# Breaking news! See new SO chart!



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

As suspected when Starwood announced that WKORV OF owners would be assigned more SOs than OV/IV owners, it appears that exchangers can now use their SOs to guarantee an OF designation: 

http://svo-web-static.s3.amazonaws.com/charts/svn_valuechart.pdf

Effective with 2017 reservations, here's the weekly SO chart for North and South:

THE WESTIN KĀ‘ANAPALI OCEAN RESORT VILLAS* LĀHAINĀ, MAUI, HAWAI‘I

2-BEDROOM LOCKOFF OCEANFRONT
176,700
2-BEDROOM LOCKOFF 
148,100
1-BEDROOM PREMIUM OCEANFRONT
95,700
1-BEDROOM PREMIUM 81,000 
STUDIO PREMIUM OCEANFRONT 81,000
STUDIO PREMIUM 67,100

Also, as suspected, Nanea 3 bdrms will have the same allotment as a 3 bdrm at WSJ in platinum plus season.  

THE WESTIN NANEA OCEAN VILLAS* LĀHAINĀ, MAUI, HAWAI‘I

3-BEDROOM OCEANFRONT 257,700
2-BEDROOM OCEANFRONT 176,700
2-BEDROOM PREMIUM RESORT VIEW 148,100
1-BEDROOM PREMIUM RESORT VIEW 81,000

Some interesting changes to Sheraton Steamboat as well.  It looks like a mountainside reservation will cost you more than the valley side, and now you'll have the ability to reserve hotel rooms (gasp) for SOs.  

Current: 
SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT VILLAS (MORNINGSIDE TOWER) 
3-BEDROOM
Platinum+ 196,900
Platinum season 125,000
Gold Plus season 57,700
2-BEDROOM
148,100
95,700
46,500

Effective 2017:
SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT VILLAS (MORNINGSIDE TOWER) 
3-BEDROOM MOUNTAIN SIDE
257,700
196,900
57,700
3-BEDROOM VALLEY SIDE
196,900
125,000
57,700
2-BEDROOM VALLEY SIDE
148,100
95,700
46,500

Effective with 2017 reservations.
SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT VILLAS 

2-BEDROOM LOCKOFF
MOUNTAIN SIDE
176,700
148,100
46,500
1-BEDROOM PREMIUM
MOUNTAIN SIDE
95,700
81,000
25,800
STUDIO PREMIUM
MOUNTAIN SIDE
81,000
67,100
20,700
2-BEDROOM LOCKOFF
VALLEY SIDE
148,100
95,700
46,500
1-BEDROOM PREMIUM
VALLEY SIDE
81,000
51,700
25,800
STUDIO PREMIUM
VALLEY SIDE
67,100
44,000
20,700
HOTEL ROOM
VALLEY SIDE
50,000
30,000
15,000

*Effective with 2017 reservations


----------



## okwiater (Jan 12, 2016)

Nice to see this codified on the SO chart -- it seems to definitively answer the question regarding the ability to book specific views using SOs. But unless I'm missing something, there don't appear to be any major surprises; both of these changes to the SO values were already known based on previous announcements.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 12, 2016)

> it appears that exchangers can now use their SOs to guarantee an OF designation:



Not necessarily - that may just be how many Staroptions an OF owner gets if they_ trade out._

* I really don't see this happening, because it's not to Starwood's advantage.  Right now, if an Ocean Front owner converts to Staroptions, Starwood can Hoover up the unit.  They don't have to put it online for other owners to reserve, as long as they put another 2 bdm. in the pot.


----------



## okwiater (Jan 12, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Not necessarily - that may just be how many Staroptions an OF owner gets if they_ trade out._



I don't think that's correct, for 2 reasons:


A similar situation exists for Vistana, but the following disclaimer is listed below the chart: "Weeks in Seasons available for Bella Phase Home Resort Owners to reserve in the Bella Phase may differ from the weeks in Seasons required by other Owners in the Starwood Vacation Network to access the Bella Phase." No such disclosure is made below the Steamboat Springs charts.
The Steamboat Springs East Tower chart includes view designations, but there are no owners at this tower and therefore nobody is trading _out_. So clearly this is meant to convey information relevant for trading _in._


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 12, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Not necessarily - that may just be how many Staroptions an OF owner gets if they_ trade out._
> 
> * I really don't see this happening, because it's not to Starwood's advantage.  Right now, if an Ocean Front owner converts to Staroptions, Starwood can Hoover up the unit.  They don't have to put it online for other owners to reserve, as long as they put another 2 bdm. in the pot.


I'm with Lisa here. This is the points needed to book a space. 

As noted in the Orlando week's the points to book may not be equal to the points granted but in 95% or cases that are. 

At this rate I may need to amp up my shopping for a single side of a WKV lock off.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Not necessarily - that may just be how many Staroptions an OF owner gets if they_ trade out._



I don't think so. Then I think their StarOption chart would be both misleading and confusing.  And when they've done funky things like this in other phases, they note it on the chart itself. Example: "*StarOptions amounts required for Sheraton Desert Oasis Home Resort Owners to access Sheraton Desert Oasis may differ from the amounts required by other Owners in the Starwood Vacation NetworkSM program to access this resort."

Most importantly, this provides an incentive for the vast majority of their owners who are 67,100/81,000/148,100 owners to buy another week, possibly in low season. 

Worst case scenario, this would allow them to collect more SOs for OF exchangers where previously they've upgraded exchangers into these villas for no additional SOs. This past December, I was upgraded to OF Deluxe for the entire time I was on Maui, and I paid nothing additional for this.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 12, 2016)

I believe that the only reason that change was made was so that the OF owners at WKORV and WKORVN, get the same number of SO's as WNORV. 

Starwood takes care of Starwood - there is no benefit to them if they allow owners to book Ocean Front units with Staroptions.

But it's hard to say, because sometimes Starwood seems like they make decisions that are not well thought out - we'll see what happens.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Starwood takes care of Starwood - there is no benefit to them if they allow owners to book Ocean Front units with Staroptions.



