars less.  We paid about $45K for WKORV and I don't know if we could sell it for $20K today.  The fact that it's a mandatory resort doesn't make me feel one bit better about losing $25K.  So, I know you are unhappy about the resale value of your WMH week, but we are all in the same boat - mandatory owners are taking huge losses too, often even bigger losses than voluntary owners, because we paid more in the first place.


----------



## TheUnitrep (May 8, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Back to your point about WMH - it's not just WMH and it's not just you - all of us who purchased from the developer now own resorts worth thousands of dollars less.



While this is indeed true, I think the point Cathyb is making is that Starwood did not classify WMH as voluntary until well after she had purchased.  Starwood makes no effort to advise its clients of the mandatory/voluntary distinction.  

At the last owner's sale presentation (aka owner's update) I went to at WMH, when I inquired about mandatory/voluntary, I got the "deer in the headlights" look from them.

Timeshares, with very few exceptions, never maintain their value.  Enjoy them for the vacations you have in them, not for the money you hope to get when it comes time to sell.


----------



## grgs (May 8, 2009)

TheUnitrep said:


> While this is indeed true, I think the point Cathyb is making is that Starwood did not classify WMH as voluntary until well after she had purchased.  Starwood makes no effort to advise its clients of the mandatory/voluntary distinction.



WMH was always voluntary.  They didn't change it's status.  It's just we (Tuggers) didn't become aware of this distinction until after many of the units were already sold.  Admittedly, this doesn't make much difference to the owner of WMH who bought from the developer, but I think it's important to note that Starwood did not somehow change WMH from mandatory to voluntary.  

Glorian


----------



## taffy19 (May 8, 2009)

Joshadelic said:


> That's ok. You can put any amount of money you want to on the documents when you buy a week resale. I sold a week recently and the guy at the closing company put $10 on the paperwork. Obviously, I didn't sell it for that.


If the State finds this out, you are in trouble. This is the way it is in real estate but it may be different with timeshares because they are not really real estate.  The State of California wants their greedy hands on all your money and not part of it.


----------



## SDKath (May 8, 2009)

I only defend Starwood when I feel that they have lived up to my expectations or exceeded it.  I criticize them freely when I feel that they are pulling stuff that is downright unfair.

My post above yours Cathy is an overt criticism of the way they are slamming the door in the face of people who WANT to spend money with them and WANT to be loyal customers.  Is it illegal?  No.  Is it dumb?  Yes.

I don't have an agenda (except to help fellow TUGgers the way they helped me last year).  If Starwood is good to me, I report it.  If they are out of line, I post that too (did you see my ranting and raving in the fall when they changed the 5* SOs on everyone without word AND their website didn't reflect the change until 2 weeks later -- I was furious and let everyone here know it.  :ignore: )

Katherine


----------



## Dave H (May 8, 2009)

iconnections said:


> If the State finds this out, you are in trouble. This is the way it is in real estate but it may be different with timeshares because they are not really real estate.  The State of California wants their greedy hands on all your money and not part of it.



The dollar amount on the deed does not ALWAY reflect the purchase price and state statutes determine how the deed is to read.  In Florida and many other states, the deed reads

*FOR $10 AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION*   Other valueable consideration if the balance of the funds.

Now I can tell you in Florida, if they find out that you short changed the state, and believe it or not, the state examiners do look at all $10 deeds where the taxes paid reflect $10 in tax stamps, the penalty can be very severe for not paying.

If there is a valid reason for the $10 like a divorce situation, they will let it go, but, if it is a case that they felt you shorted the state, they can see what normal prices are and go after the unpaid tax.

I would imagine that is true in many states, especially since they are not hirting for money.  It is not worth the hassles of having to defend your position with attorneys paid by the state.


----------



## Cathyb (May 9, 2009)

Denise:  You are right, no one likes losing money.  I guess because they changed the rules and invented the Mandatory vs. Voluntary a good year AFTER we signed the contract that makes the hair on my neck stand up.  It drove down the WMH resale market price and desireability to own it way down on WMH before the current market went down. 

There are other issues with Starwood upper management too in my little black book like  Sending annual meeting notices just a week or so before the meeting in hopes no one shows up but predating the notice to read a month ahead.  This has happened four years in a row -- so it is not my maillman to blame.  All my other mail arrives in a timely manner.     Time to go put ice on my Starwood headache


----------



## tlpnet (May 12, 2009)

Well, it looks like the decision has been made, and it's worse than we had guessed. 

