# Mandatory Resort for SVN



## amanven (Aug 2, 2015)

I have a 2BDR at SVR since 2008 that I bought resale. I am quite happy with the uses, exchanges and benefits obtained through membership in II (getaways and guest certificates) I have had since obtaining the property.

I have a friend who is considering purchasing an SVV 2BDR LO in the Mandatory Bella or Key West phases for the same purposes as I use mine ie: stays at SVV, exchanging for other resorts and using the benefits that come from an II membership.  As I bought my SVR resale I can't really advise her very well as to whether the benefits of being able to access SVN make it worth paying the additional MF's and resale purchase price of SVV Key West or Bella Phases.  Would there be any reasonable expectation of scoring a WSJ or WKORV with an SVV (assuming she has enough SO's) thru SVN should she choose to go to one of those properties.  By comparison I have never gotten an WSJ thru II (and don't expect to either) but I have successfully exchanged each time I have requested to WKORV so do the benefits of SVN justify purchasing a mandatory phase of Vistana in Florida?


----------



## ThreeLittleBirds (Aug 2, 2015)

Depends when she wants to go to WKORV. I used to have success trading into WKORV through II, but no luck the past 2 years. I was able to book this December using my SO's from my SVV, though. For other dates, 1 bedrooms seem to be somewhat available and studios are readily available.

I have peaked around at WSJ, and there are some dates available, but as I was not seriously looking, I don't remember the dates or unit size.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Aug 2, 2015)

ThreeLittleBirds said:


> Depends when she wants to go to WKORV. I used to have success trading into WKORV through II, but no luck the past 2 years. I was able to book this December using my SO's from my SVV, though. For other dates, 1 bedrooms seem to be somewhat available and studios are readily available.
> 
> I have peaked around at WSJ, and there are some dates available, but as I was not seriously looking, I don't remember the dates or unit size.



I have an OGS for any day in 2016 and till July of 2017 for WSJ and after everyone's low success rate of trading into WKORV through II, I've given upon that idea


----------



## capjak (Aug 2, 2015)

I think it is well worth it to have mandatory.  You have more flexibility on dates including check in dates at WKORV/N, as well as the op to go to Harborside easier than II exchange and inclusion of banking/borrowing star options without having to use II.

I would advise her to buy Mandatory at least 81000 star options


----------



## amanven (Aug 2, 2015)

capjak said:


> I think it is well worth it to have mandatory.  You have more flexibility on dates including check in dates at WKORV/N, as well as the op to go to Harborside easier than II exchange and inclusion of banking/borrowing star options without having to use II.
> 
> I would advise her to buy Mandatory at least 81000 star options



From an SVN SO perspective and taking into account the MF's that go with each one what would be better 1- 95700 SVV 2BDR LO, 2  SVV 2BDR's (2x81,000) or 1 1bdr+ 1 2bdr SVV(44,000 + 81,000)...all in red season?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 2, 2015)

Too many extrinsic factors to decide for someone else.
Me? the 2Bd LO SVV if I was forced to, but I would not buy in Orlando.
In Reality - I would buy WKV (Plat).


----------



## amanven (Aug 2, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> Too many extrinsic factors to decide for someone else.
> Me? the 2Bd LO SVV if I was forced to, but I would not buy in Orlando.
> In Reality - I would buy WKV (Plat).



WKV would probably be a good choice but I have read before on TUG not to buy if you don't intend to use the location you have bought.  My friend would never go to Scottsdale (no offense to Scottsdale intended) but would be quite likely to go to Orlando when not exchanging for other SVN locations.  
Is it really advisable to buy a resort in an area you won't likely ever be going to for the sole purpose of getting into SVN and knowing you would have to exchange it everytime for the destinations you really want.  Have some TUG members done this?


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 3, 2015)

amanven said:


> Is it really advisable to buy a resort in an area you won't likely ever be going to for the sole purpose of getting into SVN and knowing you would have to exchange it everytime for the destinations you really want.  Have some TUG members done this?



We own at WLR and have never been there, and it's not high on our personal list of future travel destinations.

At the time, it was the least cost most SO's developer option.  We bought it to use only for the points to go elsewhere.  Same concept holds for a mandatory resale.

The risk is always that a property leaves SVN or the entire SVN system changes in a negative way or just ceases to exist, leaving you with ownership that you then have to use directly...


----------



## vacationtime1 (Aug 3, 2015)

We own three WKV units; we have visited exactly once, and that was on an exchange.

WKV is simply the most cost/effective SVN trader in the system as long as purchased resale.  MF's are relatively low and stable (1,414 two bedroom / $867 large one bedroom / $547 small one bedroom + SVN fee, regardless of season).

But the extra benefit of WKV is that if you don't use it or trade it, you can rent it for an economically rational profit.  We have already rented our large side one bedroom week 2016 week for $2,400, at least $1,450 more than the likely MF for next year.  So if SVN does get changed fundamentally, we still own something of value.


----------



## Ty1on (Aug 3, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> We own three WKV units; we have visited exactly once, and that was on an exchange.
> 
> WKV is simply the most cost/effective SVN trader in the system as long as purchased resale.  MF's are relatively low and stable (1,414 two bedroom / $867 large one bedroom / $547 small one bedroom + SVN fee, regardless of season).
> 
> But the extra benefit of WKV is that if you don't use it or trade it, you can rent it for an economically rational profit.  We have already rented our large side one bedroom week 2016 week for $2,400, at least $1,450 more than the likely MF for next year.  So if SVN does get changed fundamentally, we still own something of value.



Wow.  dollar signs are lighting up in my eyes.

What does SVN go for on the market, all-in?


----------



## capjak (Aug 3, 2015)

capjak said:


> I think it is well worth it to have mandatory.  You have more flexibility on dates including check in dates at WKORV/N, as well as the op to go to Harborside easier than II exchange and inclusion of banking/borrowing star options without having to use II.
> 
> I would advise her to buy Mandatory at least 81000 star options



I bought the 2 bedroom 81000 Key West because I wanted the SOs for a 1 bedroom in Maui.  A lock off would be nice for trading in II (but I do not use it for that).


----------



## Markus (Aug 3, 2015)

My advice would be as follows.

If you want to be able to use II to exchange for 2 separate vacations I would buy the 2 bed lock off, as each piece can be used separately. In terms of SVN I think this is a good choice and I would look to a mandatory resort. The SVN fee is $130 and you should compare this to the II membership and exchange fees you would pay for a voluntary resort. In SVN you get first dibs on usage, even before II.

Also in terms of price, SVV is much less expensive upfront, and this may be important to you, even though the mfs are higher.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 3, 2015)

Markus said:


> In SVN you get first dibs on usage, even before II.




No, II inventory is ostensibly from owners who deposit their week though SVN chooses which week and resort to use. SVN inventory is from weeks used for exchanges to other network resorts. It's a bit more complicated but that's the basic method...search TUG for much more detail on how this is done. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 3, 2015)

Ty1on said:


> Wow.  dollar signs are lighting up in my eyes.
> 
> What does SVN go for on the market, all-in?



I presume you mean WKV.  It goes for ~$17,000-20,000 + closing fees.  However, there is one on Redweek right now for 148,100 SOs for $16,500.