No benefit? How about more timeshare sales? Or, another scenario I can envision is Starwood allowing owners to buy those extra SOs at a nice markup. 

FYI, both Hilton and Marriott charge exchangers more points for OF.  It only makes sense to me.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> At this rate I may need to amp up my shopping for a single side of a WKV lock off.



This is precisely WHY it's a good marketing tool.


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 12, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> This is precisely WHY it's a good marketing tool.


Though ask again in Mid Feb. It could be WSJ um shopping for!


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2016)

'Guarantee'...
I assume that this also means based on availability...
So one can get OF with SOs (at 8-months) if available which goes to Denise's point.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> 'Guarantee'...
> I assume that this also means based on availability...
> So one can get OF with SOs (at 8-months) if available which goes to Denise's point.



Well, of course, it's based on availability.  Now that OF owners are given more SOs, they have more incentive to exchange to other resorts.  And there's nothing to say that it's ONLY at the 8 month mark that you'll see OF availability.  You might see an OF unit pop up 3 months prior to arrival, or possibly even at check-in.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 12, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Not necessarily - that may just be how many Staroptions an OF owner gets if they_ trade out._
> 
> * I really don't see this happening, because it's not to Starwood's advantage.  Right now, if an Ocean Front owner converts to Staroptions, Starwood can Hoover up the unit.  They don't have to put it online for other owners to reserve, as long as they put another 2 bdm. in the pot.


I look at it another way Denise.

I think they will allow it, but now they've shut out the vast majority of owners who only own a single unit from reserving an ocean front unit at any of these properties without borrowing/banking.  In return, these units have a greater chance of not being booked and going back into the Starwood pool for rental.

I think it is unfair to people who say bought at WPORV where there is no view designation, and they will now be forced to either take a non-ocean view unit, or pony up more options for OV.

I hate it, but knew it was coming.  All they've done is devalue the options of current owners in favor of the owners who own where they are developing more units for sale.

-ryan


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2016)

At 8 months or less - of course.
Previously there was speculation that somehow OF would be open at 12-8 months for owners of OF at other resorts (not correct...)

Overall - it may lead me to exchange the OF studio side for a 1Bd at various resorts (at <8 months).  Right now I am renting it because of lack of sufficient vacation time per year  but that will change in 2017. So, I might be inclined to exchange the studio now that it is 81K SO.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> I think it is unfair to people who say bought at WPORV where there is no view designation, and they will now be forced to either take a non-ocean view unit, or pony up more options for OV.



Ryan - I do not understand this comment.  An WPORV owner has 148.1K SO - that they can use as they see fit - it is the OF that was altered - not other views. What has changed for a WPORV owner?


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 12, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> Ryan - I do not understand this comment.  An WPORV owner has 148.1K SO - that they can use as they see fit - it is the OF that was altered - not other views. What has changed for a WPORV owner?


They have a reduced pool to rent from.  Now, instead of being able to trade into any 2br at WKORV/N/NN, they only have access to the island view pool without borrowing/banking.

Since there are no view designations at WPORV, their SO buying power is essentially decreased.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## GregT (Jan 12, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> Overall - it may lead me to exchange the OF studio side for a 1Bd at various resorts (at <8 months).  Right now I am renting it because of lack of sufficient vacation time per year  but that will change in 2017. So, I might be inclined to exchange the studio now that it is 81K SO.



This is a great example -- I think it would be appealing to trade a Studio OF for a 1BR somewhere....even if back into WKORV.   Personally, I like this because I love OF's and don't mind the extra SO's.

Best,

Greg


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> They have a reduced pool to rent from.  Now, instead of being able to trade into any 2br at WKORV/N/NN, they only have access to the island view pool without borrowing/banking.



Correction:  They'd only have access to island view _and ocean view_, but not ocean front.


----------



## lizap (Jan 12, 2016)

I suspect there will be few OFs available at 8 months out for those who want to use SOs, but we'll see..


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 12, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> Correction:  They'd only have access to island view _and ocean view_, but not ocean front.




Exactly. I don't see this change as a significant impact on my use of WKORV, nor ability to trade in. There are owners who will no doubt use more SOs to trade into OF, and their trade will similarly release a week in OV/IV that I could grab. 

I see this change as offering more choice for owners, at a cost, and could be used advantageously. In the past we have had no way to guarantee OF with a StarOption exchange so now, perhaps for a special trip, we have the option to spend more to get a better unit (of course, I predict a number of complaints about receiving first floor units that really don't have much of a view).


Sent from my iPad


----------



## alwysonvac (Jan 12, 2016)

GregT said:


> This is a great example -- I think it would be appealing to trade a Studio OF for a 1BR somewhere....even if back into WKORV.   Personally, I like this because I love OF's and don't mind the extra SO's.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg



Me too...:whoopie:

This was something that was seriously lacking with Starwood. It now puts them on par with the other hotel based timeshares where owners have the option of using more points for a better view (HGVC, Disney & Marriott)


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> Correction:  They'd only have access to island view _and ocean view_, but not ocean front.



Correct - I do not see how my WPORV has been devalued.  Because I can't get OF at WKORV/N/NN?  It was unlikely I would get OF anyway if I exchanged WPORV other than 'surprise and delight' which is rare - or end up on low floor, or OF that has obstructed ocean front view (like some WKORVN villas).

Which brings up a good point - even those using SOs to exchange into OF (<8mo) starting in 2017 are likely going to get lesser locations  (lower floors, or farther away from ocean like at WKORVN).  I wonder which resort will be more targeted for OF reservations?

What is misaligned SO-wise is that the OFD has same SOs as other OF villas, but MF and size is larger


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> What is misaligned SO-wise is that the OFD has same SOs as other OF villas, but MF and size is larger



I agree.  FWIW.


----------



## Markus (Jan 12, 2016)

*More SOs*

Hopefully they also increase SOs at Lagunamar for the Oceanside weeks.