The NEW rule is that retros are no longer allowed with resale upgrades. It no longer matters how much the original owner spent on the developer purchase, or how much you paid resale, you cannot use an upgrade transaction to retro another unit. You can still retro a unit with a new developer purchase as long as you spend the $20K/$40K requirement.

I forgot to ask if an upgrade with a resale week (without a retro) is still allowed, but I'm guessing no. I'll try to find out and post later.

-tim


----------



## SDKath (May 12, 2009)

OK, since Starwood is actively reading these boards and closing all the doors that I and many others before me opened to help others, I have an easy solution/work around to this but I am NOT posting it on the board for them to see and deny in the future.

So if you want to hear it, feel free to PM me any time.

Katherine


----------



## BBTMom (May 12, 2009)

*What if.....*

SDKath,

What if a Starwood employee pretends to be a TUG member and send you a PM to ask about your new workaround, they would still find out the secret!

It seems the doors are really closing......


----------



## SDKath (May 12, 2009)

Hmmm, good point.  The thing is, I KNOW YOU ALL!!  :rofl:


----------



## Ken555 (May 13, 2009)

SDKath said:


> OK, since Starwood is actively reading these boards and closing all the doors that I and many others before me opened to help others, I have an easy solution/work around to this but I am NOT posting it on the board for them to see and deny in the future.
> 
> So if you want to hear it, feel free to PM me any time.
> 
> Katherine




FWIW, this is why I proposed a while ago to make this a non-public board. Yes, Starwood could register as a member an individuals, but at least we'd have some level of knowledge who had access.


----------



## tlpnet (May 13, 2009)

I got clarification on the new rule, and, as I suspected am told that upgrades from resale purchases are no longer allowed period.

I can understand why Starwood would prevent retros with upgrade transactions, but this one has left me scratching my head. I don't understand why Starwood wouldn't allow this - it results in a new developer sale. This is the primary way that WSJ Bay Vista was conducting sales when I was there. It was all about getting existing owners to "upgrade" to BV.

The only motivating factor that I can see is that Starwood no longer wants to give resale owners the benefit of the amount the original owner paid, but why not give them a percentage, or as some speculated, the amount of the resale transaction as credit toward an upgrade.

Go figure...
-tim


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 13, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> I got clarification on the new rule, and, as I suspected am told that upgrades from resale purchases are no longer allowed period.
> 
> I can understand why Starwood would prevent retros with upgrade transactions, but this one has left me scratching my head. I don't understand why Starwood wouldn't allow this - it results in a new developer sale. This is the primary way that WSJ Bay Vista was conducting sales when I was there. It was all about getting existing owners to "upgrade" to BV.
> 
> ...



This makes no sense to me either.  Starwood shouldn't care whether I spend $25,000 on a developer purchase without a trade-in or I spend $40,000 on a developer purchase with a $15,000 trade-in.  In either case, they get $25,000 of new money.

But lots of Starwood policies don't make sense to me.

As I have posted before, if Starwood didn't have such fabulous properties, I would go elsewhere.


----------



## James1975NY (May 13, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> Starwood is not really building new resorts, once they sell out of what they are building what are they going to sell ?. Also I understand increasing the retro prices, but what difference does it make for them how much they will give you back on your unit. Example now you would buy 2 cheap units on Ebay with one you would do the upgrade and the other one they retro. With the new way you would buy one unit on Ebay and one unit from Sheraton and have the ebay retro'd in to the system. Is my way of thinking wrong ?



I agree. Starwood should not focus on what you paid for the villa if you purchased on the secondary market....after all, they already sold it once before it hit the secondary market. Why would they shut the door on new business because the buyer will not get full credit for what Starwood originally sold it for.


----------



## jerseygirl (May 13, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Why would they shut the door on new business because the buyer will not get full credit for what Starwood originally sold it for.



Because they're even more greedy than the average corporation (I work for a much larger corporation and we're greedy too -- but, compared to Starwood, we look like a charitable foundation!).

They can calculate their "additional" revenue when they make the policies more restrictive .... sit around, pat each other on the back, eat oranges, etc.  But, they can't calculate what they're losing.  My very first TS purchase was a Vistana Resort (resale).  Since then, I've spent many tens of thousands of dollars on other mini-systems because I won't give in to their games (well, except for my WSJ poolhouse villa -- but they'll never profit from it via an SVN exchange or SO conversion --- so I forgive myself that one transgression!).


