# History of Mandatory vs Voluntary



## Saaz124 (Apr 16, 2016)

I have been here a while and learned early the Mandatory vs Voluntary rules early thanks to Tugg.  I was curious about the history of it though.  Why are resorts what they are?  Will SVN or II now ever change which resort is and is not Mandatory?  I own several a WKV and if they ever changed it, it would cost many people a lot of money in loss of resale value.  

I also own at DVC and they just added new restriction to resale contracts which ultimately has the same devaluing effect.

If the question has already been answered, please point me in the right direction.  I couldn't find anything.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 16, 2016)

I don't think there is a history. 

Unpicking SVN the Vistana purchased resorts (Florida and SDO) are voluntary which makes some sense as the original agreements predate starwood. 

All mandatory are earlier phases of Westin and the westin level MFs of HRA. 

Then later phases and developments went voluntary I guess when they figured out you did not need to deed SVN. 

Someone involved in SVN longer than me may know the resort development timeline which could support my hypothesis.


----------



## Helios (Apr 16, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> All mandatory are earlier phases of Westin and the westin level MFs of HRA.



WSJ was a Hyatt Regency which was converted to Westin after it closed in 1995 due to hurricane damage.  Wondering how VGV became mandatory?  The 3 new phases were developed (retrofitted) by Westin so they are Voluntary.

The Vistanas (which were also converted into SVN) are not in the same league so I guess it made sense to make them Voluntary.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 16, 2016)

My understanding (from a Tugger who used to work for Starwood) is that each resort was created mandatory or voluntary at it's inception, and that the designation is in the original resort Docs (whether purchased after construction, or built by Starwood.)  So I think that is unlikely to change.

My guess is that Starwood regrets creating the mandatory resorts, because that encourages resales, and hurts developer sales, so after WKORVN, they didn't create any more mandatory resorts.

That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together.  I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 16, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> My understanding (from a Tugger who used to work for Starwood) is that each resort was created mandatory or voluntary at it's inception, and that the designation is in the original resort Docs (whether purchased after construction, or built by Starwood.)  So I think that is unlikely to change.
> 
> My guess is that Starwood regrets creating the mandatory resorts, because that encourages resales, and hurts developer sales, so after WKORVN, they didn't create any more mandatory resorts.
> 
> That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together.  I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.


Buy starwood did not create the docs for the acquired properties. In the absence of mandatory wording the arrangement is voluntary. 

I agree with why discontinued though

As said. A timeline of when each phase of each properly came on line would likely give some great breadcrumbs. 

It's also like rofr. Why some not others.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 16, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> But starwood did not create the docs for the acquired properties. In the absence of mandatory wording the arrangement is voluntary.



Yes - that's what I tried to say (not very well) - thank you for clarifying it.


----------



## Saaz124 (Apr 16, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together.  I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.



This would be a hard pill for me to swallow.  My first endeavor into timeshares was DVC, and I like that system.  The mandatory system is essentially the same thing.  

I have never had a deed at only one place where trading through II or RCI was the only option to go somewhere else, in fact I have never done it.  I would probably find it works very well, but it's an unknown to me.


----------



## tschwa2 (Apr 16, 2016)

Starwood had no reason to disband SVN.  ILG has no reason either unless they wanted to either integrate the properties into the Hyatt Vacation Club or to disband that as well and create a new combined club.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 16, 2016)

Starwood is going to be out of the picture very soon - they aren't going to make any changes on their way out.

It is really hard to say what ILG will do.  Maybe they will keep the current resort systems separate - maybe they will combine them and create a new system.  I don't think anything will happen right away.


----------



## Sicnarf (Apr 16, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Starwood is going to be out of the picture very soon - they aren't going to make any changes on their way out.
> 
> It is really hard to say what ILG will do.  Maybe they will keep the current resort systems separate - maybe they will combine them and create a new system.  I don't think anything will happen right away.



SO exchange is the primary selling point for VSE / SVN ownership and eliminating it is not in the best interest of ILG considering the premium buyer's pay for the privilege. 

