# [ 2011 ] How is WKV a cost effective SVN trader?



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

Consider WKV platinum, $15k purchase price, 148,100 SO, ~$1300 MF. You could buy two SVV for ~$3000 purchase price, 162,000 SO, ~$2300 MF. That is ~$1000 more a year, for a moment forget about the extra SO. It will take 10+ years to catch up to what you spent right out of the gate for WKV, and then WKV will start saving you money (assuming that it is still lowest MF wise 12 years later).  Can someone enlighten me.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 9, 2011)

You are absolutely right - but WKV still has the best MF/SO ratio.  

Personally - I couldn't buy either one.


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

well logically then, the market should bring WKV way down in price, or cause SVV to increase appropriately.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> Consider WKV platinum, $15k purchase price, 148,100 SO, ~$1300 MF. You could buy two SVV for ~$3000 purchase price, 162,000 SO, ~$2300 MF. That is ~$1000 more a year, for a moment forget about the extra SO. It will take 10+ years to catch up to what you spent right out of the gate for WKV, and then WKV will start saving you money (assuming that it is still lowest MF wise 12 years later).  Can someone enlighten me.



Let me try to enlighten... 

I can talk about things like MF stability and rental values that make WKV much more attractive vs. SVV, but I'll focus on one other thing which I think is important to highlight.

I know some view things differently, the $15K+ you spend on WKV in your example is not a sunk cost (unlike a developer purchase where you lose 75%+ from day 7). You are making the extreme assumption that money is gone forever. Assuming MFs, rules and the economy are stable, a timeshare is likely to retain (most of) its value over the next few years. And if you view the upfront cost as (mostly) a recoverable investment, then the difference is only a 2%-3% opportunity cost in investing $3K vs. $15K (or a few hundred dollars a year in foregone interest on the $12K+ difference) for the benefit of paying much less in MFs. Worst case is that you also incur some depreciation and sell it for less, but it's highly unlikely it will be worth $0, which is the implicit assumption from the OP.

You may disagree with these assumptions, but just suppose resale values are flat for the next 10 years (and MFs at both properties rise at the same rate) and you can sell WKV for the same $15K+ in 10 years and the SVVs for $3K in 10 years. Now which would you own - the $1300 MF single property or the $2300 (combined) MF SVV properties? And note that if MFs at both places happen to go up by 50% over 10 years, you will end up paying $3500 vs. $2000 in 10 years, so annual the difference increases over time. I think it's easy to see that, under this assumption, WKV is generally preferred, unless you cannot afford the cash outlay. 

Are the assumptions in the previous paragraph a bit extreme? Maybe - but, IMO,  I think it is more reasonable that in 5-10 years you can recover much of your investment back than assuming it is all a sunk cost. The truth is somewhere in between and your own opinion will dictate what you buy... Again, I realize many like to think of the upfront purchase price as a sunk cost and not worry about depreciation, but it's important to realize that if it doesn't end up that way you may have bought something else and optimized your purchase differently.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 9, 2011)

I think Dan's analysis is right on in terms of enlightening you to the other side of the coin.

That said, I do think he's being a bit generous in many of his assumptions.

First, I think assuming that timeshare values remain flat is a pretty generous one.  I can't think of any timeshare who's value has remained truly flat over the last 3 years and I think even if we looked at a period that did not include the recent recession, timeshares who's values remained flat would be few and far between.

Second, the value of WKV is being artificially propped up by certain circumstances that could quickly and easily change.  Its value is nearly all attributable to low maintenance fees and high mandatory StarOptions.  Any number of things over the next 10 years could change that.  Starwood could exit the timeshare game, maintenance fees could catch up to other resorts, Starwood could allow other resorts with similar maintenance fees and StarOptions back into SVN, the prime desired SVN resorts could exit...etc.  The bottom line is that there are a LOT of variables that effect the price of the SVN mandatory resorts (and especially WKV as the currently best value per SVN point).  Bottom line is that there are a lot of things out of our control that introduce risk in to the valuation.

Third, Just as in Dan's example re:Maintenance Fees increasing 50%, we could also do the same for values.  A 50% drop in value would be $7500 for your initial WKV investment while it would only be $1500 for your SVV investment.

As to Siesta's comment about the "market" adjusting the values.  Remember, this assumes the market is rational and perfect information is available.  My comments above show that both sides of the coin can make rational arguments and come out with different conclusions.  Timeshares are probably one of the worst examples of the "market" working efficiently.  Look at the gap in resale vs. developer prices.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> First, I think assuming that timeshare values remain flat is a pretty generous one.  I can't think of any timeshare who's value has remained truly flat over the last 3 years and I think even if we looked at a period that did not include the recent recession, timeshares who's values remained flat would be few and far between.



That assumption of flat prices was more for illustrative purposes because it makes a point. I agree that the truth is somewhere in between "no loss" and "total loss" 

At least historically, WKV resale values have been most stable. In 2008 it was selling for about $20K-$21K (from the eBay thread) and now it's somewhere between $15K-$17K - so over three years (and the biggest recession of our time) it lost 15%-30% of its value. Is there any other Starwood property that comes close to losing "only that"? Even most home values lost more...

It's also worth noting that today's WKV resale prices are still 60% less than retail prices. It's just that other resorts lost 70%-99% relative to retail that make WKV prices seem high but compared to what some paid the developer, it's certainly not even close.



ocdb8r said:


> Third, Just as in Dan's example re:Maintenance Fees increasing 50%, we could also do the same for values.  A 50% drop in value would be $7500 for your initial WKV investment while it would only be $1500 for your SVV investment.



Even if you go with a 50% loss as an assumption, and WKV has more to lose in that case, it's still not obvious that SVV is preferred...

If, using the numbers above, in 10 years WKV drops from  around  $15K to $7500 and the SVV weeks' value drops from $3K to $1500 you end up losing $6K more on the WKV week. So amortize that to $600 a year. WKV also had a higher opportunity cost - say $200-$300 a year more in lost interest on the difference in the initial investment - as mentioned above. On the other hand you pay $1000+ more in MFs on the SVV weeks (and I showed that will increase over time in MFs increase at the same rate). I would still go with WKV with a 10 year horizon and the numbers above.




ocdb8r said:


> Second, the value of WKV is being artificially propped up by certain circumstances that could quickly and easily change.  Its value is nearly all attributable to low maintenance fees and high mandatory StarOptions.  Any number of things over the next 10 years could change that.  Starwood could exit the timeshare game, maintenance fees could catch up to other resorts, Starwood could allow other resorts with similar maintenance fees and StarOptions back into SVN, the prime desired SVN resorts could exit...etc.  The bottom line is that there are a LOT of variables that effect the price of the SVN mandatory resorts (and especially WKV as the currently best value per SVN point).  Bottom line is that there are a lot of things out of our control that introduce risk in to the valuation.
> .