----------



## Ty1on (Aug 3, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> I presume you mean WKV.  It goes for ~$17,000-20,000 + closing fees.  However, there is one on Redweek right now for 148,100 SOs for $16,500.



Yes I meant WKV, thanks!


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 3, 2015)

As a side note - last week I deleted a post from a newbie asking if anyone wanted to give away a WKV 2 bd. Plat week…


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 3, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> As a side note - last week I deleted a post from a newbie asking if anyone wanted to give away a WKV 2 bd. Plat week…




Wow - that was probably a timeshare salesman looking for a good opportunity...


Sent from my iPad


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 3, 2015)

I love my Harborside weeks.  The buy-in is cheap - $10,000 for a Platinum 3  bedroom.  The maintenance fee is a nightmare,  but I regularly rent them for $2500 over fees, and mine are Gold, not Platinum.


----------



## Ty1on (Aug 3, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> As a side note - last week I deleted a post from a newbie asking if anyone wanted to give away a WKV 2 bd. Plat week…



Thanks for the warning!


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 3, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> No, II inventory is ostensibly from owners who deposit their week though SVN chooses which week and resort to use. SVN inventory is from weeks used for exchanges to other network resorts. It's a bit more complicated but that's the basic method...search TUG for much more detail on how this is done.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad


I'd put it that SVN is inventory not booked by the owners at the individual resort 8 mo out but same difference really. 

I scorered 10 days early Feb in a 2 bed WSJ for 2016 with SO.  It is not an impossible trade.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

amanven said:


> WKV would probably be a good choice but I have read before on TUG not to buy if you don't intend to use the location you have bought.  My friend would never go to Scottsdale (no offense to Scottsdale intended) but would be quite likely to go to Orlando when not exchanging for other SVN locations.
> Is it really advisable to buy a resort in an area you won't likely ever be going to for the sole purpose of getting into SVN and knowing you would have to exchange it everytime for the destinations you really want.  Have some TUG members done this?



We own two weeks at WKV and one week at Lagunamar. We have owned Kierland since 2003(?). We have never used our weeks at either resort. 

Kierland has been my jack of all timeshares.....Great staroptions/mf/cost and excellent trader in II. We have gotten so much use from those units.....Atlantis, St John, Maui, Disney, Florida and Aruba.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

Another thing about the WKV and trading in II. A 2-bdroom unit breaks into two 1-bedroom units when you deposit in II. WKV is a very good II trader for Platinum weeks.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> Another thing about the WKV and trading in II. A 2-bdroom unit breaks into two 1-bedroom units when you deposit in II. WKV is a very good II trader for Platinum weeks.




Yeah, but...what a waste. You'll find the same, or very very similar, II exchange strength using other voluntary Starwood weeks. I would never use my WKV week in II and intend to always use it for its 148k StarOptions.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## okwiater (Aug 7, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> Yeah, but...what a waste. You'll find the same, or very very similar, II exchange strength using other voluntary Starwood weeks. I would never use my WKV week in II and intend to always use it for its 148k StarOptions.



It's not necessarily a waste unless you own a cheaper voluntary week that you can use instead. A hard-and-fast rule like only using WKV for its StarOptions makes no sense if, for instance, you can exchange each side of your WKV for a 2-bedroom in Hawaii. I have only ever owned Starwood weeks with StarOptions and as such usually utilize SVN for exchanges, but would never advocate "always" doing so. But I do get your point.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

okwiater said:


> It's not necessarily a waste unless you own a cheaper voluntary week that you can use instead. A hard-and-fast rule like only using WKV for its StarOptions makes no sense if, for instance, you can exchange each side of your WKV for a 2-bedroom in Hawaii. I have only ever owned Starwood weeks with StarOptions and as such usually utilize SVN for exchanges, but would never advocate "always" doing so. But I do get your point.




Thanks for agreeing with me. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## taterhed (Aug 7, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> As a side note - last week I deleted a post from a newbie asking if anyone wanted to give away a WKV 2 bd. Plat week…



Yes, but this 

"eoy even large 1 bedroom at xxxxxxxxx worth 30,500 star options" 

was posted in bargains last month--not by me. (WKV)

this is not my ad!!!!

I was surprised!


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> Yeah, but...what a waste. You'll find the same, or very very similar, II exchange strength using other voluntary Starwood weeks. I would never use my WKV week in II and intend to always use it for its 148k StarOptions.



That is not true....Not all of them have the same strength in II. 

Here is one example on how I used WKV in II. I deposited the small side of my 2 bedroom unit and exchanged for a 2 bedroom l/o in Maui. The other side, I deposited and exchanged for a 2 bedroom at Disney's Beach club Resort. 

So for 67k staroptions, I got a 148k staroption trade. The remaining staroptions got me a steal of a room, at a top DVC resort ( I am a big DVC owner and know the value of the resorts).

This is not my normal use of WKV. Almost all most usage has gone in getting rooms at Atlantis and St John.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

taterhed said:


> Yes, but this
> 
> "eoy even large 1 bedroom at xxxxxxxxx worth 30,500 star options"
> 
> ...



You can't argue with the law.....


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> That is not true....Not all of them have the same strength in II.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, I'm done making generalizations on TUG and will update my footer accordingly. 

However, the essence of my point is that a voluntary week will benefit by the II Starwood preference and be very similar to a WKV week (some better, some worse). 

BTW, how do you know a SDO 1-bed or other voluntary resort wouldn't pull those same 2-bed units you got via II with your WKV week? Fwiw, I use my SDO to get great resorts all the time (I got a Four Seasons 2-bed just a few days ago for a small SDO 1-bed, and that's arguably the best, if not amongst the top few, timeshares anywhere).


Sent from my iPad


----------



## taterhed (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> You can't argue with the law.....



Actually, I redacted the info in the post....not Denise.. I'm not the noob with the free timeshare question (this time)

I was just surprised that a free WKV was in bargains. It might still be there.

Of course, that's not a 2br platinum.....


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> BTW, how do you know a SDO 1-bed or other voluntary resort wouldn't pull those same 2-bed units you got via II with your WKV week? Fwiw, I use my SDO to get great resorts all the time (I got a Four Seasons 2-bed just a few days ago for a small SDO 1-bed, and that's arguably the best, if not amongst the top few, timeshares anywhere).



Because in the other forums/sections, we do trade tests to see what resorts/units can pull in II/RCI. 

SDO is a good trader, not as good as Kierland. Vistana anything pretty much suck as traders.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> Because in the other forums/sections, we do trade tests to see what resorts/units can pull in II/RCI.
> 
> SDO is a good trader, not as good as Kierland. Vistana anything pretty much suck as traders.



My experience differs. I checked my trading history and this is what I've been able to get with my SDO and SVR. I would not define this as a bad trader. I think SVR has been much maligned on TUG due to its location and lack of uniqueness. I only gave away my SVR weeks since I wanted SDO instead to lower my MFs, not because I couldn't use the weeks.

SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed
SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed (yes, I got this twice)
SVR 2-bed -> WKORVN 1-bed
SVR 2-bed -> WKORVN 2-bed
SVR 2-bed -> WPORV 2-bed
SVR 2-bed -> WKORVN 1-bed
SVR 2-bed -> Marriott Timber Lodge 2-bed (ski week)
SVR 2-bed -> WKORVN 2-bed
SVR 2-bed -> WKORV 1-bed
SVR 2-bed -> WKORV 2-bed
SVR 2-bed -> Club Intrawest Palm Springs 2-bed (December week)

SDO 1-bed -> WKORVN 1-bed
SDO 1-bed -> Marriott's Grand Chateau 2-bed (January week during CES!)
SDO 1-bed -> Four Seasons Aviara 2-bed 

So, tell me again that SVR sucks. 

* Past performance is not indicative of future results. Your mileage may vary. This posting is solely the opinion of the author and has no basis on anyone else's ability to trade for anything greater than a broom closet with a leaky roof.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 7, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> My experience differs. I checked my trading history and this is what I've been able to get with my SDO and SVR. I would not define this as a bad trader. I think SVR has been much maligned on TUG due to its location and lack of uniqueness. I only gave away my SVR weeks since I wanted SDO instead to lower my MFs, not because I couldn't use the weeks.
> 
> SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed
> SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed (yes, I got this twice)
> ...



I traded my 1 bedroom for 2 bedrooms......


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> I traded my 1 bedroom for 2 bedrooms......



So? The ability to trade a 1-bed is a different topic than your earlier statement about the poor performance of SVR (many of which are 2-bed units). You said:



> Because in the other forums/sections, we do trade tests to see what resorts/units can pull in II/RCI.
> 
> SDO is a good trader, not as good as Kierland. Vistana anything pretty much suck as traders.



And, more importantly, the earlier issue was the veracity of your claim that WKV is a better trader than SVR or SVV. Again, in my experience that's simply not the case. I cannot imagine trading via II and getting better results than WKORV, WKORVN, WPORV, Harborside, etc. What better resorts are in II that you would get?


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> Here is one example on how I used WKV in II. I deposited the small side of my 2 bedroom unit and exchanged for a 2 bedroom l/o in Maui. The other side, I deposited and exchanged for a 2 bedroom at Disney's Beach club Resort.



FWIW, I believe Disney now trades with RCI and has no resorts with II. (Just so any other viewers don't get their hopes up...).


----------



## taterhed (Aug 7, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> My experience differs. I checked my trading history and this is what I've been able to get with my SDO and SVR. I would not define this as a bad trader. I think SVR has been much maligned on TUG due to its location and lack of uniqueness. I only gave away my SVR weeks since I wanted SDO instead to lower my MFs, not because I couldn't use the weeks.
> 
> SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed
> SVR 2-bed -> Harborside 2-bed (yes, I got this twice)
> ...



Is that broom closet island view or ocean view?

Sent from my Kindle...pls forgive errors and brevity


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 8, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> FWIW, I believe Disney now trades with RCI and has no resorts with II. (Just so any other viewers don't get their hopes up...).



I know..........

Again....Big DVC owner, I know rules and the game.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 8, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> And, more importantly, the earlier issue was the veracity of your claim that WKV is a better trader than SVR or SVV. Again, in my experience that's simply not the case. I cannot imagine trading via II and getting better results than WKORV, WKORVN, WPORV, Harborside, etc. What better resorts are in II that you would get?



You are an experienced owner and have gotten great trades. I did not say or suggest those trades were impossible. But I stand by my claim that WKV does trade better then SVV and SVR. What that percentage is, I do not know....but it is a fact. Your trade posts validates what I said....you traded a 2 bedroom for a 1 bedroom. I traded a 1 bedroom units for a 2 bedroom units. If you had used a 1-bedroom unit in your search, you "might" not have see any of those 1-bedroom trades....maybe half.


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 8, 2015)

All of this begs the question:  Why is a particular resort's trading power in II not disclosed to the owners?  Is it because trading power is relative to what company deposits it?  

My only anecdotal evidence about trading power of WKORV v SVV is when I did some experimenting years ago.  WKORV was able to see Four Seasons Aviara and SVV was not.  I don't recall if I used the entire 2 bdrm of WKORV or just one side, but I had to use the 2 bdrm of SVV because when I owned them concurrently, I had a fixed 2 bdrm at SVV.  (I've since sold that one and exchanged for a 2 bdrm lockoff).

Since I love to see actual data, if other owners are up for an experiment of what resorts see what at a particular day and time, I'd be happy to use my SVV as a guinea pig.


----------



## PamMo (Aug 8, 2015)

I'd be interested in doing a test. I don't own at Kierland, but can test with WKORVN, HRA, and SDO units. (And could compare with how they trade against my Marriott deposits.)

Last year, I tried to split my WKORVN OF unit to trade back into WKORV/WKORVN for two 2BR units (or a 2BR and 1BR). My studio could only see other studios (there was no point in trading and losing my view). My WKORVN 1BR saw exactly the same 2BR units that both sides of my SDO unit could see. I'm be curious if that would still be true?


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 8, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> All of this begs the question:  Why is a particular resort's trading power in II not disclosed to the owners?  Is it because trading power is relative to what company deposits it?
> 
> My only anecdotal evidence about trading power of WKORV v SVV is when I did some experimenting years ago.  WKORV was able to see Four Seasons Aviara and SVV was not.  I don't recall if I used the entire 2 bdrm of WKORV or just one side, but I had to use the 2 bdrm of SVV because when I owned them concurrently, I had a fixed 2 bdrm at SVV.  (I've since sold that one and exchanged for a 2 bdrm lockoff).
> 
> Since I love to see actual data, if other owners are up for an experiment of what resorts see what at a particular day and time, I'd be happy to use my SVV as a guinea pig.



Trading power fluctuates....The Sales team is selling you the resort. II/RCI is just a side benefit that most do not even understand or use.  

All the work has already been done, you just need to sift through the results. http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3&order=desc


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 8, 2015)

PamMo said:


> I'd be interested in doing a test. I don't own at Kierland, but can test with WKORVN, HRA, and SDO units. (And could compare with how they trade against my Marriott deposits.)



That would be great.  Let's decide on a date and time and maybe we could coordinate something.  All I have is SVV to view, but at least it's a L/O so I can split it and compare. 

If anyone else is interested, let me know.  

I'm Eastern time zone and I could do Monday, Tuesday or Thursday evening.  I could also do really early on a Friday or Sunday.


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 8, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> All the work has already been done, you just need to sift through the results. http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3&order=desc



I know that the owner lists what he sees with what, but I'm looking to see if x (top tier resort) sees something that y (mid or low tier resort) doesn't see. If people are looking at x vs. y and wants to use II extensively, that would be good data for them to have.


----------



## PamMo (Aug 8, 2015)

It's best to set some parameters for a trade test. What do you want to know? Here's an example of one test to show what units had the power to pull 2BR Lagunamar units in II:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=[Sighting+test]


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 8, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> You are an experienced owner and have gotten great trades. I did not say or suggest those trades were impossible. But I stand by my claim that WKV does trade better then SVV and SVR. What that percentage is, I do not know....but it is a fact. Your trade posts validates what I said....you traded a 2 bedroom for a 1 bedroom. I traded a 1 bedroom units for a 2 bedroom units. If you had used a 1-bedroom unit in your search, you "might" not have see any of those 1-bedroom trades....maybe half.