Markus


----------



## lizap (Jan 12, 2016)

This is an excellent point - I was thinking the same thing.  All OF units are not equal.  A couple of years ago when we stayed at WKORV, I was told that our 2 BR was considered OF (that we got it since I was the first in line because I had called in first at 8 months out). We loved the unit we were in, but would not say it had a great OF view.  Our unit's balcony overlooked a parking lot with a side view to the ocean, but it was quite a distance. The unit was a corner unit with lots of windows, which we loved.  I don't remember the views of other OF units at WKORV, but we stay at Marriott Ocean Pointe almost every year.  There are units there that are considered OF on the first and second floors that have obscured views; I suspect WKORV may be similar.  I would not be a happy camper if I had spent extra points for OF and got a first or second floor unit with obscured views.




DavidnRobin said:


> Correct - I do not see how my WPORV has been devalued.  Because I can't get OF at WKORV/N/NN?  It was unlikely I would get OF anyway if I exchanged WPORV other than 'surprise and delight' which is rare - or end up on low floor, or OF that has obstructed ocean front view (like some WKORVN villas).
> 
> Which brings up a good point - even those using SOs to exchange into OF (<8mo) starting in 2017 are likely going to get lesser locations  (lower floors, or farther away from ocean like at WKORVN).  I wonder which resort will be more targeted for OF reservations?
> 
> What is misaligned SO-wise is that the OFD has same SOs as other OF villas, but MF and size is larger


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

lizap said:


> This is an excellent point - I was thinking the same thing.  All OF units are not equal.  A couple of years ago when we stayed at WKORV, I was told that our 2 BR was considered OF (that we got it since I was the first in line because I had called in first at 8 months out). We loved the unit we were in, but would not say it had a great OF view.



It sounds like you were assigned a deluxe OV room.  There are no OF villas on either camps that overlook a parking lot. 

That being said, there are definitely some views that are better than others.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

Markus said:


> Hopefully they also increase SOs at Lagunamar for the Oceanside weeks.



That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's just about quality of view or there'd be no way to explain why WSJ gets such a high SO allotment. The views from most of these villas is "distant OV."  

That being said, I wonder what they'll value the new OF phase of WSJ, which is much closer to the beach...  Will we see even a higher threshold?


----------



## lizap (Jan 12, 2016)

Lisa, as I recall, I could definitely see a parking area and I think a public park area.  As you face WKORV, the unit was in a building on the left side at the end. When we arrived, the guy at the front desk made a big deal of telling us it was considered an OF unit (and the reason we got it was I was the first to call)..



LisaRex said:


> It sounds like you were assigned a deluxe OV room.  There are no OF villas on either camps that overlook a parking lot.
> 
> That being said, there are definitely some views that are better than others.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 12, 2016)

The Front Desk is not always honest.  I recently had the front desk tell a guest that the ocean front units in the original phase are the units facing the ocean, and the units 3 units back from the corner as well.  Obviously not true….


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 12, 2016)

lizap said:


> Lisa, as I recall, I could definitely see a parking area and I think a public park area.  As you face WKORV, the unit was in a building on the left side at the end. When we arrived, the guy at the front desk made a big deal of telling us it was considered an OF unit (and the reason we got it was I was the first to call)..



You were misled.  Below is an aerial which shows the WKORV campus.  Most of the ocean-facing villas in buildings 5 & 8 are coded OF, and there isn't a parking lot anywhere near either building.  On the south side, only the units directly facing the ocean in buildings 2 and 3 are coded OF and they have superior ocean front views.  You cannot see the parking lot unless you lean over the balcony and look backwards. 

It sounds like you might have been placed in a corner unit in building 4.  It's considered a premium villa because it's larger and has windows on 2 sides, but it's not coded OF.  The park is to the right of building 3 in the picture below.  

http://www.denisetravels.com/WKORVN/WKORVcolorAerial.jpg


----------



## lizap (Jan 12, 2016)

Thanks Lisa. It was definitely a corner unit in building 4.  We actually loved the unit; it was a very large unit with windows across one side with a distant view of the ocean. 




LisaRex said:


> You were misled.  Below is an aerial which shows the WKORV campus.  Most of the ocean-facing villas in buildings 5 & 8 are coded OF, and there isn't a parking lot anywhere near either building.  On the south side, only the units directly facing the ocean in buildings 2 and 3 are coded OF and they have superior ocean front views.  You cannot see the parking lot unless you lean over the balcony and look backwards.
> 
> It sounds like you might have been placed in a corner unit in building 4.  It's considered a premium villa because it's larger and has windows on 2 sides, but it's not coded OF.  The park is to the right of building 3 in the picture below.
> 
> http://www.denisetravels.com/WKORVN/WKORVcolorAerial.jpg


----------



## YYJMSP (Jan 12, 2016)

*Friday arrivals only, more SO's for other days?*

I notice a footnote on the chart:



> Weekly valuations are calculated based upon a Friday arrival only. Dates of stay which cross over an established week(s) may require additional StarOptions based upon the seasonality.



This was there before, but it wasn't as obvious (at least to me).  This time there is a "1" referencing the footnote on the header box for the SO rates for each property, etc.

Has anyone been hit with arriving on a different day for a SO booking and getting charged more than what is listed as the "weekly" rate?


----------



## vacationtime1 (Jan 13, 2016)

YYJMSP said:


> I notice a footnote on the chart:
> 
> _*Weekly valuations are calculated based upon a Friday arrival only. Dates  of stay which cross over an established week(s) may require additional  StarOptions based upon the seasonality.*_
> 
> ...



This is interesting because WKORV-OF owners can only make full week reservations beginning Saturday or Sunday if reserving 12 - 8 months out.  How will Starwood get inventory to make Friday to Friday reservations -- it would require two weeks to be "broken" for there to be any Friday to Friday availability.

Or is this just another Starwood computer glitch?  I suspect the latter.


----------



## YYJMSP (Jan 13, 2016)

vacationtime1 said:


> This is interesting because WKORV-OF owners can only make full week reservations beginning Saturday or Sunday if reserving 12 - 8 months out.  How will Starwood get inventory to make Friday to Friday reservations -- it would require two weeks to be "broken" for there to be any Friday to Friday availability.
> 
> Or is this just another Starwood computer glitch?  I suspect the latter.