This I totally agree with. All it takes is one major adverse event (e.g. the Maui taxes) to hurt resale values substantially.


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

dancali, I think the "truth" may very well be in between both of our assumptions.  But assumptions aside, and facts front and center: I would have to spend $12k+ more to potentially pay $1000 less a year, all on the hopes that WKV holds its value in the 10+ year horizon(as well as maintains its standing as the best SO to MF ratio). I would have a hard time putting my eggs in that basket, but that is just me.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> dancali, I think the "truth" may very well be in between both of our assumptions.  But assumptions aside, and facts front and center: I would have to spend $12k+ more to potentially pay $1000 less a year, all on the hopes that WKV holds its value in the 10+ year horizon(as well as maintains its standing as the best SO to MF ratio). I would have a hard time putting my eggs in that basket, but that is just me.



Siesta, I think I am in the same camp as you.  However, the fact is that Dan makes some very rational and logical arguments that point to WKV as being a more cost effective trader.  I don't think there is a "truth" so to speak.

...well, maybe.  To me the only truth that comes out of this is that maintenance fees are the name of the game.  The only timeshares that will hold any value in the future are those that provide a clear value over renting.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> I would have a hard time putting my eggs in that basket, but that is just me.



If you have a 10+ year horizon and your ex-ante assumption is that WKV will be worthless by then then I agree than SVV may be the better option for you BUT I would still raise a few questions. 

Assuming WKV will be worthless implies that MFs rose enough to cause that. Let's assume they tripled to $3500... How come you are not assuming the same for the SVV weeks and that those combined MFs tripled to $7500+? And if you are assuming that, why do you think the SVV weeks would be just "worthless" as opposed to say a $20K+ liability (i.e., that is what you may need to pay to get rid of those weeks)? If you assume WKV becomes worthless then ask yourself why and ask yourself what would become of SVV under the same conditions... Owning a timeshare is not a limited liability stock and timeshare prices are not bounded from below by zero.

Also, timeshares do tend to depreciate over time, much like a car. Yet you do not assume a $30K car will be worthless in 3-5 years (if everyone assumed that we would all be leasing). Why do that with a timeshare?

Personally, I don't know about 10 years, but the reality is that in 5 years WKV is more than likely (IMO) to be worth $10K+. And if this is the ex-post scenario, then WKV would have been the better option over this time. You'd be paying $1000 more in MFs each year and that number is likely to grow even more. That would more than justify some minor additional depreciation (relative to SVV) in value.

Lastly, I think a 10 year horizon is too long anyway... peoples circumstances tend to change more than we'd like. We like to think of timeshares as lifetime ownership and things that we may pass to our heirs, but if they were a 10 year minimum investment there wouldn't be almost any Starwood resale weeks on the market because most resorts are newer than that. My personal situation is that I did a lot of homework and bought 4 timeshares in the past year all within (long) driving distance. Well, turns out I may be moving to the east coast this year so so much for that optimization... And if I decide to liquidate WKV (I probably won't) I can cash out today for $15K-$17K, not zero. So owning for 2 years and paying as little as possible in MFs for the 148K SOs would have been the right thing to do in this case.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 9, 2011)

our WKV 1Bd Plat (prem) will be paid for in ~8 years (assuming normal situations) - and sooner if we were to more aggressively price our rentals - instead of a quick rent price... and will likely have value at the end of this period
- our we can use (great resort) - or we can exchange into a 81K SO villa within SVN
boom


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 9, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Assuming WKV will be worthless implies that MFs rose enough to cause that. Let's assume they tripled to $3500... How come you are not assuming the same for the SVV weeks and that those combined MFs tripled to $7500+? And if you are assuming that, why do you think the SVV weeks would be just "worthless" as opposed to say a $20K+ liability (i.e., that is what you may need to pay to get rid of those weeks)? If you assume WKV becomes worthless then ask yourself why and ask yourself what would become of SVV under the same conditions... Owning a timeshare is not a limited liability stock and timeshare prices are not bounded from below by zero.



First, it doesn't require a tripling of maintenance fees to quickly devalue a timeshare.  Second, WKV and SVV are independent resorts and any number if independent variables could affect the maintenance values independently.  Finally, while timeshares are theoretically not bounded from below by zero, you assume that there are no actions an owner could take to mitigate or eliminate the sort of liability you mention - that just isn't the case.  Units can be placed into trust or liquidated before things get that bad.  I think this argument is a bit of a red herring.  



DanCali said:


> Also, timeshares do tend to depreciate over time, much like a car. Yet you do not assume a $30K car will be worthless in 3-5 years (if everyone assumed that we would all be leasing). Why do that with a timeshare?



You can (not must) assume that for a timeshare because it has proven to be true. 



DanCali said:


> Personally, I don't know about 10 years, but the reality is that in 5 years WKV is more than likely (IMO) to be worth $10K+. And if this is the ex-post scenario, then WKV would have been the better option over this time. You'd be paying $1000 more in MFs each year and that number is likely to grow even more. That would more than justify some minor additional depreciation (relative to SVV) in value.
> 
> Lastly, I think a 10 year horizon is too long anyway... peoples circumstances tend to change more than we'd like. We like to think of timeshares as lifetime ownership and things that we may pass to our heirs, but if they were a 10 year minimum investment there wouldn't be almost any Starwood resale weeks on the market because most resorts are newer than that. My personal situation is that I did a lot of homework and bought 4 timeshares in the past year all within (long) driving distance. Well, turns out I may be moving to the east coast this year so so much for that optimization... And if I decide to liquidate WKV (I probably won't) I can cash out today for $15K-$17K, not zero. So owning for 2 years and paying as little as possible in MFs for the 148K SOs would have been the right thing to do in this case.



Just because you can pinpoint that if you were to liquidate right now you could recoup most of your investment does not mean that this will hold for the future.  As I originally posted, any number of events outside our control could cause the value of any individual resort to plummet rather quickly.  I'd much rather have less skin in the game (initial outlay) in case this happens.

In my opinion a shorter time horizon hurts your argument as there is less time to make a yearly gain (maintenance fee savings) relative to the amount you have risked.  Say I was only going to hold for 2 years...I'd save $3k in maintenance fees but have $15K on the table at risk.  Give you're likely to have a substantial gain every year based on the difference in maintenance fees, a longer time horizon is more likely to justify the initial outlay.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> In my opinion a shorter time horizon hurts your argument as there is less time to make a yearly gain (maintenance fee savings) relative to the amount you have risked.  Say I was only going to hold for 2 years...I'd save $3k in maintenance fees but have $15K on the table at risk.  Give you're likely to have a substantial gain every year based on the difference in maintenance fees, a longer time horizon is more likely to justify the initial outlay.