----------



## pathways25 (May 20, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> I agree. Starwood should not focus on what you paid for the villa if you purchased on the secondary market....after all, they already sold it once before it hit the secondary market. Why would they shut the door on new business because the buyer will not get full credit for what Starwood originally sold it for.



Although this new policy is bad for us, it does seem to make a lot of sense.  After all, what you're doing with an upgrade at full original sale value is that you're essentially getting Starwood to buy back the resale at full face value and absorb the depreciation.  It's just like trading in your 3 year old BMW for this year's model but getting the full purchase price as credit on your trade.

You could say that a "used" timeshare shouldn't lose value like a used car, but Starwood will have to resell your trade and bear the heavy sales expense again.


----------



## Garnet (May 20, 2009)

*Don't most resale purchasers buy to go, not trade?*

Hmmm...we purchased our (resale) WMH week to go there-not trade.  We did NOT purchase because a salesperson talked up what a great place it is...PLUS all these other great places to trade EASILY into.  (Hawaii, St. John, Florida...)

Don't most resale purchasers buy to go to that home resort?  After all, they purchased knowing that they were not participating in (or currently getting) the options thing.  

If we were offered to "join" the Starwood network, I doubt we would use it that often.  Living in Nor. Cal. with 3 kids, I'm not sure I can afford to fly regularly to other Starwood resort locations even if I wanted to!  Joining the Starwood network would be icing...but we really bought for the cake.


----------



## Troopers (May 20, 2009)

jeromechen said:


> Although this new policy is bad for us, it does seem to make a lot of sense.  After all, what you're doing with an upgrade at full original sale value is that you're essentially getting Starwood to buy back the resale at full face value and absorb the depreciation.  It's just like trading in your 3 year old BMW for this year's model but getting the full purchase price as credit on your trade.
> 
> You could say that a "used" timeshare shouldn't lose value like a used car, but Starwood will have to resell your trade and bear the heavy sales expense again.




I too think it makes a lot of sense although your analogy isn't quite right to me.  Starwood sells every week, even a buy back week, as a new pricing levels.  Whereas a 3 yr old BMW bought back can't be resold as if it was new.

My guess is that Starwood is now losing money when a week is upgraded.  Here's why:

1.  Starwood's inventory gets diluted.  An upgrade results in a +1 low demand week and -1 high demand week (and $10k to ~$20k).

2.  They will incur costs (spend, discount, write off, etc) to sell/get rid of the low demand week and burn through the monies earned from the upgrade transaction.  This is magnified with no new properties (high demand weeks).

3.  Upgrades are usually performed with a retro (this may not be the case but I don't think so).  The retro costs Starwood money.

I think they would be better off selling the high demand week than they would have if they had not upgraded the low demand week.


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2009)

Garnet said:


> Don't most resale purchasers buy to go to that home resort?  After all, they purchased knowing that they were not participating in (or currently getting) the options thing.



Not necessarily, don't forget that resale owners still get the Starwood priority in II, so you can exchange an inexpensive, voluntary, resale, 1 bdm. for a 2 bdm. at WKORV or WPORV, or another of the expensive mandatory resorts.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 20, 2009)

Garnet said:


> Don't most resale purchasers buy to go to that home resort?  After all, they purchased knowing that they were not participating in (or currently getting) the options thing.



Not necessarily - do not forget that resale Mandatory resorts can use SVN (and pay a SVN fee).  We exchanged a resale WKV week for a WKORV week.


----------



## silkey21 (May 24, 2009)

jeromechen said:


> Although this new policy is bad for us, it does seem to make a lot of sense.  After all, what you're doing with an upgrade at full original sale value is that you're essentially getting Starwood to buy back the resale at full face value and absorb the depreciation.  It's just like trading in your 3 year old BMW for this year's model but getting the full purchase price as credit on your trade.
> 
> You could say that a "used" timeshare shouldn't lose value like a used car, but Starwood will have to resell your trade and bear the heavy sales expense again.



If Starwood cared about values and resales all they would need to do is to exercise the right of refusal. I recently bought a SDO one bedroom small plat. season (1-21 and 51&52) on ebay for $52 (I just retro'd the unit) the original owner paid $17k. This unit was in the SVO system all they needed to do was pay $52. So Starwood pays all this attention and like someone said they have people watching these chatboards-- why not just repurchase some of the units ?. We try to stay everyyear at SVV and we go on these tours and they try to sell us the 81k options and when people say no they say well buy EOY or 67k options.  If they could rebuy these units cheap they would be able to resell them and make alot of money. Another question when they put units for the Villas and the old Vistana into SVO does not that dilute our Staroptions ie making them less available for us.