I think you need to review my results again. 8 of the 11 SVR trades were 2-bed for 2-bed. If SVR was such a horrible trader that shouldn't be possible, based on your posts. How do you explain that the majority of my trades were for an equal size to some of the best II resorts, mostly using Starwood priority, and still claim SVR is a bad trader, as compared to WKV?

FWIW, during the years I owned SVR the MF was only just more than half the MF of WKV. And of course, WKV has value while SVR does not when purchasing, so the amortized cost of using WKV via II is higher.

Your "facts" seem to be more like "everyone knows" without any basis other than anecdotal evidence. FWIW, I believed a lot of that until I got my first SVR (thinking I would be happy with just a 1-bed or other trades) and then found out that it trades just great. I think your "facts" need to be reevaluated and adjusted to meet reality.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Sicnarf (Aug 8, 2015)

I thought you can only exchange to a bigger unit 60 days before arrival?


----------



## PamMo (Aug 8, 2015)

Sicnarf said:


> I thought you can only exchange to a bigger unit 60 days before arrival?



A lot of us have traded our 1BR's for 2BR's far beyond 60 days. You can't place an _ongoing search_ for a larger unit than what you've deposited, but anything your unit can "see" online in II is bookable. That's why the TUG sightings board is invaluable. Unfortunately, Starwood's bulk deposits are smaller and rarer since they allowed StarOption banking. It used to be much easier to trade up.


----------



## amanven (Aug 8, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> I would not define this as a bad trader. I think SVR has been much maligned on TUG due to its location and lack of uniqueness. QUOTE]
> 
> Thank you Ken555 for saying it!!!  My experience with my SVR resale has been similar since 2011 I have traded into WKORV 3 times (twice for 2 bdr and once for a studio).  Also managed to trade it for the Marriott Surf Club Aruba not to mention the thoroughly enjoyable usage I got from it anytime I didn't feel like exchanging.  It's not a mandatory resort like WKV but I didn't pay in the 5 figures to buy it (got it resale for peanuts),  I can live with the MF's and unlike WKV would be happy to use it anytime the mood stirkes me.
> 
> No maligning of WKV intended, it is a lovely looking resort but I do not routinely travel to the US southwest and likely never will and I find even the resale prices for WKV more than I want to pay for a resort I would likely almost always never use and therefore need to exchange.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> I think you need to review my results again. 8 of the 11 SVR trades were 2-bed for 2-bed. If SVR was such a horrible trader that shouldn't be possible, based on your posts. How do you explain that the majority of my trades were for an equal size to some of the best II resorts, mostly using Starwood priority, and still claim SVR is a bad trader, as compared to WKV?
> 
> FWIW, during the years I owned SVR the MF was only just more than half the MF of WKV. And of course, WKV has value while SVR does not when purchasing, so the amortized cost of using WKV via II is higher.
> 
> Your "facts" seem to be more like "everyone knows" without any basis other than anecdotal evidence. FWIW, I believed a lot of that until I got my first SVR (thinking I would be happy with just a 1-bed or other trades) and then found out that it trades just great. I think your "facts" need to be reevaluated and adjusted to meet reality.



Ken….[What] is up with you? 

I never wrote that SDO or SVR were bad traders. 

Why do you feel a need to keep trying to justify you week to me? Not once did I reference you or your ownership initially [edited] You are acting like those posters who put down being 5 star elite, yet they have never been 5 star elite. Those of us who are 5 star, love it.....its only those who are not, put it down and try to belittle its value. 

Seriously, get a grip. SVR, SDO, SVV.....et al are fine resorts. What I said is WKV has better trading value (fact). WKV is the best jack of all Starwood (fact). You can tout all the things you have done with yours.....bully for you. My usage has been better....bully for me.

I know my reality, I know my experience and I certainly know how II and Starwood system works. One day I hope you get to my level of knowledge and experience. 

PS - My timeshare is better then yours, nana-nana-boo-boo. :rofl:


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

amanven said:


> No maligning of WKV intended, it is a lovely looking resort but I do not routinely travel to the US southwest and likely never will and I find even the resale prices for WKV more than I want to pay for a resort I would likely almost always never use and therefore need to exchange.




No offense taken......I have never used it in Arizona either.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 9, 2015)

Folks - let's keep the debate friendly, or I'm going to close the thread.


----------



## taterhed (Aug 9, 2015)

Uh, I probably should stay out of this, but....

The start of this post was: Sheraton Vistana, voluntary vs mandatory.

Can we all just agree that WKV has been a very strong trader with rental potential and resale value---that comes at a higher buy-in cost....

and

SDO/SVR have also been good traders in II when managed well--at a lower buy-in cost....

and

SO's are somewhat of an unknown factor in the current environment due to the many current and future changes in the Starwood/Vistana/SVN/Flex rules and structures, so hard to predict whether SVV mandatory is worth any more $$$ 


In summary: if you've got the cash, buy WKV and manage/rent it well. If you don't have the upfront cash, you might try SDO, SVV or SVR, but realize that bulk-deposits and SO bookings are in a state of flux (flex!) right now and that future results may vary.

_*Can't we all just get along?*_ 
jm2c


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> Folks - let's keep the debate friendly, or I'm going to close the thread.



Knew the edit was coming.....


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

> Can we all just agree that WKV has been a very strong trader with rental potential and resale value---that comes at a higher buy-in cost....



I bought my WKV for $20k in 2005. I am currently listing mine for near bought price. I have always rented 2x-3x mf cost every year. 



> SDO/SVR have also been good traders in II when managed well--at a lower buy-in cost....



Yes, good traders. Lower buy in, lower resale.....similar MF (avg)



> SO's are somewhat of an unknown factor in the current environment due to the many current and future changes in the Starwood/Vistana/SVN/Flex rules and structures, so hard to predict whether SVV mandatory is worth any more $$$



Yes, but you can't throw out the past results. Currently, SOs are still very viable. The flex system is too new and the pool of owners too small to make a difference. 



> In summary: if you've got the cash, buy WKV and manage/rent it well. If you don't have the upfront cash, you might try SDO, SVV or SVR, but realize that bulk-deposits and SO bookings are in a state of flux (flex!) right now and that future results may vary.



Again, correct. How you choose to use your week/ownership is individualized. We own WLR and WKV strictly for the SO usage with a side of II. We travel differently then most. Always 2 and 3 bedrooms, multiple units for 12-20 people for vacation.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 9, 2015)

This is the deal:

Some people love their Elite Starwood Status - but it's definitely not for everyone.

Some people love trading through II into the top resorts, with inexpensive traders - but it's definitely not for everyone.

Some people love owning lots of Staroptions and making SVN reservations - but it's definitely not for everyone.

It's all good…


----------



## taterhed (Aug 9, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> This is the deal:
> 
> Some people love their Elite Starwood Status - but it's definitely not for everyone.
> 
> ...



⇧
What she said. Agree with all TomandRobin


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2015)

Let's recap. 

OP wrote: 


> I have a 2BDR at SVR since 2008 that I bought resale. I am quite happy with the uses, exchanges and benefits obtained through membership in II (getaways and guest certificates) I have had since obtaining the property.



The OP is not the only other post confirming great trades to Hawaii and elsewhere using SVR.