Again, this holds if you assume you lose all the upfront cost in a short period. Then a longer horizon helps wkv, as the OP said. The reality is that over a shorter horizon you are actually quite likely to preserve most of your equity, which tilts you back to wkv too... It all goes back to that critical assumption.

You can assume whatever you want but conclusions can vary widely based on what you assume.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 9, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Again, this holds if you assume you lose all the upfront cost in a short period. Then a longer horizon helps wkv, as the OP said. The reality is that over a shorter horizon you are actually most likely to preserve your equity, which tilts you back to wkv... It all goes back to that critical assumption.



This is mathematically incorrect.  Assuming any constant rate of depreciation on the initial investment and a fixed time horizon, a shorter time horizon decreases your average return given the benefit you are gaining is the difference in yearly maintenance fees.  

Only if you can somehow predict the actual rate of depreciation (which will likely not be constant, but will fluctuate) and get out before a larger rate would a shorter time horizon benefit you.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> This is mathematically incorrect.  Assuming any constant rate of depreciation on the initial investment and a fixed time horizon, a shorter time horizon decreases your average return given the benefit you are gaining is the difference in yearly maintenance fees.
> 
> Only if you can somehow predict the actual rate of depreciation (which will likely not be constant, but will fluctuate) and get out before a larger rate would a shorter time horizon benefit you.



Allow me to clarify because I think I was unclear a couple of posts ago.

A long time horizon definitely works in the case of WKV. Both under the assumption your resale value or you lose it all. The longer you hold it, the better. No disagreement here.

A short time horizon will work in favor of WKV depending on what you assume about depreciation. If I had, for example, a 9 month horizon - I want to buy it, get 4.5 weeks in Atlantis in a 1BR in October and sell it later in the year then I don't really have any reason to believe it will sell for much less than what I buy it for. Those Atlantis weeks cost me $1200. With the SVV weeks they would have cost me $2500. WKV still wins (assume I sell it for about the same price I buy it). Of course if you assume you lose all the upfront cost from day 1, you will never buy WKV for 9 months... 

9 months is a bit extreme, but the main takeaway is that WKV can still be a better choice depending on what you assume on residual value at the end of your horizon. And it has a pretty good track record compared to other SVN resorts... (but that too can change)


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

a lot of assuming here, I like facts. and from what I see: pay $12k+ more upfront to save $1000 a year. That's not my cup of tea, I leave the thread for you guys to hash out the assumptions. Thanks for the different perspectives.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> a lot of assuming here, I like facts. and from what I see: pay $12k+ more upfront to save $1000 a year. That's not my cup of tea, I leave the thread for you guys to hash out the assumptions. Thanks for the different perspectives.



And isn't this "assuming" too? (that purchase price is a sunk cost)


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

no not at all, those are facts.  One will cost $12,000+ more upfront, and will save you ~$1000 a year, for how many years I don't know and don't want to assume. What the resale value will be, I dont want to assume.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> no not at all, those are facts.  One will cost $12,000+ more upfront, and will save you ~$1000 a year, for how many years I don't know and don't want to assume. What the resale value will be, I dont want to assume.



But what you wrote above has an embedded assumption -- that the residual values are zero.  You can certainly make that assumption (as everyone agrees), but that is an assumption.


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

How does stating spending $12k+ more to save $1000 a year imply anything about the resale value, when you sell it may be worthless, or may be worth $100k, but the *fact* is you originally spent $12k+ more, to save $1000 a year on MF!  The only post that had an implication of an assumption was my original, not my subsequent posts.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> How does stating spending $12k+ more to save $1000 a year imply anything about the resale value, when you sell it may be worthless, or may be worth $100k, but the *fact* is you originally spent $12k+ more, to save $1000 a year on MF!  The only post that had an implication of an assumption was my original, not my subsequent posts.



Because residual value impacts your decision, as pointed out above. And if you ignore it you are implicitly assuming it's zero and making a decision based on that...


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

dancali, anyone that considers the potential residual value as a major factor in their decision to purchase a timeshare, is setting themselves for great dissapointment IMO. 

None of that can be guaranteed, what can be guaranteed is your $12k+ more spent, as well as the *initial* annual savings on MF compared to another property.  Therefore, the only things worth considering, IMO of course, are 1)the initial out of pocket expense (any money recoup'd from a sale isn't guaranteed and can change) and 2) the *current* savings on MF/SO ratio (which also is not guaranteed and can change).

now, considering those factors, I would in no way spend that much money up front, but obviously they are selling for that price, so apparently I'm in the minority


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 9, 2011)

my point (and I believe others) was looking at current and future value is multi-factorial and dependent on perception of worth (intrinsic and extrinsic).  we are above value in our WKV resales - and I use the extra monies to help pay for our other SVO VOI MFs and therefore vacations. ...we also drive cars that have high residual values... (color us crazy...)


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> Therefore, the only things worth considering, IMO of course, are 1)the initial out of pocket expense (any money recoup'd from a sale isn't guaranteed and can change) and 2) the *current* savings on MF/SO ratio (which also is not guaranteed and can change).



Nothing can be guaranteed as you say. Not future resale values and not future MF differences. But it's important to understand that by considering only current purchase price and current MFs, you are essentially assuming a zero residual value for whatever your time horizon is. You are still making that assumption and making a decision based on it. In fact, you also said it would take 12 years to break even (spend $12K for $1000 in MF savings) but that is assuming WKV MFs rise at a faster pace than SVV (if they both rose by 50% the difference in MFs would be $1500 each year). So there you go - more implicit assumptions in your analysis...

Of course it's valid to assume whatever implicit or explicit assumptions make sense to you. But it's also important to realize that if WKV depreciates by "only" 50% (or less) in the next 10 years and you could have resold it for $8K, your implicit assumption of zero resale value was too conservative and your decision suboptimal (you would have come out ahead with WKV vs. SVV ex post)


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

DanCali said:


> But it's important to understand that by considering only current purchase price and current MFs, you are essentially assuming a zero residual value for whatever your time horizon is.


 I respectfully disagree. I am simply stating that it isn't logical to consider residual value in the equation due to the fact that it is not guaranteed.  In my opinion, the way I'm looking at it is "don't count your chickens before they hatch". You *know* you will spend more upfront money for WKV, you *know* your SO to MF ratio will be less(for the time being at least), but you have no way of *knowing* your residual value @ a future sale date. Considering that as a major factor, IMO, would not be prudent.

Since you like assumptions.  Assume you buy to keep and use, not to sell.  well residual value only matters when you sell, when I spoke of WKV catching up to SVV value after 12 years in my original post, that is the only assumption I implied, not that the residual would be 0.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 9, 2011)

siesta said:


> I respectfully disagree. I am simply stating that it isn't logical to consider residual value in the equation due to the fact that it is not guaranteed.  In my opinion, the way I'm looking at it is "don't count your chickens before they hatch". You *know* you will spend more upfront money for WKV, you *know* your SO to MF ratio will be less(for the time being at least), but you have no way of *knowing* your residual value @ a future sale date. Considering that as a major factor, IMO, would not be prudent.
> 
> Since you like assumptions.  Assume you buy to keep and use, not to sell.  well residual value only matters when you sell, when I spoke of WKV catching up to SVV value after 12 years in my original post, that is the only assumption I implied, not that the residual would be 0.



