# Rumor Alert:  SVO “considering” allowing resale buyers to join SVN



## nodge (Apr 22, 2011)

I just got off the phone will a real friendly and helpful SVO agent. She said that she’s been there for several years and she likes to learn about her company’s product by asking questions of owners, and she started asking me about what I thought of the changes to II, etc.   So I told her.

Basically, I said that it appears to me that the changes to II (whereby SVO selects the week to deposit for both SVN and Non-SVN members, even though non-SVN members never signed anything to give SVO this right to do so) was implemented by SVO out of necessity to keep prime weeks and prime resorts in SVN, since the pool of available units in SVN at voluntary resorts is continuously decreasing as each developer unit is resold (and thereby drops out of SVN).  I suggested that the only way to “fix” this problem long term would be to allow resale buyers back into SVN.

She said that she’s been to several meetings where this very idea was discussed.  She said that she and the other SVO agents were told that after the Vistana Resort resale owners’ window to join SVN closes, SVO will likely select one or two other voluntary resorts to allow resale owners to join.  She remembers them saying that SDO and SBP are the front runners for being selected as the first non-Orlando resorts to be extended this offer.  She said nothing has been committed to yet, but if it is, it would be offered to the resale owners of the selected resort(s) probably sometime next year.  Other voluntary resorts would follow later.

She didn’t know anything about proposed pricing to join, but she did say that the offer would be for a limited time only.

There ‘ya go.  Let the speculation start flying!

-nodge


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 22, 2011)

Doesn't surprise me one bit for certain resorts as SVO needs to come up with money in some manner to keep the house-of-cards from falling apart.
(and a reason why I favor the ROFR...:ignore: )


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 22, 2011)

Wish I would have purchased more prime weeks at SBP now.  Most are weeks in the pinkish time of year, more 9-20 and 36-43.  I could have been a little more selective, had I thought this was even a remote possibility.  We need a secret Starwood forum here on TUG.  I think my SDO is week 24.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Apr 22, 2011)

People who purchase HGVC resorts on the resale market automatically become members of HGVC.  The points of the resale purchaser are treated exactly the same as the points of the retail purchaser exept for Elite status. I think this is very fair because the MFs are the same for the resale purchaser as they are for the retail purchaser.  

Starwood should make the resale owners full members without any additional fees.


----------



## Henry M. (Apr 22, 2011)

I almost purchased some weeks at WMH. At the time I was told that even for resale weeks, people could join SVN  for about $599 or so. I would be OK with that, even though I only own mandatory weeks in Hawaii right now.


----------



## letsgomets (Apr 22, 2011)

I bought a WSJ resale (week 51) so I'm not eligible for SVN.  I don't imagine that I'd want to use it anyway since I don't think I'd get nearly equal value by trading my WSJ week for someplace out.

However, I've been perplexed by SVO's reasoning -- it always seemed to me that by keeping resale owners out of SVN, it diminishes the benefit significantly for in-network owners since the system depends on a broad variety of inventory.  If 95% are in and 5% are out, I can see how those who are in aren't hurt and those who are out can feel the sting of not having bought from SVO (if they care to trade).  But as the numbers change and a higher percentage are out, those who are in lose out more and more from the decreased inventory to the point where SVO is doing them a disservice.

Am I missing something?


----------



## nalismom (Apr 22, 2011)

A note on the SW agents statement about resale owners at Vistana Resort being allowed to join SVN right now......this does not apply to all SVR resale owners....apparently they allow resale owners to join according to phase owned. I sent them an email 6 months ago when there was a rumor and was told joining SVN was closed to Cascades owners


----------



## GregT (Apr 22, 2011)

Please forgive my newbie question, but what is SVN?  I assumed it was the ability to use StarOptions, but then saw the post of the WSJ owner (mandatory resort) that was not included in SVN?