Of course, future trade value and ability is an unknown though many (including me) have reported poorer availability since SO banking became effective (and which now may be complicated by the FLEX program TBD) in terms of trading to the Maui Starwood properties. I'm planning on using my WKV StarOptions next year at WKORV. Some Starwood resorts (Harborside, WSJ...) are rarely deposited at II and no one should ever plan on obtaining trades, though it's happened.



tomandrobin said:


> I never wrote that SDO or SVR were bad traders.



Yes, you did. 



tomandrobin said:


> SDO is a good trader, not as good as Kierland. Vistana anything pretty much suck as traders.






> Why do you feel a need to keep trying to justify you week to me? Not once did I reference you or your ownership initially [edited] You are acting like those posters who put down being 5 star elite, yet they have never been 5 star elite. Those of us who are 5 star, love it.....its only those who are not, put it down and try to belittle its value.



I'm not justifying my week to you...I'm posting my results at using SVR with II trading which directly contradicts your contention that it sucks as a trader.

Keep in mind I no longer own SVR. And, you're still not answering my questions.  



> Seriously, get a grip.



Do you really think I've lost hold of reality? I'm trying to relate my experience to others which directly contradicts the previous posts you've made about the effectiveness of trading a supposedly poor quality trader. To this end I've supplied the details of my experience (by the way, this experience is a *fact*).  



> SVR, SDO, SVV.....et al are fine resorts. What I said is WKV has better trading value (fact). WKV is the best jack of all Starwood (fact).



Let's digress into defining "fact", since it seems your definition differs from mine and you do love this word (it's in almost every one of your posts in this thread!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact



> A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact



> noun
> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
> Your fears have no basis in fact.
> 2. something known to exist or to have happened:
> ...



You haven't proven that WKV is a much better trader than SVR (as in WKV is great and SVR sucks), but you've said it over and over that it is...perhaps you subscribe to the belief that if you say the same thing many times it becomes true. 

I think the reality is that both WKV and SVR are excellent II traders. WKV may be 1% better, perhaps more, but the practical side of II trading comes into play in that SVR is still much, much better than most of the other resorts at II that SVR trades excellently. It's not the absolute best, and neither is WKV, but it also definitively does not suck.



> You can tout all the things you have done with yours.....bully for you. My usage has been better....bully for me.



You are taking this personally, aren't you? You shouldn't - this isn't a personal issue. We're trying to help others by relating our experience so that others may benefit by purchasing the best timeshare for their particular needs. It's too bad you can't simply have a civil conversation without the mods having to edit your posts (I didn't see the original version of your post today) and admit when you might be wrong. If you can PROVE that SVR sucks at trading then I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. (I actually enjoy it when I'm wrong, since that means I learned something and I'm always interested in learning). I posted my trade history with SVR and SDO to illustrate that these resorts, particularly SVR, trades great. Your "facts" are insupportable, based on my experience, and I have yet to see the overwhelming evidence that should be easy for you to find if your contention was true.



> I know my reality, I know my experience and I certainly know how II and Starwood system works.



Then enlighten us! Where are your facts? Prove that SVR is a horrible trader, as you contend.



> One day I hope you get to my level of knowledge and experience.



Wow, really? I'm sorry you are so defensive. I'm here to learn from others and in turn post my experiences...positively. It's a shame you can't do the same. But, wait! You earlier posted that I am an "experienced owner". 



tomandrobin said:


> You are an experienced owner and have gotten great trades.



Can I be both experienced and yet not at your "level of knowledge and experience"? I suppose it's possible I really don't know what I'm doing, even though you obviously thought I did earlier. :hysterical:




> PS - My timeshare is better then yours, nana-nana-boo-boo. :rofl:



Um.... sigh.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> This is the deal:
> 
> Some people love their Elite Starwood Status - but it's definitely not for everyone.
> 
> ...



Yes! And I like both...there's a time for StarOptions and a time for II trading. The ability to get great trades in II takes time and risk while SVN trading is relatively easy with less risk.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2015)

More facts to consider...

WKV and SVR MF comparison below. I consider comparing MFs to be very important when deciding on the purchase of a new trader. 

My two SVR weeks were in the Falls section and had slightly different MFs each year and I've only listed one below (they were within a dollar or two), and I've rounded the MF amount to whole dollars for convenience. The WKV MF below does includes the mandatory SVN fee (I've included it as the first SVN resort fee, though this won't be true for all since it is a lower fee for second SVN resorts, etc). 

WKV 148k 2-bed 
SVR Falls 2-bed

Year: WKV (50% of WKV) / SVR

2009: $1253 ($627) / $715
2010: $1346 ($673) / $715
2011: $1335 ($668) / $731
2012: $1414 ($707) / $915
2013: $1434 ($717) / $808

I've included 50% of the WKV MF as a guide to the base cost of trading 1-bed at a time when compared with the 2-bed SVR unit. As you can see, there is only a small difference each year in MF. However, I think we can all agree that a 2-bed unit has advantages in II as compared to a 1-bed unit, especially for those instances where you want to get a 2-bed unit in exchange and want an on-going exchange (when your desired week isn't available for an instant exchange). As a reminder, you can't request a 2-bed on-going exchange with a 1-bed unit.

Also, given the up front cost of WKV (currently ~$17-18k or so) compared to SVR (*FREE*), I think it would be quite difficult for those who want to save money on their exchanges to use an expensive week in place of a week that's so much less expensive. Of course, there is value in knowing that if all else fails for a particular year when planning ahead doesn't work out as expected you can always use the WKV week in II and not lose the MF totally (though I would contend that banking the SOs exchange would be a much better value).

I gave away my SVR weeks and replaced them with SDO (both found on TUG, one free and one at a very reasonable low price; both very easy transactions) solely to reduce my II trade costs and since I am normally happy with a 1-bed exchange this works out well for me. Of course, I'm still able to easily get great resorts in a 2-bed unit (such as the fantastic Four Seasons Aviara 2-bed for a SDO 1-bed I recently got...can't plan on such great trades, but they happen...).

In any case, more info for those considering how best to proceed with their ownerships. Have fun out there, I'm off to WDW today for some heat.


----------



## taterhed (Aug 9, 2015)

Just for some clarity on the MF's Today--not historically:

2015
Westin Kierland Villas

2 Bedroom Lockoff
Annual
MF
1366.74
tax
47.13

2015
Sheraton Vistana Resort
Cascades
2 Bedroom Lockoff
Annual
MF
940.52
tax
163.01



Nice facts, but too much tension here. I'm out.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

ken

Lets just say we have differing opinions and experiences. 

Keep on using your timeshares well, as they best fit your needs. 

We get into this battle every time from those at the bottom looking up vs those at the top looking down. We both feel we have the better deal......So lets just leave it at that.....

Tom


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> ken
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're confused. I never once criticized your ownership nor your use of your weeks. I did take exception to your "facts" being unsupported, and your on-going avoidance of the questions I pose. I posted my actual, factual, trade experience and you changed the topic. You have provided no direct experience of your own trades with SVR (since it seems you have never owned that resort) yet you have no hesitation in believing that it trades poorly.

I also don't post, nor do I like to see, any statement implying that trying to save money is the "bottom looking up" vs those who spend lots of money as the "top looking down". I think you are now confusing timeshares with forbidden topics on TUG, though your post is rather telling.