The mere fact that some future price is uncertain doesnt make it zero.

If we dont agree that ignoring residual value from the decision is the same as assuming it's zero then I'll agree to disagree...

I hope I did show how one can still viev wkv as a better buy even for a shorter horizon (with different views than yours on residual values).


----------



## siesta (Jan 9, 2011)

DanCali said:


> I hope I did show how one can still viev wkv as a better buy (with different views on residual values).


Even though we don't necessarily agree, I think you expressed yourself quite well, and definitely showed the flip side of the coin.  Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective with me, and I'm sure any future readers that examine both our views can have a lot to take away from the discussion.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

WKV is definitely the best SO/MF winner of the Starwood system. 

WKV has been around long enough to establish a realistic long term value. Even in this economy, the resale value has held up better then WKORV....even selling for more money. 

Realistically.....no one can argue future this and future that....we just don't know. We can only judge and make guesses based on the past. 

If you buy and hold....WKV will be your winner.

If you buy and sell (5yrs or less)....SVV/SVR will be your winner.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 10, 2011)

The biggest determination for me in recommending WKV over SVV is that  that I believe WKV will still be marketable in a few years.  It's a beautiful resort, MFs have remained steady, and Phoenix is not currently overbuilt like Orlando.

Even with its participation in SVN,  SVV (Bella and Key West) gold and platinum units are dirt cheap.  Why?  Because Orlando is overbuilt and that has caused rental prices to drop.  Once MFs are on par with rental prices (as they are now), there's no incentive to buy a TS and be locked into a contract.  Renting is so much more advantageous because you don't have to plan a year in advance, you can shop for airfare deals and THEN book your lodging, you can arrive on a Wednesday if you want...

A SVV mandatory resort purchase ONLY make fiscal sense if you buy it as an SVN/II trader.  And that's too risky for me because SVO can manipulate SVN anytime they want.  Some people are okay with that risk because they trust Starwood will keep the SVN system intact.  I don't believe that.  Look at what Marriott recently did.  I don't assume that SVN will remain as it is today, which makes it even more important IMO to buy where you want to go.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> The biggest determination for me in recommending WKV over SVV is that  that I believe WKV will still be marketable in a few years.  It's a beautiful resort, MFs have remained steady, and Phoenix is not currently overbuilt like Orlando.



I know this is a Staroption/Maintenance fee thread, but you bring up another valid point for ownership. WKV is a much better trader in II the either of the Orlando resorts. 

When I bought my WKV units, I never realized how good of an II trader the units actually were. I don't trade often in II, but when I have done so, I have been very pleased with the results.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 10, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> The biggest determination for me in recommending WKV over SVV is that  that I believe WKV will still be marketable in a few years.  It's a beautiful resort, MFs have remained steady, and Phoenix is not currently overbuilt like Orlando.



I'm sorry, but this fails to explain SDO.  As has been discussed in other threads, while WKV certainly is nicer, it's not $15K nicer than SDO.



tomandrobin said:


> I know this is a Staroption/Maintenance fee thread, but you bring up another valid point for ownership. WKV is a much better trader in II the either of the Orlando resorts.
> 
> When I bought my WKV units, I never realized how good of an II trader the units actually were. I don't trade often in II, but when I have done so, I have been very pleased with the results.



A few problems with this argument.  1)SVV is able to pull the Starwood Hawaii resorts in preference just as well as WKV.  While I am sure there are some instances where WKV is going to trump SVV, it's not as simple as saying SVV is Orlando and so it doesn't trade wll.  2)Don't forget in this comparison you could purchase  two SVV lock-out vs. one WKV lock-out.  That means double the number of units you could trade in II.  3) Because you're talking about 2 units, you also have the option of using 81K Staroptions from one unit and despositing the other lock-off with II whereas with WKV if you elect Staroptions you can't deposit half your lockoff so in this sense SVV also has more flexibility (this is my understanding...I don't have a SVN resort so I could be wrong here...).

I'm not saying any of these justify the higher maintenance fees, just that there are some other benefits to owning two SVV's that we haven't discussed (like the fact that if you bought 2 SVV Platinum lock-offs you'd actually get 43,300 more Staroptions than WKV to use as well....)


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 10, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> whereas with WKV if you elect Staroptions you can't deposit half your lockoff so in this sense SVV also has more flexibility (this is my understanding...I don't have a SVN resort so I could be wrong here...).



I don't have a dog in the fight, because owning a mandatory week doesn't appeal to me, but with a mandatory 2 bdm. lock-off, you can convert one side to Staroptions and deposit the other side with II.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> The biggest determination for me in recommending WKV over SVV is that  that I believe WKV will still be marketable in a few years.  It's a beautiful resort, MFs have remained steady, and Phoenix is not currently overbuilt like Orlando.
> 
> Because Orlando is overbuilt and that has caused rental prices to drop.


 I actually don't think this argument holds water, and if the main part of your focus is SVV's location and not the money factor I was pointing out, substitute 2 WKV gold plus 81k SO for 2 SVV 81k SO.  You are still paying over twice as much for the WKV platinum, and paying $1000 less a year, and all the points I highlighted before still apply, and none of the points you just brought up do (besides prime season rental) since now we are not talking about "overbuilt orlando" but rather the same property in a different season.  So MF consistency is no longer a factor.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> I'm sorry, but this fails to explain SDO.  As has been discussed in other threads, while WKV certainly is nicer, it's not $15K nicer than SDO.



Mandatory vs Voluntary ..... No more needs to be said about this.



ocdb8r said:


> A few problems with this argument.  1)SVV is able to pull the Starwood Hawaii resorts in preference just as well as WKV.  While I am sure there are some instances where WKV is going to trump SVV, it's not as simple as saying SVV is Orlando and so it doesn't trade wll.  2)Don't forget in this comparison you could purchase  two SVV lock-out vs. one WKV lock-out.  That means double the number of units you could trade in II.  3) Because you're talking about 2 units, you also have the option of using 81K Staroptions from one unit and despositing the other lock-off with II whereas with WKV if you elect Staroptions you can't deposit half your lockoff so in this sense SVV also has more flexibility (this is my understanding...I don't have a SVN resort so I could be wrong here...).
> 
> I'm not saying any of these justify the higher maintenance fees, just that there are some other benefits to owning two SVV's that we haven't discussed (like the fact that if you bought 2 SVV Platinum lock-offs you'd actually get 43,300 more Staroptions than WKV to use as well....)