----------



## SDKath (May 24, 2009)

Because they can't sell it once they have exercised ROFR.  They already have a huge inventory of unsold TS weeks.  Why would they build up even a larger inventory -- especially at places where there are no more active sales (like SDO)?  It would not be smart on their part to keep buying back every single week that is selling for under $100 (which seems to be most of the Sheraton weeks!) and getting stuck eating the MFs for all these units...

K


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 24, 2009)

and yet we have a 'report' here that stated that SVO did excercise their ROFR at SDO - you would think that for $52 they would have done here also - but I did not give credence to the ROFR report here... (IMO)


----------



## silkey21 (May 24, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Because they can't sell it once they have exercised ROFR.  They already have a huge inventory of unsold TS weeks.  Why would they build up even a larger inventory -- especially at places where there are no more active sales (like SDO)?  It would not be smart on their part to keep buying back every single week that is selling for under $100 (which seems to be most of the Sheraton weeks!) and getting stuck eating the MFs for all these units...
> 
> K



So why not have active sales in some of the older places like Vistana or SDO. Also if they have so many unsold TimeShares then they would not care about upgrading and they would not restrict upgrades like people are saying on this board.


----------



## Troopers (May 24, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> If Starwood cared about values and resales all they would need to do is to exercise the right of refusal.



I bet we're going to see Starwood exercise their ROFR.


----------



## Troopers (May 24, 2009)

silkey21 said:


> So why not have active sales in some of the older places like Vistana or SDO.



Here's my guess...before the market collapsed, there wasn't a steady supply of "cheap" resale weeks.  It didn't make sense for Starwood to have active sales at soldout resorts for a limited supply of ROFR weeks.  It would cost too much money to support the sales and to purchase ROFR weeks.  But now, resale weeks are cheap and plentiful.



silkey21 said:


> Also if they have so many unsold TimeShares then they would not care about upgrading and they would not restrict upgrades like people are saying on this board.



See my post #55.


----------



## silkey21 (May 24, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Here's my guess...before the market collapsed, there wasn't a steady supply of "cheap" resale weeks.  It didn't make sense for Starwood to have active sales at soldout resorts for a limited supply of ROFR weeks.  It would cost too much money to support the sales and to purchase ROFR weeks.  But now, resale weeks are cheap and plentiful.
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #55.



Your are correct...... but when you go to Marriott and go on a tour there were plenty of times where the salesperson said they could get us in the system more cheaply and offering us different timeshare options then buying the timeshare property that we toured.
Starwood could do the same.... I guess it is what it is and owners would need to make the best of it..... I hope the mandatory places like SVV and WKV go up in value from distressed prices that we are seeing on Ebay.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 24, 2009)

Troopers said:


> I bet we're going to see Starwood exercise their ROFR.



Seriously?  Are you talking about the new resorts, or are you taking about resorts that were originally Embassy, like SDO and SBP?  The units I have purchased at both of those resorts were not Sheraton when the original owners bought.  Why would they have any ROFR on those?  

This goes right back to PAHIO's insistence of ROFR on weeks that never had that written into the contract.  They added it in July of 2005, then they tried to buffalo people into a phony ROFR, and it worked, because they stopped many eBay sales.  

If Embassy had it, then I suppose it transferred to Sheraton, but they need to prove they had it, and I don't know where I would look for it. I sure don't have any bylaws or declarations for either resort.  

Even if they did this at some time, I think they would hesitate in this economy, as Marriott has not been exercising their legitimate ROFR.


----------



## Troopers (May 25, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Seriously?  Are you talking about the new resorts, or are you taking about resorts that were originally Embassy, like SDO and SBP?  The units I have purchased at both of those resorts were not Sheraton when the original owners bought.  Why would they have any ROFR on those?



Yup.  I think we'll see a general trend where Starwood exercises their ROFR.  If Starwood lacks ROFR at weeks/units as you described, then of course they won't/can't excercise ROFR.  If they can, I think we'll start to see them do it.


----------



## Patty (May 25, 2009)

What does "mandatory" and "voluntary" mean for these resorts?