I welcome any honest conversation about how best to choose which timeshares to purchase in order to have great vacations. For most of us on TUG that goal is directly tied to the cost of those vacations, including acquisition and on going maintenance fees. Since it should now be apparent to all that SVR trades quite well at II, as supported by several posters in this thread, I think you should refrain from stating your "facts" about how it sucks as a trader until such time as you are willing to substantiate your statements. As I wrote earlier, your facts appear to be equivalent to what "everyone knows". 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 9, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> I also don't post, nor do I like to see, any statement implying that trying to save money is the "bottom looking up" vs those who spend lots of money as the "top looking down". I think you are now confusing timeshares with forbidden topics on TUG, though your post is rather telling.



Wasn't talking money....elite status within the system. Don't assume. I didn't just go out and buy 8 weeks from the developer. I have had amazing resale deals, amazing resale/retro upgrades and re-qualifying units.....all for amazingly low prices. Things that Starwood will to you can't be done, but they did. My portfolio was put together on the cheap - mostly. 

I have tried twice now to end this....You have an axe to grind apparently or your buttons pushed the wrong way. 

I have learned along time ago, here on tug, that you only share so much. Once you publicly post "things" and "stuff" that pretty much ruins them. Trading history and power can be seen in the sightings forum.....check it out. I don't have the time or energy or desire.. 

So for a third time.....I wish well in your ownership.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> Wasn't talking money....elite status within the system. Don't assume.



Okay. Still, don't you think you could have phrased it better? FWIW, at the end of the day...it means the same. 



> I didn't just go out and buy 8 weeks from the developer. I have had amazing resale deals, amazing resale/retro upgrades and re-qualifying units.....all for amazingly low prices. Things that Starwood will to you can't be done, but they did. My portfolio was put together on the cheap - mostly.



Frankly, that's what I thought after years of your posts. I am, however, surprised at your posts in this thread.



> I have tried twice now to end this....You have an axe to grind apparently or your buttons pushed the wrong way.



No, not really. But when I take the time to post my experiences and opinions and the original poster of the topic deflects, ignores, and otherwise discounts my opinion I tend to question their perspective and accuracy...for if they are correct and I am wrong, I want to learn from it. But you haven't done me the courtesy of replying in kind, and instead continue to deflect.



> I have learned along time ago, here on tug, that you only share so much. Once you publicly post "things" and "stuff" that pretty much ruins them. Trading history and power can be seen in the sightings forum.....check it out. I don't have the time or energy or desire..



Sure, it's never a good idea to post everything. But trade experience? That's what TUG is all about (especially historical trades, as they sometimes - though not always - indicate future trade success). I keep records of my trades...perhaps you don't, so it's not as easy for you to respond similarly. But, still, you don't have a SVR week to compare my results with, right? Yet you continue to post inaccuracies as facts without any proof, though it's clear you really believe it. I'm not sure why, but your posts imply that I've insulted you (if so, not intended) and the ownership you have (with your 5* Elite references) vs other ways of obtaining weeks. 



> So for a third time.....I wish well in your ownership.



Same. It's a shame you just can't post your results or any proof that SVR trades poorly. Oh, well. Hopefully next time you'll have the facts on your side.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 10, 2015)

> Okay. Still, don't you think you could have phrased it better? FWIW, at the end of the day...it means the same.



It is not.....



> It's a shame you just can't post your results or any proof that SVR trades poorly. Oh, well. Hopefully next time you'll have the facts on your side.



I referenced multiple times that the proof is in the sightings board. The results are documented in those threads. I don't have the time or desire to copy/edit/post the threads.


----------



## amanven (Aug 12, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> We get into this battle every time from those at the bottom looking up vs those at the top looking down. We both feel we have the better deal......So lets just leave it at that.....
> 
> Tom



Okay I may be interpreting you statement incorrectly here but my gut reaction when I first read that last statement was that I found it a little insulting to anyone who doesn't have $50 to $100K invested in timeshares.
So what do we have here?....  the caste system where  ....one little SVR owner belongs at the bottom while the 5 star elites sit high atop on a pedestal looking down on the "lowly Florida owners"?
I never said I had a better deal.  I merely said that for what I have invested my SVR has been very good for me.  I wondered whether having a mandatory and therefore access to SVN would give a measurable benefit for the additional buy in cost as opposed to my voluntary.  Somewhere along the line this denigrated into a "my timeshares are better than yours debate" (and admittedly I allowed myself to get drawn into it) and that's not the question I asked! 
Now this is where Denise may step in and do her editing thing but I am gonna say it anyway and she can edit away if she sees fit.  It's beginning to feel in SVO discussion threads like an SVR owner has to sit down shut up and keep their mouth shut otherwise a bunch of posters around here will jump all over them to make the point "your timeshare is worthless".  Well that's a matter of opinion but when posters start turning this into a contest of who owns the best or the most and behave like "might makes right" then I take it personal.


----------



## okwiater (Aug 12, 2015)

No need to take anything personally. It is possible to get a great deal of value from timeshares whether you want to spend $1, $10,000, or $100,000. Only your personal vacationing priorities and usage goals should dictate which route you should take.

Different strokes for different folks...


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 12, 2015)

I've owned both WKORV-N and SVV, so I understand where you're coming from.  

Personally, I think it's hard to select the correct word sometimes to convey a meaning without rankling people. For instance, when I write about WKORV, HRA and WSJ being "top tier" and SVV/SVR being a "low tier" resort,  I mean top or bottom in terms of purchase price, # of SOs allotted, and ease of exchanging into.  However, I fully understand that the word "low" can rankle, because some people can interpret that to mean "low" in terms of quality.  And that's simply not the case.  I just can't seem to come up with a better word.

As to the old "Well, I drive a Mercedes and you drive a Civic" back-and-forth that rears its head around here, I can see a bit of that.  But, keep in mind that "elitism" comes in many forms. For all the little digs I've experienced for owning in lowly Orlando, or being a serial exchanger, when I owned at WKORV-N, I had to endure comments like this:  

"Well, I bought SDO for a buck last year, so for $750 in MFs and some exchange fees, I was able to use II to convert each side of my unit into 2 2-bdrms at WKORV....during whale season...and I was upgraded to OV most of the time.  Since I had more weeks than I could use, I rented the extra weeks out for $3500, which I used to book first class airfare to Hawaii for my family of 20."

Or this: "I exchanged in with my Branson, MO timeshare and, despite requesting an OF top floor villa well in advance, was horrified to be facing the parking lot. I marched up to the front desk and demanded to be moved to a room where I could see the ocean.  It took them 2 days, but I was finally moved to an OF room.  I attended the Owner's Update for the StarPoints and when the salesman showed me the purchase price, I actually laughed out loud. Why in the world would I spend all that money when I can just exchange in for $800?"

You know, just once I would have appreciated an exchanger THANKING owners for actually paying those high MFs to keep up the joint.

So, yeah, you have to have a rich sense of humor and sometimes a thick skin around here.


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 12, 2015)

I love it LisaRex.  Everyone in the office is wondering why I'm laughing and in tears!


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 12, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> You know, just once I would have appreciated an exchanger THANKING owners for actually paying those high MFs to keep up the joint.