I'm adding HRC to my portfolio and I'm hoping it provides the same ease of exchange like SVN despite it is only allowed 6 months instead of 8 months ahead compared to SVN.

An insight from a current owner of both SVN and HRC would be most welcomed.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 16, 2016)

tschwa2 said:


> Starwood had no reason to disband SVN.  ILG has no reason either unless they wanted to either integrate the properties into the Hyatt Vacation Club or to disband that as well and create a new combined club.



At least for the short-medium term - this is what I was told by OS Rep who seemed to be well informed.
But, more fun to speculate on neferious actions by ILG/SVN.


----------



## Helios (Apr 16, 2016)

I've heard multiple times/different sources the intention is to continue status quo for 70 years (or something close to 70 years).  However, that was SVN talking, not II. I would assume this arrangement is only valid if SVN (or Vistana) is in charge.  Having II in the mix as the owner probably voids any previous agreements.


----------



## Scott&Laura (Apr 22, 2016)

I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.

As to ILG buying Vistana--ILG stated they had 15 years dealing with Vistana---hardly--Vistana was newly created to sell off Starwood properties--having said that Starwood will own 55% percent of the company and ILK 45%   In essence ILG paid Starwood Vacation Network to have rights to use Starwoods upscale name to enhance their inventory and reputation---Starwood Vacation Ownership has majority voting rights---Starwood will dominate decisions at this time on board--I am looking to who comprises board--Starwood or ILG for an insight into future. 

Vistana I still think means a cheap Orlando property.


Scott & Laura


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 22, 2016)

Scott&Laura said:


> I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.






SVN isn't part of your deeded VOI rights, it's an add on and I'm sure that the docs have verbiage to deal with changing or terminating it.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 22, 2016)

They can eliminate SVN - CCRs have a contingency exchange system.  At least they do for WKORV/N, WPORV, and WKV.  Check out the CCRs - very clearly stated.  Now... whether they would?  Likely not - at least in near- mid-term.


----------



## Helios (Apr 22, 2016)

Scott&Laura said:


> I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.
> 
> Vistana I still think means a cheap Orlando property.
> 
> ...



Of course they can.

Legal ramifications, none...Angry customers, yes...  

That's my take...


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 22, 2016)

moto x said:


> Of course they can.
> 
> Legal ramifications, none...Angry customers, yes...
> 
> That's my take...





My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.


----------



## lizap (Apr 22, 2016)

Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt. 




YYJMSP said:


> My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name :smile so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.


----------



## Helios (Apr 23, 2016)

lizap said:


> Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt.



Agree about Hyatt.  What other TSs do they own?  I could probably google it myself but you seem to know.


----------



## Helios (Apr 23, 2016)

YYJMSP said:


> My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.



I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 23, 2016)

YYJMSP said:


> My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.





moto x said:


> I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.



Yeah, it will be called Club Interval Gold...

I do wonder if they will do away with Starwood assigning the deposit and only getting blended trade power instead of being able to deposit the week you actually reserve?


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 23, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Yeah, it will be called Club Interval Gold...
> 
> I do wonder if they will do away with Starwood assigning the deposit and only getting blended trade power instead of being able to deposit the week you actually reserve?



I wouldn't think so - the current systems benefits the mgmt. Co. far more, because it allows them to manipulate the inventory behind the scenes, to their advantage.


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 23, 2016)

moto x said:


> I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.



I don't really like the idea of a week-for-week trade like what we have with II now, so I'd be in favour of something that gives us some kind of points, based on what we own (property, season, unit type, etc), that we can use against other suitable properties which would be given their own relative point values.

That would effectively just be SVN under another name but with more options to trade in to...


----------



## lizap (Apr 23, 2016)

When II acquired Hyatt, I looked these up, but wasn't impressed with any of them, so I didn't make a note of them.  



moto x said:


> Agree about Hyatt.  What other TSs do they own?  I could probably google it myself but you seem to know.