1. SVV can not and does not pull the same level of inventory. It will get some in the SVN period, but WKV will Always, not some....always, pull more. 

2. Buy two and have double the crappy trading power....go ahead. 

3. Yes, you can use half for staroptions and half for II deposit. 

Go ahead and find a place for those 43k extra staroptions. Your choices are for the most part studios and crappy off season weeks.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 10, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> I don't have a dog in the fight, because owning a mandatory week doesn't appeal to me, but with a mandatory 2 bdm. lock-off, you can convert one side to Staroptions and deposit the other side with II.



Oooh...good to know.  I always thought it was an either or (Staroptions or II)...if I ever get up the nerve to buy into HRA or WSJ (where I REALLY want to travel/own) it's good to know the flexibility is there.  Thanks, Denise!


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> I actually don't think this argument holds water, and if the main part of your focus is SVV's location and not the money factor I was pointing out, substitute 2 WKV gold plus 81k SO for 2 SVV 81k SO.  You are still paying twice as much for the WKV platinum, and paying $1000 less a year, and all the points I highlighted before still apply, and none of the points you just brought up do (besides prime season rental) since now we are not talking about "overbuilt orlando" but rather the same property in a different season.  So MF consistency is no longer a factor.



Why bring in WKV gold weeks into the discussion? If so, bring in the gold weeks from SVV. 

The discussion is platinum vs Platinum ..... and other season or unit types is irrelevant.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 10, 2011)

tomandrobin said:


> Mandatory vs Voluntary ..... No more needs to be said about this.



I'm sorry, that wasn't anywhere in Lisa's list of why WKV would hold it's value....not to mention her post concludes with how you shouldn't put your faith in SVN staying the same as Starwood could change it at any time.  Those are the arguments I was intending to address.



tomandrobin said:


> 1. SVV can not and does not pull the same level of inventory. It will get some in the SVN period, but WKV will Always, not some....always, pull more.
> 
> 2. Buy two and have double the crappy trading power....go ahead.
> 
> Go ahead and find a place for those 43k extra staroptions. Your choices are for the most part studios and crappy off season weeks.



1.  This is not my experience.  I have yet to see a bulk Starwood deposit that SVV didn't pull all the units (granted, refreshing multiple times in II was required).  Maybe people are not posting some of the better pulls they get with WKV (in fact I can't remeber a WKV pull being posted in the Signtings board).  Just my experience.

2.  If getting into WKORV(N) in May/June or Sept/Oct is considered crappy...I'll take that crappy trade any day.

As for the 43K extra Staroptions, granted..there's not a LOT of use for them.  That doesn't mean their completely useless.  Even a week in a large 1 bedroom off season is SOMEthing.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 10, 2011)

try renting a 1Bd SDO or SVV for $1600-$2100/week ($800-$1300 over MFs)...


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

tomandrobin said:


> Why bring in WKV gold weeks into the discussion? If so, bring in the gold weeks from SVV.
> 
> The discussion is platinum vs Platinum ..... and other season or unit types is irrelevant.


 What in the world are you talking about? SVV Gold Plus 2br lockoff is 81k SO, and SVV Platinum 2br is 81k SO (*BOTH* can apply to the original post).  And look at the discussion, when did specifically platinum SVV ever come up in the first place?  I understand you have a dog in this fight being a WKV owner, but keep it logical and on point, we are focusing on the $$$$$$$$ here, plain and simple.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> What in the world are you talking about? SVV Gold Plus 2br lockoff is 81k SO, and SVV Platinum 2br is 81k SO (*BOTH* can apply to the original post).  And look at the discussion, when did specifically platinum SVV ever come up in the first place?  I understand you have a dog in this fight being a WKV owner, but keep it logical and on point, we are focusing on the $$$$$$$$ here, plain and simple.



Yup...I own there...bought before Tug. 

Been an owner long enough and a member of Tug long enough to know the Starwood system better then most. 

Plain and simple was what I wrote earlier...



> If you buy and hold....WKV will be your winner.
> 
> If you buy and sell (5yrs or less)....SVV/SVR will be your winner.



Long term, no one here what the market or mf will bear...no one. We onlt have historical data to compare and make assumptions.

Short term, without a doubt SVV (mandatory section) is upfront cheaper...maybe 5 years. But if you plan on short term, expect a slow resale or an ebay "low" auction and paying two closing costs, and two settlement fees. 

Long term, based on history, WKV beats SVV financially. If (thate is that word again) WKV maintains its status, selling will be quick and offer a fair return. One fee for buying/selling.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 10, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> I'm sorry, that wasn't anywhere in Lisa's list of why WKV would hold it's value....not to mention her post concludes with how you shouldn't put your faith in SVN staying the same as Starwood could change it at any time.  Those are the arguments I was intending to address



The debate was between WKV and SVV -- two mandatory resorts.  I assumed that it was common knowledge that a mandatory resort will have more value than a voluntary resort because it has the flexibility of exchanging in SVN.  

As to my conclusion, it is simply an explanation of why *I* would choose WKV over SVV.   And you can take my advice with a proverbial grain of salt.  But to further elaborate: Savvy folks have obviously realized that you don't have to pay the excessive MFs by owning at HRA, WK(P)ORV and WSJ.  You just buy another cheaper Starwood resort and exchange in!

Now if you were a Starwood exec, and you saw this trend, what would YOU do? Seriously? Remember that their old business model -- to build new TSs and make a boatload of money on the front end -- is dead.  How are they going to make money in the new reality? 

While you're an offensive player and focusing on what a savvy BUYER would do, I'm a defensive player and focusing on what the OWNER might do, then putting myself in the best possible position should the game change.  Both sides have merit, IMO.

Looking at Marriott as an example, the people who were left in the best position after the MDC roll-out, were the folks who bought where they wanted to go.  No matter what arbitrary value Marriott assigned to their resort, no matter how much they wanted to charge to join MDC, the folks who owned where they wanted to go still had the option of using it or renting it.   

The biggest losers, of course, were the folks who bought at the cheaper resorts and counted on scoring boondogggle exchanges year after year.  With the rules change, they can't count on those boondoggle exchanges anymore. 

Now Starwood may not change a thing.  Or they may pull a Marriott and change the whole thing.  But no matter what happens, they can't take away what you BOUGHT.  Hence my advice to buy where you want to go and THEN look at things like exchange power as icing on the cake. Because status quo may change.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> While you're an offensive player and focusing on what a savvy BUYER would do, I'm a defensive player and focusing on what the OWNER might do, then putting myself in the best possible position should the game change.  Both sides have merit, IMO.
> 
> 
> The biggest losers, of course, were the folks who bought at the cheaper resorts and counted on scoring boondogggle exchanges year after year.  With the rules change, they can't count on those boondoggle exchanges anymore.