We have! Typically whenever one of those threads comes along about buying direct some of us chime in with a "well, someone has to pay for the marketing and sales so the timeshare is there!" etc. As we all know, for instance, there are Hawaii owners and those who trade into Hawaii. For myself, as I've stated previously, I wouldn't own in Maui right now since it's rather clear the County has no respect for timeshares as it continues its attempts to increase taxes on timeshare owners. Adding this to the higher MF and my very flexible schedule (and desire to visit only during non school holidays, when possible) I have no interest in owning when I can trade there so easily. Of course, one of the prime reasons I bought a mandatory SVN property ten years ago was with the intention of using it primarily to trade into Hawaii, and it's done that job quite well. 

FWIW, thank you for paying those absurd MFs and taxes each year! 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 12, 2015)

okwiater said:


> No need to take anything personally. It is possible to get a great deal of value from timeshares whether you want to spend $1, $10,000, or $100,000. Only your personal vacationing priorities and usage goals should dictate which route you should take.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks...




Absolutely correct. However, there is a difference between choosing the solution which works best for you and your family and inaccurately representing certain resorts trade poorly when, in fact, they don't. These are two different issues and both are represented in this thread.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 12, 2015)

I do miss jarta at times like these... 

Having met both Ken and Tom (and jarta) - I can attest that they are very fine and personable people.

The problem partially resides in the ability (and nuances) of writing correctly and completely on a BBS to get one's intended opinion expressed properly, and differentiate the nuances of tone, intent and sarcasm - and unintended consequences of not conveying issues/opinions correctly.

For me - I wouldn't own SVR even if someone offered it for free - however, I will happily take any WKV Plat+ that someone wants to sell at a bargain (or give away?).  Although this has nothing to do with II - I have never used II.

From my limited knowledge of II exchanges (from what I have read here over the last decade) -  - it appears to me (as a novice) that SVR and WKV pretty much exchange equally in II given the natural variability of such exchanges.


----------



## sjsharkie (Aug 12, 2015)

This is an excellent trade test for Marriott.  While I know some will argue that Marriott has different rules, I still think some of the premises will also apply to Starwood in II.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207097

The mantra has always been that size trumps almost everything in II.  The test in the link showed this was fairly accurate with respect to the results.

I do own a fixed week SVR that has been proven to be a great trader for me in both II and RCI.  I also own at WKV, but would never trade in II with that property.

Regards,
Ryan


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 12, 2015)

There are a number of variables in determining trade strength, and without systematic testing I would suggest that we really don't know the exact results of every option. 

For instance, not only does unit size influence trade results but also if the unit was deposited or not, when it was deposited, and how long after deposit the trade was attempted. This isn't true for all Starwood weeks now that they've gone to depositing a blended trade value for many, but some still retain the actual week (such as my former SVR Falls weeks) and that may increase their trade results slightly (or not, if it's a bad week).

The overall result is that because II keeps this process somewhat opaque it is very difficult to determine when/if they make changes, the relative strength of trade units, etc. Over the years I've learned that Starwood units are very, very good at trading to other Starwood resorts and have yet to see more than a slight difference between the voluntary and mandatory weeks that I've owned. Certainly none of them are horrible traders.

In other words, I doubt we would be able to have any definitive results beyond the general impression that there is a slight difference in trade strength between some Starwood resorts and others, when trading for other Starwood resorts. I would suspect Marriott is similar, but I'm not quite as familiar with that system so shouldn't comment on that.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## amanven (Aug 13, 2015)

tomandrobin said:


> PS - My timeshare is better then yours, nana-nana-boo-boo. :rofl:
> 
> We get into this battle every time from those at the bottom looking up vs those at the top looking down. We both feel we have the better deal......So lets just leave it at that.....





DavidnRobin said:


> IHaving met both Ken and Tom (and jarta) - I can attest that they are very fine and personable people.
> 
> The problem partially resides in the ability (and nuances) of writing correctly and completely on a BBS to get one's intended opinion expressed properly, and differentiate the nuances of tone, intent and sarcasm - and unintended consequences of not conveying issues/opinions correctly.



I'm sure all are fine and personable people...that is not in question but it still remains that there is very little nuance to differentiate in the above 2 statements.  Although the first was likely made in jest, I personally take exception to the second one.  As a single timeshare/SVR owner I don't feel I should be characterized as one of those "looking from the bottom up"  smacks a bit of condescention to me.

Now having said that I don't want to see this thread closed because it has derailed yet again from the original question so I am going to get a little more specific and hopefully this time things will stay on track.  
HYPOTHETICALLY!!! I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA
If another trading debate is gong to break out I would prefer it only be concerned with SVR voluntary vs SVV mandatory. Thank you.


----------



## sjsharkie (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> HYPOTHETICALLY!!! I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA
> If another trading debate is gong to break out I would prefer it only be concerned with SVR voluntary vs SVV mandatory. Thank you.


IMHO, the appreciable benefit depends on your planned usage of the property.  The only reason to buy mandatory assuming a negligible purchase price would be to enable trading within the SVN network.

While there are no guarantees, it is far easier to obtain say a summer week at HRA through SVN versus relying on a trade through II.  The chances of such a trade will be low through II given that Starwood does not deposit many of these weeks as they are generally few weeks that are unclaimed via SVN and owners are unlikely to deposit in II due to the high MFs and strong rental market.

In your OP, you stated the desire to trade to WSJ, WKORV/N.  While not impossible in II, especially if you are flexible with date of travel, my experience is that it is far easier to get the exact day you want in high peak season going through SVN.  It is also on average more costly to go this route versus trading through II.

Good luck.

-ryan


----------



## lizap (Aug 13, 2015)

I miss Jarta's posts too. Hope he is ok...



DavidnRobin said:


> I do miss jarta at times like these...
> 
> Having met both Ken and Tom (and jarta) - I can attest that they are very fine and personable people.
> 
> ...


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 13, 2015)

You may want to check out sightings conparison on a thread right now.  i see no difference between a 1 BR SDO and a 1 BR SVR.  Another person using a 1BR SVV appeared to be seeing fewer..


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> HYPOTHETICALLY!!! I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA.



To me, the question is not whether to buy a mandatory resort in FLORIDA but whether to buy a mandatory resort at all. I, personally, would rather own a mandatory resort because I like the ease of using SVN vs. II. To exchange into WKORV via II, I reportedly need to deposit my week up to 2 years in advance.  I don't want to plan my vacations that far in advance, nor do I like the uncertainty of waiting for a fill.  With SVN, I have a pretty good chance of getting into WKORV and WSJ at 8 months out for all but prime season (winter, holidays, and summer), and I know immediately if I've got the exchange.   That works for me. 

I've never seen WSJ in II at all, which is a deal killer for voluntary resorts for me, because it's my favorite place in the  Starwood network.  However, I'm really looking forward to what new resorts they'll bring into the fold because as someone who likes to travel to new places every now and then, SVN overall has gotten pretty stale. 

If you don't care about exchanging to WSJ, and/or using II is working well for you,  then I don't really see a good reason to spend more money both upfront, in annual MFs, and in annual SVN dues, to purchase a mandatory resort.  It has become increasingly harder to get good exchanges in SVN, both because banking has increased competition and because it appears that Starwood may be diverting inventory to the Flex program. 