----------



## lizap (Apr 23, 2016)

I definitely hope this is not the case because all owners of the 'other' TSs will be competing with us for resorts like WSJ or WKORV.  So far with Hyatt, it has not been the case.




moto x said:


> I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.


----------



## lizap (Apr 23, 2016)

I have both, with Hyatt and SVN.  I actually like the combination.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I much prefer the weeks approach if you're going to use II.  For example, I have used my small side at  WKV to snag a 2BR at Marriott Ocean Pointe for a week.  This would not be possible using the points system.




YYJMSP said:


> I don't really like the idea of a week-for-week trade like what we have with II now, so I'd be in favour of something that gives us some kind of points, based on what we own (property, season, unit type, etc), that we can use against other suitable properties which would be given their own relative point values.
> 
> That would effectively just be SVN under another name but with more options to trade in to...


----------



## Helios (Apr 23, 2016)

lizap said:


> When II acquired Hyatt, I looked these up, but wasn't impressed with any of them, so I didn't make a note of them.



I do like some of their properties.  Much more appealing than any is the Sheratons in SVN, with the exception of Steamboat and Mountainvista to some extent...


----------



## Helios (Apr 23, 2016)

lizap said:


> I have both, with Hyatt and SVN.  I actually like the combination.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I much prefer the weeks approach if you're going to use II.  For example, I have used my small side at  WKV to snag a 2BR at Marriott Ocean Pointe for a week.  This would not be possible using the points system.



In some cases, the current system works.  I used to own a 2 BDLO at SVV and exchanged the studio side for Marriott 2BDLO and 3 BD multiple times.  That is harder to do now.  Last minute exchanges are more likely.


----------



## Helios (Apr 23, 2016)

lizap said:


> I definitely hope this is not the case because all owners of the 'other' TSs will be competing with us for resorts like WSJ or WKORV.  So far with Hyatt, it has not been the case.



I see your point.  However, my take is buy where you want to go.

The points system can open reservations at say 6 months only if somebody deposited their week/points.  I think that could be fair.

Personally, I don't see myself depositing my HRA or WSJ Pool Villa weeks at all...not even for a Hyatt Kaanapali 3 BROF..:hysterical:  I can rent it from another owner or I can use SOs from other VOI to go to that unit.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

This is the stuff that turns my crank 

I found the differences in the condo docs, at least those for Vistana Villages and Vistana Resort. I don't have a timeline of all the properties, but it seems those that predate SVN are all voluntary. This is why Vistana Resort is voluntary but some parts of Villages are Mandatory. Somewhere along the line Starwood wised up and stopped including the Manadatory language in the governing documents.

Here is the Mandatory language for Vistana Villages Bella; Page 25, Document


> *Starwood Vacation Club and Vacation Ownership Plan.* Developer intends that Units in every phase will be declared as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club; however, Developer reserves the right to declare Units to the Condominium that will not be included as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan or the Club. The degree, quantity, nature, and extend of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club are described above.



_Definitions:
Page 2: *Club.* means the Starwood Vacation Club, the service name given to the variety of exchange and reservation services and vacation and travel benefits offered and the restrictions currently imposed by the Club Operator for Club Resorts. Club Members reserve the use of the Units at a Club Resort and access the External Exchange Program through the Club reservation system pursuant to the priorities, restrictions, and limitations set forth in the Club Documents. The Club is not a legal entity or association of any kind._


Here is the language that is void of the mention to Mandatory for Vistana Villages St Augustine; Page 25, Document, the strike-through below is mine. The words struck through are not in the actual condo declaration and are there to show the difference from the wording in the documents for Vistana Villages Bella.


> *Starwood Vacation Network and Vacation Ownership Plan.* Developer intends that Units in every phase will be declared as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club; however, Developer reserves the right to declare Units to the Condominium that will not be included as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan or the Club. The degree, quantity, nature, and extend of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club are _is _described above.