Looks like the wording has been on the bottom of the SO charts for at least the last 3 years, so it's definitely not new.

Should be no impact on Home Resort bookings, as they don't use SO's, so the words don't apply.  Just applies to people using SO's (which includes bookings at your home resort after 8mos).

I figure someone just didn't think through the potential impact of the words that they used, since any 7 consecutive day combination of those daily rates (should) add up to the weekly rate...


AHHHH, now I understand (as I just re-read the words and get the meaning of *based upon the seasonality*).  If you book by the day, and the starting/ending days are in a different season from the rest of the days, it won't add up to the same as the weekly rate, since different daily rates from different seasons apply.  Week numbering changes on Friday's.

So if you start on a Wed in a lower season and end on a Tue in higher season, don't expect the daily rates to add up to the weekly rate for the lower season you started in -- it'll be more.  And if you start on a Wed in a higher season and end on a Tue in lower season, don't expect the daily rates to add up to the weekly rate for the higher season you started in -- it'll be less.


----------



## SandyPGravel (Jan 13, 2016)

YYJMSP said:


> I notice a footnote on the chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, last year I was charged over 84,000 SO for week 46 at HRA because we stayed Sat to Sat and the Friday night was considered part of Thanksgiving week.  Also planning on a trip to Lagunamar week 50 and same thing, Sat to Sat and the Friday night is part of week 51 so the week costs more SO. 51,400 instead of 44,000.  I ended up getting hit with a $30 change fee because I had to change a rez I already had to accommodate the Cancun week.


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 14, 2016)

YYJMSP said:


> I notice a footnote on the chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've had that at WLR when crossing from platinum to platinum plus season.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 14, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> Correct - I do not see how my WPORV has been devalued.  Because I can't get OF at WKORV/N/NN?  It was unlikely I would get OF anyway if I exchanged WPORV other than 'surprise and delight' which is rare - or end up on low floor, or OF that has obstructed ocean front view (like some WKORVN villas).


David, to follow up on my other post, I don't think it has been significantly devalued, but devalued just the same.

Frankly, I think this devalues all of my mandatory properties.  Let's exclude the "to be developed properties" for a second and take just the current inventory.

They have increased the pool of SOs without adding any inventory to the pool.  Therefore, my 148,100 SOs at WKV are worth less than they were before (as are yours at WPORV).  I agree that there are the benefits of being able to reserve OF, but from a reservation power perspective, there has been a devaluation of our points IMHO.

Is it significant devaluation in and of itself? -- probably not.  However, I'd add that if we continue to see this type of activity -- first it's truing up the 1-52 deeds sold within SVR, then it is the WSJ adjustments, now it is WKORV -- these small devaluations add up over time and will impact our inventory available for trading within SVN.  -ryan


----------



## Julian926 (Jan 15, 2016)

Whatever happened to the new Mexico and Scottsdale locations?


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 15, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> David, to follow up on my other post, I don't think it has been significantly devalued, but devalued just the same.
> 
> Frankly, I think this devalues all of my mandatory properties.  Let's exclude the "to be developed properties" for a second and take just the current inventory.
> 
> ...


Not really. 
Historically there was little to no chance of reserving OF with your 148. Owners used Or rented. 
Now if they deposit you can rent. For a premium. 
Your 148 stills gets you to what you expected yo get to in HI.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 15, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Not really.
> Historically there was little to no chance of reserving OF with your 148. Owners used Or rented.
> Now if they deposit you can rent. For a premium.
> Your 148 stills gets you to what you expected yo get to in HI.


We will agree to disagree here.

My 148,100 has a smaller pool to rent from because the OF units now require more to reserve.  Furthermore, OF units now can deposit and rent a 148,100 unit and have left over to use towards renting something else -- this further shrinks the pool of available rentals for me and everyone else whose options stayed the same.

Again, I stated that the devaluation may not be significant, but it still is devaluation.  My concern is that these continued adjustments to properties where Starwood is still selling will erode away at our purchasing power (and hence valuation) of our SOs.

-ryan


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 15, 2016)

They are valid points but I see them as outlier cases. I'm not sure that many OF HI OWNERS would be depositing hoping for availability at 8 month's on the OV category. 

I think these are edge use cases, not the norm.


----------



## GregT (Jan 15, 2016)

Although not directly on point with Starwood, this has been something that HGVC has used as a selling point.    Basically, buy at the higher point properties (Grand Waikikian, Kings Land) and use the points for an extended stay at a lower point property (HHV, HGVC Waikoloa).   

But I do not see a WKORV OF owner routinely choosing to take 8 days in a 2BR of unknown WKORV view (and uncertain reservation) versus 7 days in a 2BR OF as an owner, but it is conceivable.

I could see an owner redeem their OF Studio for StarOptions, and take the 81,000 points and book a 1BR at WPORV -- allowing for a beautiful two week trip, Week 1 in a 1BR WPORV and Week 2 in a 1BR OF WKORV (or vice versa).  That would be a great vacation.

Best,

Greg


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 15, 2016)

GregT said:


> Although not directly on point with Starwood, this has been something that HGVC has used as a selling point.    Basically, buy at the higher point properties (Grand Waikikian, Kings Land) and use the points for an extended stay at a lower point property (HHV, HGVC Waikoloa).
> 
> But I do not see a WKORV OF owner routinely choosing to take 8 days in a 2BR of unknown WKORV view (and uncertain reservation) versus 7 days in a 2BR OF as an owner, but it is conceivable.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  This is the same approach as Hyatt as well -- I have a 2200 point property which I routinely divide up into multiple weeks.

I also am shocked at the valuation of a summer 2BR mountainside unit (east tower) at Steamboat.  Really, the same value as a 2BR at Westin Riverfront in ski season?  I don't think so.

Sometimes it seems I'm in the minority to be concerned about the valuations of these properties.  However, one should be concerned given that Starwood only appears to make these changes at the resorts where they are actively selling -- those of us at high demand resorts that are sold out are continuing to lose purchasing power of our SOs IMHO.