Sorry for newbie Q....thx


----------



## J&JFamily (Apr 22, 2011)

GregT said:


> Please forgive my newbie question, but what is SVN?  I assumed it was the ability to use StarOptions, but then saw the post of the WSJ owner (mandatory resort) that was not included in SVN?
> 
> Sorry for newbie Q....thx



Part of WSJ is mandatory and part is voluntary.  The newer section, known as Bay Vista is voluntary (not SVN if purchased on the resale market).  The older section, known as Hillside (formerly known as Virgin Grand Villas), is mandatory (SVN/staroptions transfer if sold on the resale market).


----------



## J&JFamily (Apr 22, 2011)

GregT said:


> Please forgive my newbie question, but what is SVN?  I assumed it was the ability to use StarOptions, but then saw the post of the WSJ owner (mandatory resort) that was not included in SVN?
> 
> Sorry for newbie Q....thx



SVN = Starwood Vacation Network - Starwood's internal point system for their timeshares (using staroptions).  Mandatory resorts maintain their SVN status if sold resale; voluntary resorts do not.  Generally speaking, mandatory resorts maintain their value better than voluntary because many resale buyers want to have access to SVN/staroptions.


----------



## ocdb8r (Apr 23, 2011)

To me, the smartest thing SVN could do for themselves is allow ANY week to join the system for a fee AND mandate all SVO to SVO trades go through SVN.  There is an enormous amount of exchange fees they are missing out on by those of us that get the great SVO to SVO trades via II.  Not only do we often get trades MUCH better than we could get via SVN, but SVN also loses out on the exchange fees.

Don't get me wrong, I'd not be happy to see the great value I've managed via II thus far. However, from a pure business sense looking at it from their perspective, I have never understood why SVN has essentially pushed more and more trades into the hands of II and out of the hands of SVN.  Look at the steady increase of bulk banks into II....we're seeing more and more availability for Hawaii and Atlantis...yes, still mostly off season, but overall number of deposited units seems to be increasing (even as the economy supposedly recovers).


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 23, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> Not only do we often get trades MUCH better than we could get via SVN, but SVN also loses out on the exchange fees.



Forget the exchange fees.  Even if owners never exchange, they could make easy money on the annual fee.


----------



## GregT (Apr 23, 2011)

J&JFamily,

Thank you for the response, I did not realize that Bay Vista was voluntary and Hillside was mandatory, I thought they were both mandatory.

Thanks again!

Greg


----------



## stive1 (Apr 23, 2011)

Has anyone converted their SVR unit back when they were offering the option to buy into SVN....just curious what they were asking.


----------



## l2trade (Apr 23, 2011)

I heard a similar rumor last year.  Starwood employees I spoke with felt something like this should be done.  I was told the powers that be were looking into it and weighing it against sales concerns.  I was told nothing was forthcoming at the time.  Interesting the extra details and specificity with what rumor you were told.  For that reason, I guess, I guess, this rumor may have some truth to it.  Time will tell.


----------



## bankr63 (Apr 23, 2011)

stive1 said:


> Has anyone converted their SVR unit back when they were offering the option to buy into SVN....just curious what they were asking.



At SVR there is no fee for joining during the offer period.  There are a couple of threads on this buried here.  The offer is made once a section is renovated, and the window lasts a few weeks.  We are waiting for our offer to come once Courts is completed.  This was in last week's newsletter:



> Because of the villa refurbishment, Courts Owners will receive a limited-time offer to join the Starwood Vacation NetworkSM program with no enrollment fee. Look for more information beginning in June.



I wouldn't necessarily consider it free however; to get the offer you had to pay the SA's for the refurbishment.  I'm not certain if we'll get the offer - we purchased between the first and second of four installments.  And there are additional annual fees to consider as well if you join.

I would expect there to be some kind of enrollment fee at the other resorts to join.