_Definitions:
Page 8: *Vacation Ownership Plan.* means the plan established pursuant to Chapter 721 and the Condominium Documents whereby Vacation Units are conveyed for periods of time, and each Owner receives a stated time period less than a full year during any given year but not necessary for consecutive years, until the termination of the plan as provided in this Declaration together with a remainder over in fee simple as a tenant-in-common with all other Owners on termination of the Condominium, subject to the Condominium Documents._

I don't claim to know the  timeline for when each resort was declared, but I think this has a big part in what is voluntary vs. mandatory. Looking at Sheraton Vistana Villages, Starwood had to have stopped including the mandatory language in the condo declaration documents sometime between June 2005 and April 2007. The more we could plug in dates, the more we could determine when they started and when they stopped declaring properties as Mandatory.

Property						Declared	Mandatory
Sheraton PGA Vacation Resort						No
Vistana Beach Club							No
Sheraton Desert Oasis							No
Sheraton Broadway Plantation - Plantation				No
Sheraton Broadway Plantation - Palmetto					No
Lakeside Terrace							No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Courts			07/1981		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Falls				01/1983		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Spa				08/1985		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Palms				05/1986		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Springs			08/1988		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Fountains I			02/1990		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Fountains II			08/1993		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Lakes				02/1995		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Cascades			08/1997		No
Westin St John - Virgin Grand				??/1997		Yes
Harborside								Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Bella			03/2001		Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Key West			06/2005		Yes
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort						Yes
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort - North					Yes
Westin Kierland Villas							Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Amelia			04/2007		No
Sheraton Vistana Villages - St Augustine		01/2009		No
Westin Desert Willow Villas						No
Westin Mission Hills							No
Sheraton Mountain Vista							No
Westin Riverfront Mountain Villas					No
Sheraton Steamboat Resort Villas - Morningside Tower			No
Sheraton Steamboat Resort Villas - East Tower				No
Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas					No
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort - Nanea					No
Westin Lagunamar							No
Westin St John - Bay Vista						No
Westin St John - Coral Vista						No


----------



## youppi (May 10, 2016)

Westin Kierland Villas is a mandatory resort and you said no.

In 1997,

Virgin Grand Villas has been bought by Signature Resorts and Westin Hotels and Resorts (50% each) and became the Westin Vacation Club St-John.
In 1998, 

Signature Resorts received final planning, zoning and development approval for the planned development of the 158 unit Westin Vacation Club in Rancho Mirage, California.
Signature Resorts was renamed to Sunterra Corporation.
Starwood bought Westin and Sheraton.
In 1999, 

Starwood bought Vistana Inc.
Starwood bought the 50% shared of Sunterra Corp in the Westin Vacation Club St-John and Rancho Mirage.
In 2002

Starwood built the old planned Westin Vacation Club Rancho Mirage and named it Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas.
In 2007, 

Sunterra Corporation has been acquired by Diamond Resorts International.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

youppi said:


> Westin Kierland Villas is a mandatory resort and you said no.



Good catch. I fixed my post.


----------



## youppi (May 10, 2016)

Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort is also mandatory like the WKOR North

Westin Kierland Villas was built in 2004 (mandatory) but Mission Hills was built in 2002 (voluntary) ???


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2016)

There is a list of the mandatory resorts in the FAQ at the top of the page:

* Harborside at Atlantis
* Vistana Villages (Bella and Key West phases only)
* Westin St. John (Virgin Grand - Hillside only)
* Westin Ka'anapali & Westin Ka'anapali-North
* Westin Kierland Villas


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> There is a list of the mandatory resorts in the FAQ at the top of the page:
> 
> * Harborside at Atlantis
> * Vistana Villages (Bella and Key West phases only)
> ...



Yeah, I used that to populate the list. I just missed Kierland Villas and Ka'anapali (South).


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2016)

Be aware that this is a Staroption thing - not a deeded thing - so VSE may change this in the future.  

Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Be aware that this is a Staroption thing - not a deeded thing - so VSE may change this in the future.
> 
> Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club.



Access to the Club, as long as it exists and whatever form it takes, is a deeded right at mandatory properties. The original condominium declarations are recorded and every deed that gets recorded references those condominium declarations. Now, is it possible that ILG could come along and remove or modify the Club? Possible, it is probably? Probably not. If they did, it would impact all owners, resale owners at mandatory properties and those that bought direct from the developer.