-ryan


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 15, 2016)

Sorry to be dense, but I still do not get the devaluation impact.

So... an OF owner can give up 148.1K SOs as an SVN exchange (and then rent/use a lesser VOI) and then use the remaining SOs for a SVN exchange (again lesser)? And this devalues WPORV SOs (and others). So... there will be less inventory (SO) to reserve if I want to use WPORV to exchange into WKORV/N at <8 months. Is that the argument to support SO devaluation with the SO increase for OF?

I see this increase in OF SOs as an attempt to align SOs to comparable VOIs at same location (Nanea) and that is pure profit motive for Nanea sales. (same with WSJ) I guess in the strict sense the result is SO devaluation, but if using weighting factors (probability of OF owner giving up SOs to pick up more days of lesser location) - this has to be barely a blimp and less impactful than MF increases over time, or SO Banking.

As stated before - unlikely to have gotten (good) OF as part of SVN exchange of my WPORV anyway - so that also has negligible impact.

I now have 3 SVO resales that have had their SOs increased.
Our WSJ-VGV has been increased twice now.  Originally our two WSJ-VGV (2Bd TH, June) went from 67.1K to 81K, and now to 95.7K SOs.
And now our OF has also increased...

I guess I have been buying undervalued VOIs when it comes to SO allocation.

Much like Real Estate in the SF Bay Area - our home prices have skyrocketed.  But, if I want to sell (exchange) I am going to lose my location (OF) preference and move from area to lesser location (OV/IV, or away from WKORV/N) like Bakersfield.

That is not the reason I bought OF, but I will be considering exchanging my Studio now that it worth 81K (and we prefer 1Bd) - so that does have potential impact on inventory.  It could be argued that SO Banking does a similar thing by removing higher quality SVN exchanges.  Now, SO Banking has real impact (without pure devaluation by dilution) and think that it is now reflected in decreasing ability to get HI via SVN exchange (especially for popular weeks)

Added - some of the above was intended tongue-n-cheek (in case it was not obvious), but I would contend that SO Banking has made getting better weeks (hurting premium inventory) more challenging than SO increases.


----------



## Helios (Jan 15, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> ...but I would contend that SO Banking has made getting better weeks (hurting premium inventory) more challenging than SO increases.



I agree with David's overall assessment.  The last sentence is a real problem IMO.  P

Personally, I like the SOs increases at prime locations because that brings some balance back for me.  I would not mind at all spending more SOs for OF.  Even if it was on the lowest floor.  I've been lucky enough to be upgraded to OF but I know that will be now more difficult with the increased SOs....


----------



## okwiater (Jan 16, 2016)

If you think of StarOptions as a form of currency, then increasing the "money supply" (i.e. # of StarOptions in the system) will technically have an inflationary effect, which is devaluation.

However, it's not just the "money supply" that's important, but also the velocity of that money. If the "money" is never spent, then it doesn't have any impact on available inventory or the trading power of other units.

Keep in mind, the only units which have received increased StarOptions valuations are the units which were already so undervalued by the system as to have discouraged most owners from ever trading out. Since owners of those units were almost never trading out, that "money" (StarOptions) was never entering the "economy" (SVN) and therefore any inflationary effect of increasing the value of those units would not be felt by other owners. In fact, it's quite likely that increasing the value of undervalued units will actually _*increase*_ the trading opportunities for other units, since a greater percentage of SVN members will be incentivized to participate in SVN exchanges.

Think about it like this. Imagine SVN has only 2 resorts: SDO and WSJ. Let's say SDO is valued at 148,100 for a 2br and WSJ at 125,000 for a 2br. On paper, it looks like a boon for SDO owners since they will have tons of trading power in this system. However, in reality, WSJ owners will never, ever trade out under such a system. With no inventory available, SDO owners won't ever successfully trade for WSJ. Now let's say WSJ is increased to 176,700 SOs. On paper, it looks like SDO received a huge devaluation, but in reality, it helps make the entire economy work better -- for SDO _*and*_ WSJ owners -- because it increases the incentive to participate.

I know the prevailing theory on this board is that Starwood is entirely unconcerned with existing owners and is only tinkering with StarOptions valuations because it wishes to increase sales at its new resort developments. While that's certainly a significant factor, I think it's also an overly simplistic assessment. If it were purely about maximizing revenue at the sales office, I don't see any reason why they couldn't justify valuing the new resorts even higher than they are. Does anyone argue that a 2-bedroom at Nanea is not more desirable than a 2-bedroom at Desert Oasis? I think it's instructive that Starwood kept the "standard" 2-bedroom redemption at 148,100 SOs when they easily could've bumped it significantly higher. I think that's a "good thing" and speaks well of at least the medium-term prospects for SVN and the trading power StarOptions.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 16, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> Sorry to be dense, but I still do not get the devaluation impact.
> 
> So... an OF owner can give up 148.1K SOs as an SVN exchange (and then rent/use a lesser VOI) and then use the remaining SOs for a SVN exchange (again lesser)? And this devalues WPORV SOs (and others). So... there will be less inventory (SO) to reserve if I want to use WPORV to exchange into WKORV/N at <8 months. Is that the argument to support SO devaluation with the SO increase for OF?


Hi David--

Not dense, we frequently agree on other topics...   ...but we don't agree here.

Fact is the inventory pool didn't change (excluding new development) and the total SOs eligble increased without any increase to SOs outside of WKORV OF.  To me that is devaluation.

No only will there be less to exchange into at 8 months at WKORV, this may incentivize more OF owners to exchange in and use their higher purchasing power to reserve somewhere else.  A few weeks ago, they could reserve WKV in an even exchange.  In 2017, it appears they will be able to reserve more than that.