 The way I look at it, is the one who stands to lose the most if the rules should change is the person who has more invested (the wkv owner who put in $15k+), not the mandatory SVV owner who bought his timeshare for $1500 (or even a SDO owner who got one for  a few $100 bucks).


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> The way I look at it, is the one who stands to lose the most if the rules should change is the person who has more invested (the wkv owner who put in $15k+), not the mandatory SVV owner who bought his timeshare for $1500 (or even a SDO owner who got one for  a few $100 bucks).



If SVN goes away WKV 2BR Platinum weeks will still rent for $2700-$3000, which is about $1500 over MFs. As long as MFs are stable and that profit is there, that IMO, will keep a floor on the resale prices (at a $15K purchase price, it's a 10% annual return).

(and I don't think SVN will go away - those $119 fees do add up in Starwood's pockets...)


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 10, 2011)

I would never recommend buying WKV gold (and never have) - to tomandrobins point - there is a reason why WKV gold costs so much less than WKV plat on the resale market.  It is important to understand why this is before putting yourself in an offensive/defensive position in regards to comparing SV, SDO, and WKV.  The resale/rental market speaks for itself here - ducy?

SVN is not going anywhere anytime soon - it is too basic to the 4-point focus of the SVO business model.  II on the other hand is very dodgey - as we have all seen.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

DanCali said:


> If SVN goes away WKV 2BR Platinum weeks will still rent for $2700-$3000, which is about $1500 over MFs. As long as MFs are stable and that profit is there, that IMO, will keep a floor on the resale prices


 Are you implying that a platinum SVV week (easter, christmas, etc) won't be able to rent for over the MF? Because WKV will most likely only pull those prices during march spring training.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> Are you implying that a platinum SVV week (easter, christmas, etc) won't be able to rent for over the MF? Because WKV will most likely only pull those prices during march spring training.



True, WKV will rent best during Feb-March but that's almost half the Platinum season and those weeks are easy to book even at 8 months + 1 day.

As for SVV rental value I am more than just implying... I doubt you can rent out an Orlando 2BR timeshare for $200/night+ on any week of the year... I rented a 2BR at Wyndham Bonnet Creek from an owner for less than $80/night in the off season, and that's a pretty nice resort.

Here is data from RedWeek on SVV (not sure what the actual rental price was, but asking price tells it all):

	12/19/10 - 12/26/10 	7 	$550 ($79/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$800 ($114/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented


And here is info on SVR:

	12/26/10 - 01/02/11 	7 	$699 ($100/nt) 	None 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$750 ($107/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/26/10 - 01/02/11 	7 	$500 ($71/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	6 	
Rented
	12/26/10 - 01/02/11 	7 	$925 ($132/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$1,000 ($143/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/24/10 - 12/31/10 	7 	$740 ($106/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$975 ($139/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$800 ($114/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$1,195 ($171/nt) 	Pool 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/26/10 - 01/02/11 	7 	$1,200 ($171/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	12/25/10 - 01/01/11 	7 	$299 ($43/nt) 	Varies 	1/ 1 	4 	
Rented

And here are asking prices for Easter (week including Good Friday 4/22) only 2 rented so far:

SVV:

	04/16/11 - 04/23/11 	7 	$1,700 ($243/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	View

SVR:

	04/15/11 - 04/24/11 	7 	$1,400 ($200/nt) 	Pool 	2/ 2 	8 	View
	04/15/11 - 04/22/11 	7 	$1,000 ($143/nt) 	Waterfront 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
	04/15/11 - 04/22/11 	7 	$950 ($136/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	
Rented
NEW! 	04/16/11 - 04/23/11 	7 	$1,000 ($143/nt) 	Garden 	3/ 2 	9 	View
	04/22/11 - 04/29/11 	7 	$1,000 ($143/nt) 	Varies 	2/ 2 	8 	View


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> The way I look at it, is the one who stands to lose the most if the rules should change is the person who has more invested (the wkv owner who put in $15k+), not the mandatory SVV owner who bought his timeshare for $1500 (or even a SDO owner who got one for  a few $100 bucks).



That's a very valid point.  Except that if it loses too much value, you may not be able to even give it away.  I mean, who'd want an WKV or SDO silver unit when you can rent from STARWOOD cheaper than the MFs are? I suppose owners could always walk away, but I'd have a hard time doing that.  Not only would I not want to stick the paying owners with a delinquency, but also because I'd be afraid of what it would do to my credit score.


----------



## alotofgolf (Jan 10, 2011)

IMO...at it is just that...no facts or economic justification...

buy the best you can afford in the location where you want to vacation, then worry about all that other stuff (trades & resale being the main things)


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

DanCali said:


> If SVN goes away WKV 2BR Platinum weeks will still rent for $2700-$3000, which is about $1500 over MFs. As long as MFs are stable and that profit is there, that IMO, will keep a floor on the resale prices (at a $15K purchase price, it's a 10% annual return).
> 
> (and I don't think SVN will go away - those $119 fees do add up in Starwood's pockets...)



Dan, 

First as we previously discussed I seriously doubt it is easy in current economy to get these rental prices for WKV (just check Tug rental asking prices and track them to see how these drop as the check-in gets closer) but even if you or tomandrobin can currently get these prices (and I know that I can not get these prices at this market) the reason is because WKV owners that are not using Platinum weeks are exchanging for other SVN resorts instead of trying to rent their weeks so there is minimal supply for WKV Spring rentals. If for some reason WKV stop being economical SVN exchanger (or SVN disappers tomorrow) I can guarantee you that all these WKV Platinum owners that do not plan to use their ownership will try to rent these weeks and the market will be flooded with such rentals. If that happens just watch what will happen with rental prices - you will be lucky to get several hundred $ over your MFs. In order to have high "use" value you need high and stable differential of hotel prices and maintenance fees and hotel prices in Phoenix are not Maui prices even in March.

And before you tell me that all WKV owners are using their platinum weeks for March stays I would like to point to you that the whole March is available to SVN exchangers and you don't need to call at 8months - just for the kick last year I called at about 7 months and the whole March was available for StarOptions. Heck - I even saw March weeks deposited in II. When was the last time you saw Starwood depositing prime weeks in WKORV, HRA or WSJ in II?
Do you want a horror scenario - just imagine that for some reason WKV MFs spike sharply and get to $1800 levels - then not only that resort will stop being best SVN exchanger but "use" value will evaporate immediately as market will be flooded with rentals from people trying to recover these MFs. 

I agree that above scenario may not be very likely at the moment but to dismiss such possibility is foolish and anyone not ready to lose $15K should not be looking to buy WKV. And I am willing to make a bet with anyone that most of the WKV value comes from "best SVN exchanger" part and if this stopped being true its value will sink faster than a rock in water.