----------



## SDKath (Apr 23, 2011)

l2trade said:


> I heard a similar rumor last year.  Starwood employees I spoke with felt something like this should be done.  I was told the powers that be were looking into it and weighing it against sales concerns.  I was told nothing was forthcoming at the time.  Interesting the extra details and specificity with what rumor you were told.  For that reason, I guess, I guess, this rumor may have some truth to it.  Time will tell.



I thought the reason SVR was offered SVN privileges (for a fee) was because Starwood bought them out (previously owned by Vistana Development, right)?  SDO is in the same boat with some units being owned by a previous company (hence the "true platinum nightmare confusion status") and then taken over by Starwood.  I can see them offering the right to buy into SVN if you owned at SDO for years.  But I don't see this being extended to other voluntary locations that were developed by Starwood from the getgo, like WMH or WPORV. 

FYI I wouldn't go buying SDO now since likely the "cutoff" of ownership is retroactive to a year or two ago, like it was will Falls and Courts, etc.

I also heard rumors that they are going to be selling SDO again as developer property due to all of the foreclosures....

Katherine


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 25, 2011)

letsgomets said:


> I bought a WSJ resale (week 51) so I'm not eligible for SVN.  I don't imagine that I'd want to use it anyway since I don't think I'd get nearly equal value by trading my WSJ week for someplace out.



Just to clarify - WSJ-VG is a Mandatory resort and is part of SVN when purchased resale - so you are part of SVN (if you own VG).  Of course, it would be a crazy usage of SOs.

as to the rest - I can see SVO/SVN allowing more people into SVN to enhance their bottom-line (as stated).  For those Owners already in SVN - this is not a good thing... (IMO-NAE)


----------



## letsgomets (Apr 25, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> Just to clarify - WSJ-VG is a Mandatory resort and is part of SVN when purchased resale - so you are part of SVN (if you own VG).  Of course, it would be a crazy usage of SOs.
> 
> as to the rest - I can see SVO/SVN allowing more people into SVN to enhance their bottom-line (as stated).  For those Owners already in SVN - this is not a good thing... (IMO-NAE)



Why is it not a good thing?  I would think that more people in SVN means more potential properties to swap into.  Obviously more people vying for them, but isn't it better to have 100 people seeking trades and offering their properties than 10 people?  More chances for a match to something you want.  

As mentioned, we have a BV resale so we aren't in SVN and I don't imagine we'd ever want to trade in it anyway, but from the pure theoretical standpoint, I would have imagined that larger membership base is a good thing for owners rather than bad.  But maybe I'm missing something here.


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 25, 2011)

letsgomets said:


> Why is it not a good thing?  I would think that more people in SVN means more potential properties to swap into.  Obviously more people vying for them, but isn't it better to have 100 people seeking trades and offering their properties than 10 people?  More chances for a match to something you want.
> 
> As mentioned, we have a BV resale so we aren't in SVN and I don't imagine we'd ever want to trade in it anyway, but from the pure theoretical standpoint, I would have imagined that larger membership base is a good thing for owners rather than bad.  But maybe I'm missing something here.



Depends on which resale properties are being offered the chance to join SVN.

If they're primarily places with high supply and low demand (i.e. SVR), the end result may be more attempts to trade in to high demand locations (i.e. WKORV, etc) making it potentially more difficult to trade in to those locations.


----------



## letsgomets (Apr 25, 2011)

That makes sense.  I was operating on the belief that full availability across the board would be a good thing.  Obviously if they only made it available to people without a desirable property who offered more supply than soaked up demand, that wouldn't be very good.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 25, 2011)

YYJMSP said:


> Depends on which resale properties are being offered the chance to join SVN.
> 
> If they're primarily places with high supply and low demand (i.e. SVR), the end result may be more attempts to trade in to high demand locations (i.e. WKORV, etc) making it potentially more difficult to trade in to those locations.