DavidnRobin said:


> I see this increase in OF SOs as an attempt to align SOs to comparable VOIs at same location (Nanea) and that is pure profit motive for Nanea sales. (same with WSJ) I guess in the strict sense the result is SO devaluation, but if using weighting factors (probability of OF owner giving up SOs to pick up more days of lesser location) - this has to be barely a blimp and less impactful than MF increases over time, or SO Banking.
> 
> As stated before - unlikely to have gotten (good) OF as part of SVN exchange of my WPORV anyway - so that also has negligible impact.


We agree that this is pure profit motive for Nanea sales.  As I pointed out, the latest increases have only occurred at locations where there are active sales.

We also agree that the devaluation is slight given the number of units it impacts versus the total pool.  However, I am concerned that if we continue to have these slight devaluations only at properties in active sales, we will continue to see our purchasing power and value of our legacy ownership properties where there are no active sales decrease (i.e. WKV).



DavidnRobin said:


> As stated before - unlikely to have gotten (good) OF as part of SVN exchange of my WPORV anyway - so that also has negligible impact.
> 
> I now have 3 SVO resales that have had their SOs increased.
> Our WSJ-VGV has been increased twice now.  Originally our two WSJ-VGV (2Bd TH, June) went from 67.1K to 81K, and now to 95.7K SOs.
> ...


I agree that under the previous rules, if there was OF inventory unused and Starwood intended to throw it into the pool (i.e. foreclosure, unused interval, etc.), you'd be unlikely to receive it.  However Starwood would likely substitute an IV unit into the SVN pool, and keep the OF for themselves.  This would appear for you to exchange within SVN.  In 2017, you will need higher SOs to reserve if Starwood decides to throw the OF into the SVN pool -- to me that is devaluation.

I don't agree with your real estate analogy.  If we were truly comparing market pricing to SOs, we should see SOs change across the board -- not only at places where Starwood is in active sales.  It's like if I were a broker and I chose only to allow market pricing in the SF Bay Area because I had property to sell there -- yet in Manhattan I had nothing to sell so I put a price cap on housing prices.

Again, I can see I'm in the minority for this argument.  However, I am especially concerned for where I own (like WKV) and seeing the purchasing power of my SO allocation continue to erode.  Hopefully I am wrong.

-ryan


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 16, 2016)

okwiater said:


> Keep in mind, the only units which have received increased StarOptions valuations are the units which were already so undervalued by the system as to have discouraged most owners from ever trading out. Since owners of those units were almost never trading out, that "money" (StarOptions) was never entering the "economy" (SVN) and therefore any inflationary effect of increasing the value of those units would not be felt by other owners. In fact, it's quite likely that increasing the value of undervalued units will actually _*increase*_ the trading opportunities for other units, since a greater percentage of SVN members will be incentivized to participate in SVN exchanges.


No, we had a SVR change a while back to "bring SOs for certain 1-52 owners in line with other VOIs in that phase".  I don't believe those were undervalued - but yet Starwood did it since they are still actively selling there (and are intending to expand at SVV).

But yes, I agree that increasing the value of "undervalued" (your words, not mine) units will incentivize some of these members to participate.  I didn't say that it was all one sided doom and gloom.  My point is that if you are arguing that more people with these higher SOs will trade in, then you also are saying there is more likelihood that they will be using their higher purchasing power to take more inventory (at least more than they could under the previous rules) -- all while not changing the total SOs available to be traded into the pool.  This is in fact the devaluation I am afraid of.



okwiater said:


> Think about it like this. Imagine SVN has only 2 resorts: SDO and WSJ. Let's say SDO is valued at 148,100 for a 2br and WSJ at 125,000 for a 2br. On paper, it looks like a boon for SDO owners since they will have tons of trading power in this system. However, in reality, WSJ owners will never, ever trade out under such a system. With no inventory available, SDO owners won't ever successfully trade for WSJ. Now let's say WSJ is increased to 176,700 SOs. On paper, it looks like SDO received a huge devaluation, but in reality, it helps make the entire economy work better -- for SDO _*and*_ WSJ owners -- because it increases the incentive to participate.


However, that's a flawed argument because there are many more resorts in the pool.  But let's say there are 3 resorts: SDO/WKV/WSJ.  Your same WSJ owner trades for 2 1BR premium units (162K) WKV during high season.  They could not have done this previously without banking/borrowing if this was the only unit they owned.  Now the SDO owner has less inventory available to him to trade for.  This is in fact devaluation.



okwiater said:


> I know the prevailing theory on this board is that Starwood is entirely unconcerned with existing owners and is only tinkering with StarOptions valuations because it wishes to increase sales at its new resort developments. While that's certainly a significant factor, I think it's also an overly simplistic assessment. If it were purely about maximizing revenue at the sales office, I don't see any reason why they couldn't justify valuing the new resorts even higher than they are. Does anyone argue that a 2-bedroom at Nanea is not more desirable than a 2-bedroom at Desert Oasis? I think it's instructive that Starwood kept the "standard" 2-bedroom redemption at 148,100 SOs when they easily could've bumped it significantly higher. I think that's a "good thing" and speaks well of at least the medium-term prospects for SVN and the trading power StarOptions.


Sorry, totally disagree here.  Look, we could apply this argument to HRA -- does anyone think that a Plat summer HRA unit is even par demand-wise than a Plat middling season at SDO?  Yet they aren't changing SOs there because they aren't developing more units out there.  It is not a significant factor -- it has pretty much been a requirement up to this point that Starwood is actively selling/developing at a location in order for the SO valuation to change.

Starwood could have bumped up the standard 2-bedroom at Nanea, but they would have also likely had to do it at WKORV and WKORV/N -- imagine trying to explain this to owners who purchased in those phases (or other areas where they were told they could trade their 2BR like for like)?

Again, I'm in the minority here.  I just am concerned about my purchasing power at places I own and the slight devaluations I perceive to be coming in on a periodic basis.


----------



## pathways25 (Jan 16, 2016)

okwiater said:


> If you think of StarOptions as a form of currency, then increasing the "money supply" (i.e. # of StarOptions in the system) will technically have an inflationary effect, which is devaluation.
> 
> However, it's not just the "money supply" that's important, but also the velocity of that money. If the "money" is never spent, then it doesn't have any impact on available inventory or the trading power of other units.
> 
> ...