Also, with the Sheraton Flex program in its infancy, there is a chance that all existing Sheraton owners will be invited to join the Flex program, for a fee, similar to what Marriott did after they rolled out their points program.  If that is the case, then that might be something to consider, especially since I believe that Starwood is beefing up inventory in the Flex program to make sure that the program is well received.  There's nothing that will sell the program faster than Points owners bragging how easy it is to exchange to the resort of their choice.


----------



## PamMo (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> ...is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA...



Trading in Interval is much less a sure thing since the economy has improved and Starwood cut back on their huge bulk deposits. Your SVR Cascades unit certainly has value as a trader, but if you read through the other thread on Sheraton/Vistana Flex Points and trading in Interval (www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230898), it looks like trading "up" in Interval is going to get more complicated. (I love how my SDO 1BR's traded for 2BR's in Maui!) Will the new changes have any effect on owners not enrolled in the Flex points program? We don't know yet.

Buying a unit with StarOptions increases your odds of getting what you want (St John and Hawaii, per the OP in this thread) if you have enough StarOptions and are flexible with dates. If you don't plan on staying in your home resort, what is it worth it to *you *to be able to make an SVN reservation 8 months out? To me, it is definitely worth paying a premium to be able to reserve longer stays, concurrent or consecutive weeks at a resort, and having enough time to book reasonable fights.

If I was looking to buy at SVV, I would want a Platinum 2BR LO, with 95,700 StarOptions.


----------



## okwiater (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA



In my mind, this depends on: (1) How often you would like to stay at your home resort vs. trade; (2) If you will trade often, will you mostly trade for other Starwood resorts; and (3) If you will mostly trade into other Starwood resorts, how much is additional flexibility and availability worth to you?

I personally would never own a resort that wasn't part of SVN, simply because we love the Starwood resorts and the availability within SVN is far and away superior to that of II. However, I am a busy professional and my personal situation doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's. If I had a lot more free time and flexibility, even with its limitations II might suit me fine.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> I'm sure all are fine and personable people...that is not in question but it still remains that there is very little nuance to differentiate in the above 2 statements.  Although the first was likely made in jest, I personally take exception to the second one.  As a single timeshare/SVR owner I don't feel I should be characterized as one of those "looking from the bottom up"  smacks a bit of condescention to me.
> 
> Now having said that I don't want to see this thread closed because it has derailed yet again from the original question so I am going to get a little more specific and hopefully this time things will stay on track.
> HYPOTHETICALLY!!! I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA
> If another trading debate is gong to break out I would prefer it only be concerned with SVR voluntary vs SVV mandatory. Thank you.



I gave you my opinion in post #6.

I have no idea what 'look from top/down - bottom/up' even means.
We buy what we want, can afford, and what fits one's personal needs - as post #6 stated.  You are asking a question that only you can answer.  i would not own SVR if it were given to me - I would consider a free SVV, but would buy WKV (and have).

whatever you do - don't throw good money after bad.

Added - see... difficult to tell on posts if something is intended as sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek...


----------



## grgs (Aug 13, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> I have no idea what 'look from top/down - bottom/up' even means.



Amanven wasn't referring to one of your comments, but the way the quotes displayed in her post was confusing.


----------



## alexadeparis (Aug 13, 2015)

amanven said:


> HYPOTHETICALLY!!! I own an SVR purchased very cheaply resale with no SVN.  I now have an opportunity to buy an SVV (in one of the mandatory phases) for a reasonable price resale but for more money and a higher MF than my SVR. is there an appreciable benefit derived from buying mandatory to get into SVN to justify paying the extra to get a mandatory Starwood resort in FLORIDA
> If another trading debate is gong to break out I would prefer it only be concerned with SVR voluntary vs SVV mandatory. Thank you.



I purchased SVR from the developer 162,000 points EOY, which is actually 2 two bedroom units. So it is enrolled in SVN. Total cost was about $14k. A lot of people would disagree with that move here on TUG, but I did what I wanted.

So you will understand my reasoning, my thought was: when I have my future grandchildren, (i currently have none) we can have, every other year, 2 two bedroom units for my husband and I, my daughter, her future husband and my future grandchildren, along with my nephew (who is like a son to me) and his future wife, to go to Disney with. (These are my underlying weeks.) I do NOT want to pay for an annual trip, every other year for Disney is about right. I own several other systems, and take other trips, also. Additionally, if I ever decided to deposit those units in II, for a little more maintenance fee than buying WKV resale, I have 2 two bedroom units to deposit instead of only one with WKV.


For about $2,000 per use, I have gone so far to: 
2012: Westin St John - Spring Break Week - 2 Bedroom SVN 148,100 options
2014: Harborside - a 3 bedroom (full week) and a 2 bedroom (partial week) - my anniversary week - can't remember exact options used, but I did have change. 
I would say that so far I have gotten my value out of it. I don't plan on selling it since it is voluntary and options would not transfer, but I will probably will it to my daughter. 

I recently also bought a SVV mandatory Bella 95,700 2 Bedroom Lockoff. That MF is a bit higher, but I wanted to be up to 257,700 options EOY. So now I will be at $3,400 per use on those combined points. If my needs change, and I don't want that many options, I will sell that one and keep my developer weeks.


----------



## amanven (Aug 13, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> I gave you my opinion in post #6.
> 
> I have no idea what 'look from top/down - bottom/up' even means.
> We buy what we want, can afford, and what fits one's personal needs - as post #6 stated.  You are asking a question that only you can answer.  i would not own SVR if it were given to me - I would consider a free SVV, but would buy WKV (and have).
> ...



Sorry my bad post formatting!  The top/down - bottom up quote should have been attributed to poster tomandrobin.

SVV is what I want, can afford and fits my personal needs.  I don't consider an SVV throwing good money after bad as my SVR for the last 7 years has provided exactly the 3 attributes you mentioned.  An SVV mandatory purchase allows me to continue this and gives me the option of SVN and right now 2 Florida timeshares works for my personal needs.
Thanks to the recent posters who offered an opinion and kept it confined to SVR/SVV Florida and SVN.  Most of the cthose omments confirmed that what I was thinking might be the case.


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 18, 2015)

amanven said:


> As a single timeshare/SVR owner I don't feel I should be characterized as one of those "looking from the bottom up"  smacks a bit of condescention to me.



First quote was in jest...

Second was reference to tiers within starwood. I merely referred to a long standing, long running debate/discussion that these types of threads diverge. None of this is about class or caste or worth, but obviously you have to spend more to own certain resorts. And in this discussion, you are buying at the low end of the resale pool, WKV is at the top. Like it or not, both of those items are true facts. 

If SVV/SVR/WKV were equal, their respective resale prices would be too. Does that mean that a $1 ebay Starwood week is a bad buy? Of course not, if its what you want to own, then its the right price. I own a lot of Disney points (DVC) and there are plenty people I know who think its foolish to own DVC, when trades are "cheap" to come by. But I like to go and stay when and how I want, not hope that my RCI request comes thru or sit on the RCI site every day looking for weeks. 

*If you go back to the beginning, my posts were made in support of buying Mandatory resort, which was answering your question. I was using my WKV as an example because that is what I own and use. Ken decided to chime in and write how WKV is such a waste.....and that is how the mess started.*

I have over 3,800 posts....Go search them and you will see where I stand. Being condescending or elitist is not one of them. I have helped many people buy/sell/trade over the years.....even SVV/SVR/SDO.


----------