^^^^ this ^^^^
HRA, WKORV/N and WSJ-BV are already Mandatory and have SVN access - people who bought via SVO also have SVN access. Letting more people in SVN (when they nomally could not) overall devalues SVN for those already in as it opens up competition (more demand, less supply) - we do not get those extra fees, SVO/SVN does.

Mets - I wasn't aware (recall) that yours was a BV villa - pretty much a trade down (except HRA?) - so loss of SVN not a big deal.


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 25, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> Letting more people in SVN (when they nomally could not) overall devalues SVN for those already in as it opens up competition (more demand, less supply)



Only "plus" that I can see is that properties like SVR are only worth 76,000 SOs, so the competition during high season in most high demand locations would likely only increase for studio units (typically 67,100 SOs) as they wouldn't have enough SOs for the 1BR units (typically 81,000 SOs).

There would likely be more competition for all size units during lower seasons, when you need less SOs to trade in.


----------



## letsgomets (Apr 26, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> Mets - I wasn't aware (recall) that yours was a BV villa - pretty much a trade down (except HRA?) - so loss of SVN not a big deal.



Yup - week 51 BV.  Closed around end of January.  Agree from what I read on this board that the SO associated with it wouldn't make trading worthwhile anyway, but have been curious about pros and cons anyway from a theoretical perspective.  I spend too much time on hypothetical irrelevancies.


----------



## NJDave (Sep 5, 2011)

Any updates / thoughts on Starwood allowing certain resorts to join SVN?


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2011)

NJDave said:


> Any updates / thoughts on Starwood allowing certain resorts to join SVN?



If this would happen I would assume resorts
Like wkv and other mandatory resorts 
would decrease in value?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 7, 2011)

silkey21 said:


> If this would happen I would assume resorts
> Like wkv and other mandatory resorts
> would decrease in value?



Maybe, but a 2 bdm. at WKV is worth 148,100 Staroptions, and that's more than many of the other voluntary resorts.  Many of the voluntary resorts would have fewer Staroptions, for the same maintenance fee.


----------



## okwiater (Sep 7, 2011)

I know that SDO would go up in value!


----------



## ocdb8r (Sep 7, 2011)

Depends on implementation.  If it's as SVO has done in the past, only re-sale owners as of a certain date would be permitted to join.  As a result, there would be little impact on re-sale values given new re-sale owners could not take advantage.


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 7, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> Depends on implementation.  If it's as SVO has done in the past, only re-sale owners as of a certain date would be permitted to join.



Can anyone recall a case where resale owners were asked to join SVN who didn't recently experience an SA?  I vaguely recall VCC owners getting an offer, but not sure if they'd had an SA.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 7, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> Can anyone recall a case where resale owners were asked to join SVN who didn't recently experience an SA?  I vaguely recall VCC owners getting an offer, but not sure if they'd had an SA.




I believe only original owners of Vistana (SDO, SVR - Cascades and Lakes only) who bought from the developer were invited to join SVN around year 2000.  I do not believe resale owners of those properties were invited thereafter, regardless of whether SA was paid (in the case of SVR - Cascades and Lakes).


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2011)

Do you really think Starwood would allows
this to happen? To allow people in voluntary resorts
To join svn?


----------



## SDKath (Sep 7, 2011)

silkey21 said:


> Do you really think Starwood would allows
> this to happen? To allow people in voluntary resorts
> To join svn?



Nope.  Never.


----------



## jarta (Sep 8, 2011)

silkey21 said:


> Do you really think Starwood would allows
> this to happen? To allow people in voluntary resorts
> To join svn?



Starwood allows people who bought resale at voluntary resorts to rejoin SVN through it's retro/requal program.  It's expensive because it requires a new developer purchase.

Starwood has also offered those owners who paid for special assessments at older resorts to rejoin or join SVN.  Owners of Villas of Cave Creek were also allowed to join.

http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...am-offering-complimentary-enrollment-svn.html

However, a general program to rejoin SVN at cheap prices has never been rumored.  SKath is right.   ...   eom


----------



## ocdb8r (Sep 8, 2011)

jarta said:


> However, a general program to rejoin SVN at cheap prices has never been rumored.  SKath is right.   ...   eom



I thought that was the impetus for this thread...see post 1.