That is a great analogy!  

Continuing your analysis, I would point out that banking would have a much greater inflationary effect since it increased the "money supply" and corresponding demand at high demand resorts such as WKORV and HRA while only increasing availability at lower demand resorts such as SVR, SVV and perhaps SBP.  Those resorts usually didn't sell out before banking so the extra inventory freed by banking at those resorts didn't help to soak up in the increase in the money supply.  At high demand resorts, an owner that trades out based on the higher valuation (the only way the "extra" options could enter the money supply) would soak up a corresponding amount of options from outside the resort as trade ins snap up the available units.

Another resort that could stand to be bumped up is Harborside.  Someone complained that there was no StarOption inventory this year for the entire summer at that resort and others concluded that it must have been a Starwood conspiracy to hoard that inventory to rent out instead of making it available for trades.  The simple fact is, why would any owner of a summer week there trade out a week with $3K maintenance fees for only 95K options?  They would be much better off renting out their week for cash and using that cash to rent elsewhere in the system since it would yield a much better rate of exchange.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 16, 2016)

This has become a very interesting thread. I wonder if SVO/SVN put this much thinking/discussion on this topic.  Probably not - because their main objective is to maximize profit.

Ryan - I understand your points, it was the impact that I think is minor.

The SO increases are intended to align - so I only see other resorts with pure OF (Poipu?) that will also be aligned with 148.1K being the base case.

Okw - great post.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 16, 2016)

DavidnRobin said:


> This has become a very interesting thread. I wonder if SVO/SVN put this much thinking/discussion on this topic.  Probably not - because their main objective is to maximize profit.
> 
> Ryan - I understand your points, it was the impact that I think is minor.
> 
> ...


Hi David--

I do think SVN has put much thinking into this.  They would like to not piss off owners who bought from them previously (and might be future customers again) that were told that they could trade anywhere for 148.1k options.

But they want to incentivize sales where they are actively selling and promote more trading internally within SVN.

I get it - I agree that this WKORV OF impact is likely small in and of itself.  The challenge is I keep seeing these changes occur periodically -- and in aggregate I may find myself with less purchase power for the mandatory locations where I own.

-ryan


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 16, 2016)

I'd also add that they've been doing a good job spacing out these changes, and providing advantages to offset some of the disadvantages.

From the various posts, it appears most are happy with the changes.  (Obviously, I'm not one of them)


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> I'd also add that they've been doing a good job spacing out these changes, and providing advantages to offset some of the disadvantages.
> 
> From the various posts, it appears most are happy with the changes.  (Obviously, I'm not one of them)



It would seem that if you own a lower tier SVN mandatory resale or even a developer unit, such as SVV or SDO, the changes are going to be impacting your usage from when one originally bought their week. There is also no hope for those that own at sold out resorts with no new development options available since there is really no chance of Starwood upping the SOs.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 16, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> I'd also add that they've been doing a good job spacing out these changes, and providing advantages to offset some of the disadvantages.
> 
> From the various posts, it appears most are happy with the changes.  (Obviously, I'm not one of them)



Happy with some, unhappy with others - it comes down to vested interest.

My judgement is based on both specific value, and value to the entire system that benefits the majority (which keeps my value afloat in the 1st place) but not directly benefitting me - all the while with SVO/N balancing fees to maximize profit to satisfy shareholders.

Luckily I have learned a lot here on TUG, and participated in kind.
I consider myself ahead the game when it comes to usage of SVO/N vacations for our specific needs (with some mistakes in hindsight), and set pretty well for the medium term.

Happy I had my SOs increased, and thought these VOIs were worthy of an increase. But bought them to use them or rent to capture MFs as I realize that these were bought with disposable income (but not insignificant)

SO Banking in no way benefits me, but thinks it benefits the system while it still exists. Same with Flex.

I am happy SVO/N has been trying to fix fundamental flaws in the system with SO Banking, Flex systems, and SO adjustment (as SO inequality is one flaw).  I worry about supporting those undesirable VOIs created by misalignment of SO/MF cost (off-season VOIs) in the original structure.  Flex and banking helps somewhat. I hate to see valueless SVO/N VOIs - this decreases my value.

After all... no one but ourselves left to blame.
Fundamentally I bought where we indended to use for vacationing.  I like the familiarity (less stress).

What is needed is resort growth - which I guess they just bought into (or sold into). So... it looks like a new phase in the adventure is ahead.


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 16, 2016)

I suspect SVN has gotten a lot better at tracking and calculating just how much they need to assign to new developments (and changes to old) in the last ~10 years or so. Before, we had proof that they really didn't know what they were doing by simply using Lagunamar as an example. That resort started with low StarOption allocations and I, and countless others, told them they were crazy for not having a 2-bed be 148.1k...IIRC, it was 95k (we have old threads with the details for those of you who are interested). 

Now that SVN has the potential to change again, depending on what really happens in the next few years with II, I certainly hope they continue the balance that has worked well for so long. 

For myself, as long as I am able to reserve units at various resorts at about the time I want to visit I will have no complaint. I suspect this will not change in concept, though change in some form is inevitable.

Interesting thread, and thanks to all for taking the time to participate. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 17, 2016)

Ken555 said:


> That resort started with low StarOption allocations and I, and countless others, told them they were crazy for not having a 2-bed be 148.1k...IIRC, it was 95k (we have old threads with the details for those of you who are interested).



WLR original allotment: 
Platinum 
2 bdrm lockoff 95,700
1 bdrm 51,700
Studio 44,000

Gold
2 bdrm lockoff 81,000
1 bdrm 44,000
Studio 37,000 

Adjusted WLR allotment: 
Platinum 
2 bdrm lockoff 148,100
1 bdrm 81,000 
Studio 67,100

Gold (no change) 

See, I think that WLR was fairly valued at 95,700 SOs and believe that upping the platinum SOs to 148,100 was a mistake on SVO's part. Yes, it spurred sales, which of course was SVO's goal, but now it's overvalued.  It would cost the average SVN owner nearly $3000 (in MFs) to exchange into a 2-bdrm at WLR, which is at least 2x current rental rates for a comparable 2 bdrm at a neighboring 5-star resort.  That is ridiculously overvalued. 