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> That's a very valid point.  Except that if it loses too much value, you may not be able to even give it away.  I mean, who'd want an WKV or SDO silver unit when you can rent from STARWOOD cheaper than the MFs are? I suppose owners could always walk away, but I'd have a hard time doing that.  Not only would I not want to stick the paying owners with a delinquency, but also because I'd be afraid of what it would do to my credit score.



LisaRex, It is true that timeshare values can drop below 0 but these can not drop significantly below zero simply because there are people for which credit rating does not mean that much (or live in jurisdiction where resorts can not do anything to collect from them). How much do you think will take to give to a deadbeat friend to take such "asset" from you (I personally know people  that will take a lot less than post card companies)? And the bottom for all timeshare is the same. So the potential for loss is still bigger for more expensive ones. Of course more expensive ones usually have underlying reasons why these are valued much higher but we have seen drastic changes in timeshare world.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> Dan,
> 
> First as we previously discussed I seriously doubt it is easy in current economy to get these rental prices for WKV (just check Tug rental asking prices and track them to see how these drop as the check-in gets closer) but even if you or tomandrobin can currently get these prices (and I know that I can not get these prices at this market) the reason is because WKV owners that are not using Platinum weeks are exchanging for other SVN resorts instead of trying to rent their weeks so there is minimal supply for WKV Spring rentals. If for some reason WKV stop being economical SVN exchanger (or SVN disappers tomorrow) I can guarantee you that all these WKV Platinum owners that do not plan to use their ownership will try to rent these weeks and the market will be flooded with such rentals. If that happens just watch what will happen with rental prices - you will be lucky to get several hundred $ over your MFs. In order to have high "use" value you need high and stable differential of hotel prices and maintenance fees and hotel prices in Phoenix are not Maui prices even in March.
> 
> ...



You make some valid points, especially the one about more rental supply if SVN goes away (and we both agree that's an unlikely event).

However, do not discount the rentability of WKV. Other than the Four Seasons timeshare, is there any other timeshare property in the area that comes close in quality?  Even Marriott owners who have been to both Canyon Villas and the Westin prefer the Westin (see this and this)

And you also say Phoenix is not Maui when it comes to hotel prices but did you check what Starwood is renting WKV at? 3/19 - 3/26 was sold out by September, but you can go 3/12-3/19 for $499.69/night (after taxes) in the small 1BR using the AAA rate... as for the large 1BR for that week - it's unavailable.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> I personally know people  that will take a lot less than post card companies



I'll remember that next time I buy a $1 timeshare to trade in II or in the highly unlikely event WKV becomes worthless....


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Other than the Four Seasons timeshare, is there any other property in the area that comes close in quality?


 I'm sure you meant timeshare property, but if not then yes ... The Phoenician.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> I'm sure you meant timeshare property, but if not then yes ... The Phoenician.



I did mean timeshares - edited that previous post...

But a hotel room at this place with a king bed for 3/12-3/19 will run you $520 a night (well, only $450 on the AAA rate).


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> First as we previously discussed I seriously doubt it is easy in current economy to get these rental prices for WKV (just check Tug rental asking prices and track them to see how these drop as the check-in gets closer)
> .



as stated - I have repeatedly rented my 1Bd WKV plat for >$800 MFs (we have 2 and always on the lookout).  I could probably get more with a little more effort...  I usually rent these out ~10 months in advance (zero hassle) - it is currenly giving a better ROI than most stocks/bonds/real estate.

btw - I am not saying this because I own WKV and talking BS to keep the price perceived as high - I also own WSJ, WKORV(OF) and WPORV (I only rent the studio-side of WKORV) - and have been vocal about issue with these resorts and MFs.

even w/o the intent to flip - I would not accept a free SDO, SVV, SVR - however, anyone willing to give me their extra WKV-plat... give me a call - I promise not to resell...

a 2Bd WKV (148.1K SO) costs more than 2Bd WKORV/N (non-OF) - in pretty much the same crappy market - sure WKV could go to $1800... heck, Baseball could move out of AZ - or golf could become illegal in AZ.
back to reality... there is a reason why WKV is holding its value when all others (mostly) are dropping - and it is market driven since WKV is pretty much sold out - and it isn't because of TUG (for the most part).


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

Dan I am not expert on Scottsdale area but quick search on Orbitz shows that there are 89 hotels in Scottsdale and 356 in Phoenix that has availability for 3/12-3/19. On top of that even the most expensive of them has base rate below $500/day for that week. There are even 2 5-star hotels that are in the $300 range - Waldorf Astoria and InterContinental. And there are several 4-star hotels that have rates below $200/day for that week. I do not think that you need peak week in Maui to see prices above $500/day (or even above $700/day) for lower quality hotels. In fact I have seen even more ridiculous rates ($1k+/day) in Maui despite much more depressed travel to the island (or any other fly only destination)  - if I remember correctly from the last statistics HI islands currently have ~40% less total visitors than pre-recession. I even considered some promotional rental prices last year by WKORV to be quite good/competitive and if I didn't knew about/own timeshares I would have definitely jumped on these.    


DanCali said:


> You make some valid points, especially the one about more rental supply if SVN goes away (and we both agree that's an unlikely event).
> 
> However, do not discount the rentability of WKV. Other than the Four Seasons timeshare, is there any other timeshare property in the area that comes close in quality?  Even Marriott owners who have been to both Canyon Villas and the Westin prefer the Westin (see this and this)
> 
> And you also say Phoenix is not Maui when it comes to hotel prices but did you check what Starwood is renting WKV at? 3/19 - 3/26 was sold out by September, but you can go 3/12-3/19 for $499.69/night (after taxes) in the small 1BR using the AAA rate... as for the large 1BR for that week - it's unavailable.


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

DavidnRobin, the reason WKV is holding its value is not because it is sold out resort (many others are) but simply because it has low/stable MFs and high staroptions. WKORV is also sold-out resort (and there is a tiny availability for WKORVN in Starwood hands) but ridiculous MFs there are killing the prices together with much bigger decrease of travel to the fly-only destinations.
I actually agree that currently WKORV(OV, IV) is cheaper than WKV (Plat) - I bough one for the staroptions but the reason is mostly MFs. Any timeshare that allows MFs to go beyond reasonable for the area will see its value go to 0 and there is no exception no matter how great the resort is. That is why we see WSJ studios on EBay go without bid - not that people doesn't want to stay in studios even in the lowest season there but MFs are beyond reasonable level for studio in low season.



DavidnRobin said:


> a 2Bd WKV (148.1K SO) costs more than 2Bd WKORV/N (non-OF) - in pretty much the same crappy market - sure WKV could go to $1800... heck, Baseball could move out of AZ - or golf could become illegal in AZ.
> back to reality... there is a reason why WKV is holding its value when all others (mostly) are dropping - and it is market driven since WKV is pretty much sold out - and it isn't because of TUG (for the most part).