_Edit: This is what the Bella Condo declaration says about amendments;_



> _16.2	*By Developer.* Developer reserves the right to unilaterally amend this Declaration as it may deem appropriate in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion; as may be required by any lending institution, title insurance company, or public body; as may be necessary to conform the Declaration to the requirements of law; or to facilitate the operation and management of the Condominium, the Club, or the sale of Units or Unit Weeks. Any amendments to this Declaration which may be unilaterally made by Developer shall become effective on the recording in the Public Records of Orange County, Florida, of an instrument executed solely by Developer, setting forth the text of such amendment in full, together with the appropriate recording data of this Declaration. Except as provided elsewhere in the Condominium Documents, no amendment of this Declaration permitted to be unilaterally made by Developer shall be permitted if such amendment would prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of the Owners as a whole or any Mortgagee of record. Developer may also make other amendments as may be reserved elsewhere in the Condominium Documents._


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Access to the Club, as long as it exists and whatever form it takes, is a deeded right at mandatory properties. The original condominium declarations are recorded and every deed that gets recorded references those condominium declarations. Now, is it possible that ILG could come along and remove or modify the Club? Possible, it is probably? Probably not. If they did, it would impact all owners, resale owners at mandatory properties and those that bought direct from the developer.



That's my point - it's hard to say what changes will occur in the future with internal trading.  Over the years, Starwood made significant changes in the program.

Also, be aware that resorts CAN leave the internal exchanging program/mgmt. company.  This happened at Villas at Cave Creek and owners who requalified deeds there, or bought from the developer, to get elite status in the SVN lost their Staroptions.

All I'm saying is that this would be a good time to wait and see.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

youppi said:


> Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort is also mandatory like the WKOR North
> 
> Westin Kierland Villas was built in 2004 (mandatory) but Mission Hills was built in 2002 (voluntary) ???



Isn't Mission Hills what was Ranchero Mirage? This is from your post in the  ILG Takeover Delayed until "Sometime in May" [May 12: Midnight] Reply to Thread;



youppi said:


> From this article,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-inc-announces-six-new-projects-77257112.html , Signature Resorts Inc has built the Westin in Rancho Mirage. In addition, in March 1998, Signature received final planning, zoning and development approval for the planned development of the 158 unit Westin Vacation Club in Rancho Mirage, California, the Company's second joint venture with Westin Hotels & Resorts (the first joint venture was the Westin in St-John US Virgin Islands as per http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Signa...t+of+First+Westin+Vacation+Club...-a018943165).



I wonder if while it was built in 2002, it was perhaps declared as a condominium in 1998 by Signature Resorts thus being void of the mandatory language?


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> That's my point - it's hard to say what changes will occur in the future with internal trading.  Over the years, Starwood made significant changes in the program.
> 
> Also, be aware that resorts CAN leave the internal exchanging program/mgmt. company.  This happened at Villas at Cave Creek and owners who requalified deeds there, or bought from the developer, to get elite status in the SVN lost their Staroptions.
> 
> All I'm saying is that this would be a good time to wait and see.



Shoot, if everyone followed this very few people would be buying timeshares. Retail or resale. It seems that the buy where you want to go mantra went by the wayside years ago, thus why all the major timeshare companies have gone to points based systems. Marriott being the last to do so six years ago. Even earlier than that, in the 1970s it was an issue and why RCI and II came along. This because people were tired of going where they bought every year.

Sure a property can leave the system at any time. The same is true for any property in any system. Marriott properties over the years have given MVCI the boot as a management company. Those owners saw their resale value plummet.

If one was investing thousands of dollars, it may be a gamble not worth taking, but when one may only have a few hundred in the game, it may not be as big of a problem.

Also, if everyone played the waiting game, they would never buy. There is always a chance for another change right around the corner. Stop being such a pessimist and live a little


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Also, if everyone played the waiting game, they would never buy. There is always a chance for another change right around the corner. Stop being such a pessimist and live a little



Hmmm... you sound like a timeshare salesman, so must be good advice...