Precisely because it'd be a PR nightmare to DECREASE SOs at places like WLR (and SDO, IMO), Starwood is arriving at the same place by increasing the SOs at truly high-demand places like WSJ.  Unfortunately, that has destroyed the "like for like" model, so owners at places like WKORV and HRA, which are truly comparable to WSJ, now cannot exchange into WSJ.  IMO, that isn't right, either.  No, the program would have been much better off had they left WLR alone with its lower valuation, and increased WSJ and HRA (summer) to match WKORV.


----------



## pacman777 (Jan 17, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> WLR original allotment:
> Platinum
> 2 bdrm lockoff 95,700
> 1 bdrm 51,700
> ...



With that logic, then WKV should be valued at 95.7k SO for Plat season since the maintenance fees there are within $100 of WLR around $1500. I'm glad Starwood has not aligned Staroptions with underlying maintenance fees. That is why mandatory resorts with low fees are so valuable. Hopefully they do not do something that changes this structure


----------



## Markus (Jan 17, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> WLR original allotment:
> Platinum
> 2 bdrm lockoff 95,700
> 1 bdrm 51,700
> ...



Also WDW MFs are within reach of Lagunamar and have the same point entitlements, even WSJ compares favourably with the point adjustments. I think Lagunamar is fairly valued in platinum Plus season at 148100 SOs.

Markus


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 17, 2016)

pacman777 said:


> With that logic, then WKV should be valued at 95.7k SO for Plat season since the maintenance fees there are within $100 of WLR around $1500. I'm glad Starwood has not aligned Staroptions with underlying maintenance fees. That is why mandatory resorts with low fees are so valuable. Hopefully they do not do something that changes this structure



I don't know what formula SVO used to give SO valuations, but IMO it should be based on some combination of demand, location, resort rating, MFs, and comparable rental rates.  But I'd think the most important factor would be demand. That's certainly seems to be the case with other timeshare systems. 

WKV, to its credit, routinely sells out in platinum season. And if other resorts don't sell out (e.g. SVV, SDO, WLR) in high season, then they shouldn't be valued the same as resorts that do.

Using the same logic, I think that HRA gold + season should either be given a boost in SOs, comparable to platinum season (even if they cannot technically combine them into one platinum pool).  There's no good reason why a summer week unit is valued so much less than the same unit in January.


----------



## sjsharkie (Jan 17, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> I don't know what formula SVO used to give SO valuations, but IMO it should be based on some combination of demand, location, resort rating, MFs, and comparable rental rates.  But I'd think the most important factor would be demand. That's certainly seems to be the case with other timeshare systems.
> 
> WKV, to its credit, routinely sells out in platinum season. And if other resorts don't sell out (e.g. SVV, SDO, WLR) in high season, then they shouldn't be valued the same as resorts that do.
> 
> Using the same logic, I think that HRA gold + season should either be given a boost in SOs, comparable to platinum season (even if they cannot technically combine them into one platinum pool).  There's no good reason why a summer week unit is valued so much less than the same unit in January.


This certainly would introduce more fairness in valuation, but it is a slippery slope.  HRA summer plat is definitely given the short end of the stick, but there is simply no reason for Starwood to increase options here with no active sales or expansion plans.  I can also see plat plus owners balking since they likely paid much more for their units during active sales.

Demand is important but it is secondary to supporting the Starwood sales machine.

By the way, I am also enjoying this thread.  It is good for me to understand the perspective of other owners and see how my own views compare.

-ryan


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 17, 2016)

sjsharkie said:


> Demand is important but it is secondary to supporting the Starwood sales machine.



True. Their big money is made in the sales phase.  



> By the way, I am also enjoying this thread.  It is good for me to understand the perspective of other owners and see how my own views compare.



I, too, think it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## SMHarman (Jan 17, 2016)

Markus said:


> Also WDW MFs are within reach of Lagunamar and have the same point entitlements, even WSJ compares favourably with the point adjustments. I think Lagunamar is fairly valued in platinum Plus season at 148100 SOs.
> 
> Markus


When do the WLR OV get a bump?


----------



## Markus (Jan 17, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> When do the WLR OV get a bump?



Soon I hope. I believe that there is an argument for Oceanside to increase, just like what happened in Maui.

Markus


----------



## grgs (Jan 17, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> When do the WLR OV get a bump?



Did you mean Ocean Side (which is really ocean front)?  Pretty much the entire resort is OV.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 17, 2016)

Has Starwood ever bumped SOs when a property was not getting ready to ramp up sales for a new phase? I am still looking at a Starwood mandatory week, sure don't want to buy something and then get burned. Not sure I like this idea of just inflating the value of weeks. I like a more balanced approach where they would have to decrease something somewhere else in order to increase in another area. I suppose this is what the flex program will impose, but SVN is fair game it seems?


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 18, 2016)

Markus said:


> Soon I hope. I believe that there is an argument for Oceanside to increase, just like what happened in Maui.



On Maui, they increased ocean front only.  Ocean views and Island views are still worth the same SOs. 

Are they calling the oceanfront room "oceanside" at WLR?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 18, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> On Maui, they increased ocean front only.  Ocean views and Island views are still worth the same SOs.
> 
> Are they calling the oceanfront room "oceanside" at WLR?



Yes - they changed the designation at WLR.


----------



## Markus (Jan 18, 2016)

LisaRex said:


> On Maui, they increased ocean front only.  Ocean views and Island views are still worth the same SOs.
> 
> Are they calling the oceanfront room "oceanside" at WLR?



Yes, at WLR, Oceanside are the ocean front units.

Markus


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 18, 2016)

Markus said:


> Soon I hope. I believe that there is an argument for Oceanside to increase, just like what happened in Maui.
> 
> 
> 
> Markus




Don't hold your breath.


Sent from my iPad


----------