Regardless, I think it's a bit much to say never.  Maybe unlikely.  Maybe only at a higher cost than normal ($2-3K). But never...I don't think I'd say that.

There has to be a point at which they realize they've milked all the resale oweners out there likely/financially able to retro and would be dumb not to try to get SOME money out of us for joining SVN.  It would be like printing free money - aside from the up front costs, they'd be getting the yearly fee.  Surely as owners of voluntary resorts re-sell, their year SVN fee revenue must be dropping.

Who knows though, SVO may have their own set of assumptions that makes it illogical to make such an offer.


----------



## jarta (Sep 8, 2011)

ocdb8r,   ...   From time to time those who bought at voluntary resorts and are limited to vacationing there during their week (fixed) or season (float) or II trading (not that much a limitation when you think about it) want to get back into the SVN at a cheap price.  They post/speculate about Starwood maybe doing that.

From Starwood's vantage point, what is the benefit to Starwood from doing that?  More developer sales at higher prices?  lol!  

No, I don't see any benefit to Starwood from allowing cheap reentry into the SVN.  And, I don't see any benefit to those SVO owners who are already in the SVN through their spending money to buy from Starwood.  All I see is a benefit (a price cut) to people who don't care to join SVN (under current programs linked and limited to joining or rejoining by payment of specified SA or upon the resort joining SVN) at the current high price charged by Starwood.

We just disagree.  I agree with SDKath.  Nope.  Never.   ...   eom


----------



## grgs (Sep 8, 2011)

I can see a couple of scenarios where it _might_ happen:

1.  As Nodge said in the original post, it could be targeted to specific resorts for a limited time.  This could allow Starwood to raise some quick cash.  As in times past, I expect more recent resales would be excluded.  Guessing which resorts and what the cut-off date might be is problematic.

2.  If Starwood sells off all or most remaining inventory, and decides to not develop new resorts, I could see them opening up SVN more broadly.  At that point, they wouldn't worry about competing with their own sales.  They would gain new money from existing owners (assuming they charged to join up), as well as the annual SVN fee.  In any case, I don't see this scenario happening anytime soon.  

Glorian


----------



## ocdb8r (Sep 8, 2011)

jarta said:


> ocdb8r,   ...   From time to time those who bought at voluntary resorts and are limited to vacationing there during their week (fixed) or season (float) or II trading (not that much a limitation when you think about it) want to get back into the SVN at a cheap price.  They post/speculate about Starwood maybe doing that.



Jarta, this is a nice scenario that you've laid out, but again, did you even bother to read the first post in this thread?  At the very least, try to make an argument that actually addresses what the first poster said...say they were mistaken, or that the agent they spoke to was mistaken.  Don't just make up some other scenario that discounts the possiblity.

Your statement:



jarta said:


> However, a general program to rejoin SVN at cheap prices has never been rumored.



is obviously incorrect as the first poster posited this exact rumor.



jarta said:


> No, I don't see any benefit to Starwood from allowing cheap reentry into the SVN.



Is this another case of selective reading, or do you just not care to address any of the benefits I mentioned in my post?


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 8, 2011)

Folks who bought from Marriott also thought that Marriott would never allow resale owners to join their program.  Right up until they did allow resale owners to join their program. Seems they cared more about making money in the short term than pissing off their long term owners. 

So I'll never say never.  In fact, I'd venture to say that Starwood would do anything it takes to put up the numbers necessary to make their income statements look good.

-- Lisa, owner of TWO mandatory SVO resorts


----------



## ekinggill (Sep 10, 2011)

I would gladly opt out and save the $129 (or so) a year.  It's just another tax on those who bought where they want to be.


----------