As I said above:  Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club -_ so that would include your proposed purchase of a few hundred dollars._

But, personally, I would not pursue Staroptions and Elite Status right  now.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 10, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Hmmm... you sound like a timeshare salesman, so must be good advice...
> 
> As I said above:  Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club -_ so that would include your proposed purchase of a few hundred dollars._
> 
> But, personally, I would not pursue Staroptions and Elite Status right  now.



Too much doom and gloom. As I said, lighten up and live a little...


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2016)

Right now I own 12 weeks - I'm good!


----------



## dioxide45 (May 13, 2016)

Scott&Laura said:


> I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.
> 
> As to ILG buying Vistana--ILG stated they had 15 years dealing with Vistana---hardly--Vistana was newly created to sell off Starwood properties--having said that *Starwood will own 55% percent of the company and ILK 45%   In essence ILG paid Starwood Vacation Network to have rights to use Starwoods upscale name to enhance their inventory and reputation---Starwood Vacation Ownership has majority voting rights---Starwood will dominate decisions at this time on board--I am looking to who comprises board--Starwood or ILG for an insight into future. *
> 
> ...



I think you are misunderstanding how the 45%/55% ownership split works. Those that will own 55% of the new combined ILG company are Starwood shareholders. Those additional ILG shares that were issued after the acquisition closed went to current Starwood shareholders. These are mainly institutional investors and pension funds. It is those shareholders that hold the voting rights and many of those shareholders may have also previously owned ILG shares.

There were four new members named to the ILG board on the first day, and I believe two stepped down from the BOD. Once the merger between Marriott and Starwood is complete, there will no longer be a Starwood board of directors. There will likely be some degree of a shakeup on the Marriott board at that time.


----------



## esk444 (May 15, 2016)

lizap said:


> Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt.



I don't think this is the case.  A few years before ILG acquired the Hyatt timeshare business, it acquired TPI and VRI.  TPI was a timeshare management company and an independent exchange company.  VRI was also a timeshare management company that had a internal trading system for timeshares it managed.

Both companies were not developers.  They were primarily independent management companies for older resorts that were HOA controlled.  A lot of their resorts are older 1970's and 1980's coastal motel/condo/apt. conversions into timeshares.  Neither TPI or VRI really had the type of control that developer controlled timeshares had and they were typically brought in to displace the incumbent developer management companies.

So ILG doesn't really own these timeshares and I am not sure if they have any plans to fold them into their Hyatt and Vistana/Starwood businesses.  I seriously doubt it.  

These are tiny companies that are basically rounding errors and were probably done for ILG to tip their toes into the timeshare management game.

When ILG acquired Vistana and Hyatt, they also acquired development LLC's and partnerships for many of the properties.  They didn't get any of those from TPI or VRI because TPI and VRI didn't have development rights to the resorts they managed.


----------



## Lansdowne (May 22, 2016)

The gloom is loosing Starwood - much easier to work with than the Marriott folks. Still wonder how smoothly using SPG points will be to get into Starwood now Marriott owned hotels. Scary when you go to owner updates and when pressed sales folks admit they do not have a clear clue on how it will all work. Yet they still try to sell you something for a lot of money. Using our timeshares has been a great deal of fun - not cheap but not easy to manage so you can get best value.


----------



## YYJMSP (May 22, 2016)

Lansdowne said:


> The gloom is loosing Starwood - much easier to work with than the Marriott folks. Still wonder how smoothly using SPG points will be to get into Starwood now Marriott owned hotels. Scary when you go to owner updates and when pressed sales folks admit they do not have a clear clue on how it will all work. Yet they still try to sell you something for a lot of money. Using our timeshares has been a great deal of fun - not cheap but not easy to manage so you can get best value.



They don't know because the sale hasn't happened yet, so no-one knows or can really say until it's all official.

The general statements seem to imply no changes through to the end of 2017.  As with all forward-looking statements, take that with a grain of salt.


----------