----------



## tlpnet (May 25, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> and yet we have a 'report' here that stated that SVO did excercise their ROFR at SDO - you would think that for $52 they would have done here also - but I did not give credence to the ROFR report here... (IMO)


 
David - I also did not give credence to the ROFR report here. Because the ROFR poster really wanted the unit she had purchased, and I had a little experience dealing with the ROFR dept at Starwood, I PM'ed the poster and we PM'ed back and forth. I firmly believe that in this case (Platinum Week at WMH) that they definitely did exercise ROFR in this one case.

This has been the only recent report of ROFR exercised, but it gives me hope that maybe this IS a random smart move on Starwood's part. Maybe we will see it happen more.

-tim


----------



## Captron (May 25, 2009)

I know for the Point at Poipu, which was also a Embassy resort, they did have ROFR. I would have to dig up my old docs for Embassy MB to check there, but I believe they did there too. I would believe it would be stated as the developer having ROFR, so I would think that ROFR would transfer with the sale.


----------



## SDKath (May 25, 2009)

I am sorry but I don't get it.  Why would they start exercising ROFR again???  Even Marriott, which had a VERY strict ROFR policy all these years, stopped exercising them about 6 months ago!  They too have way too much inventory (my guess) to make it viable for them to buy back every cheap sale.  I just don't understand why one would think that in a really bad economy with  minimal TS sales possible, a company would actively want to increase their inventory (and costs) just to keep $52 TSs from being on the market?!

K


----------



## calgarygary (May 25, 2009)

Patty said:


> What does "mandatory" and "voluntary" mean for these resorts?



Patty, if you visit the FAQ at the top of this forum, you will get a great primer in Starwood.  Basically, there a few resorts that when ownership transfers, membership in SVN transfers with the ownership (mandatory) and thus the resale buyers have the opportunity to use staroptions to trade into other SVN resorts.  The voluntary resorts (all new resorts/developments seem to be voluntary) mean that membership with SVN does not transfer when the original owner sells.  Resale buyers of voluntary resorts can not participate in SVN unless they go to the expense of retro'ing their voluntary resort.  Mandatory resorts have a much higher resale value than voluntary all things being equal because of the value of trading within SVN.


----------



## calgarygary (May 25, 2009)

It is a no brainer, Starwood will not start exercising rofr in great numbers as they need the mf to be paid by owners.  Take a look at Starwood's 1st qtr. results, operating income is down almost 60% for Starwood as a whole while revenue from timeshare sales alone is down 51.3%.  Where is the income to increase rofr by anything other than a marginal amount.


----------



## golfpro60 (Jun 24, 2009)

SDKath said:


> I am sorry but I don't get it.  Why would they start exercising ROFR again???  Even Marriott, which had a VERY strict ROFR policy all these years, stopped exercising them about 6 months ago!  They too have way too much inventory (my guess) to make it viable for them to buy back every cheap sale.  I just don't understand why one would think that in a really bad economy with  minimal TS sales possible, a company would actively want to increase their inventory (and costs) just to keep $52 TSs from being on the market?!
> 
> K


A SVV 2BR/2BA UNIT, ANNUAL,1-52 FLOAT SOLD FOR $1 + CLOSING COSTS, WHY IS THIS NOT A GREAT DEAL? I'm new to TS ownership. Thanks


----------



## LisaRex (Jun 24, 2009)

golfpro60 said:


> A SVV 2BR/2BA UNIT, ANNUAL,1-52 FLOAT SOLD FOR $1 + CLOSING COSTS, WHY IS THIS NOT A GREAT DEAL? I'm new to TS ownership. Thanks



2 reasons:

1) It may be located in one of the SVV sections that are currently undergoing refurbishment.  So $1 is actually $2500 or so. 

2) Most weeks you can book a week at SVV/SVR via II Getaways for less than you'll pay in MFs.


----------



## Politico (Jun 24, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> 2 reasons:
> 
> 1) It may be located in one of the SVV sections that are currently undergoing refurbishment.  So $1 is actually $2500 or so.
> 
> 2) Most weeks you can book a week at SVV/SVR via II Getaways for less than you'll pay in MFs.



I've never heard of an SVV 1-52 float. What section is this?


----------



## calgarygary (Jun 24, 2009)

I am not aware of SVV having a special assessment so the cost would be $1 + closing.  However, as politico pointed out, there is no week that floats 1-52 so chances are, there is an error in the listing either about the floating or the resort.  If it is SVR, then there could be an sa and maybe it is not such a great deal.


----------