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> even w/o the intent to flip - I would not accept a free SDO, SVV, SVR - however, anyone willing to give me their extra WKV-plat... give me a call - I promise not to resell...



I will not only accept free WKV-Plat but will even be willing to pay money for one, just not the $15k that is currently going for. It is still very valuable SVN exchanger - just that I am not ready to lose such amount. The moment I find one for amount that I feel comfortable to write-off personally I will jump on it.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> just that I am not ready to lose such amount. The moment I find one for amount that I feel comfortable to write-off personally I will jump on it.




This is a fair comment. We all have different risk tolerances. 

In my case, I don't feel comfortable buying a $1 or $500 timeshare  (go figure) knowing I may have to pay thousands to some shady company to take it off my hands if any material adverse changes happen that would devalue its resale "value" by thousands of dollars into negative territory. Saying you can lose less on SVV just because its cheaper is a fallacy, IMO. In fact, had you bought SVV in late 2009 and paid $6K for a 2BR LO with 95.7K SOs on eBay you would have lost more money if you sold today than if you had paid $18K for WKV at the time (this is based on eBay prices).


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 10, 2011)

I hope you guys aren't leaving the ever-generous "SVO Rate" coded on your account when checking rates.  As Nodge has uncovered in the past, it's the WORST possible rate.

Here's a couple of examples for 3/12 - 3/19:

W Scottsdale 
USD 327 >  Lowest Standard Rate
USD 699 >  Our very generous SET/Corporate rate we get through SVN :hysterical: 
USD 339 >  AAA
USD 339 >  Senior Discount

The Phoenician, Scottsdale 
USD 459 >  Lowest Standard Rate
USD 779 >  Our very generous SET/Corporate rate we get through SVN :hysterical: 
USD 398 >  AAA
USD 399  > Senior Discount

The Westin Kierland Villas, Scottsdale -- One Bedroom Villa
USD 476 >  Lowest Standard Rate
USD 699 >  Our very generous SET/Corporate rate we get through SVN :hysterical: 
USD 441 >  AAA
USD 441 >  Senior Discount


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 10, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I hope you guys aren't leaving the ever-generous "SVO Rate" coded on your account when checking rates.  As Nodge has uncovered in the past, it's the WORST possible rate.



JerseyGirl, you're always good for a laugh.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I hope you guys aren't leaving the ever-generous "SVO Rate" coded on your account when checking rates.  As Nodge has uncovered in the past, it's the WORST possible rate.
> 
> Here's a couple of examples for 3/12 - 3/19:
> 
> ...



I quoted AAA rates (but after tax).

$400 in a 2BR at WKV ($2800 for the week) from an owner seems like a much better deal to me than $450/night in a hotel room or $500/night ($3500/week) a small 1BR at WKV (from Starwood). I certainly don't see owner rentals as overpriced during that season - if anything it's the opposite.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> DavidnRobin, the reason WKV is holding its value is not because it is sold out resort (many others are) but simply because it has low/stable MFs and high staroptions. WKORV is also sold-out resort (and there is a tiny availability for WKORVN in Starwood hands) but ridiculous MFs there are killing the prices together with much bigger decrease of travel to the fly-only destinations.
> I actually agree that currently WKORV(OV, IV) is cheaper than WKV (Plat) - I bough one for the staroptions but the reason is mostly MFs. Any timeshare that allows MFs to go beyond reasonable for the area will see its value go to 0 and there is no exception no matter how great the resort is. That is why we see WSJ studios on EBay go without bid - not that people doesn't want to stay in studios even in the lowest season there but MFs are beyond reasonable level for studio in low season.



I did not say it was because WKV was sold out... ([wise-a** comment removed]) - I said that the current market made for WKV is base on resales and not Developer sales (as with some other SVO resorts).

I understand your concern is not to put so much money at risk - and your risk tolerance in low - I get it.  But I would not buy the others because of lack of risk tolerance - I would stay away altogether
- but that is IMO - YMMV (obviously).

I am not talking about non-Plat season at WKV (I would not recommend buying anyting at WKV other than Plat) - even buying 81K SO - gold for $1000s less even though it would take a while to make up the difference.  I would not take WKV gold for free - other than to flip it (and barely then based on current pricing). And I would rather have a root canal than own in Orlando (but that is us...)

Either buy where you want to go (WKV is a great resort - we just have too many TS and prefer HI and STJ over Scottsdale) - or buy with the intent on getting the best current value and future value.  The current value is known - future value is always a risk.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> Are you implying that a platinum SVV week (easter, christmas, etc) won't be able to rent for over the MF? Because WKV will most likely only pull those prices during march spring training.



SVV weeks do not rent over $1000 for a week....and do not cover maintenance fees. 

WKV has a PGA tournament and spring training, plus snow birds that keeps rentals brisk at WKV....not just two "event" weeks like at SVV. Also, those two "event" weeks at SVV are also at WKV.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> The way I look at it, is the one who stands to lose the most if the rules should change is the person who has more invested (the wkv owner who put in $15k+), not the mandatory SVV owner who bought his timeshare for $1500 (or even a SDO owner who got one for  a few $100 bucks).



You are throwing out an unrealistic hypothetical argument to justify your point of view.  

Here is a what if, since that is the game we are now playing. What if next year brings a Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane to central Florida? Its a more plausible scenario then Starwood doing away with the SVN system.  

Hey, why not throw in the Mayan Calender and how the world's end will effect those maintenance fees. 

You suggested that I keep the conversation logical, yet you keep posting things that are not happening or wishing they could happen.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

tomandrobin, 

taking me out of context doesnt support your argument, which to be honest, is very hard to follow when you jump from one random point to another and call other timeshares that will pull four seasons and every bulk starwood deposit "crappy".


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

Dan, I do not know how much were WKV in late 2009 on EBay for sure since these were quite rare and fluctuated quite a bit but SVV was not $6k in late 2009 - I was watching EBay very closely and still have database with these auctions at that time and the only auction for Annual 95K SO SVV LO that crossed $3K was shill bidding in my opinion. I almost bought one (Key West) for $1.5K with free closing from reputable PCC so the worst you could have done with such purchase would be $2k if you were suckered into bidding on that one shill auction that went for slightly above $3k. Otherwise your loss would have been ~$1k which is quite comparable with what you would have lost buying/selling WKV. I think the time when SVV was $6k was in 2008 but all timeshares decreased significantly between mid 2008 (pre-crash) and 2009.
On a lot of timeshare actually loss of value between 2009 and current was not proportion of the price (WKOR, FSA and several other high end may be exception) but actually more like a fixed amount - most timeshares in my DB lost $1k-$2k from early 2009 to the current prices (except the ones that were less than $1k - some became more difficult to sell while some kept prices steady). Broad exception is for most Marriotts after this summer but this is due to the new DC program. 

Actually in that timeframe (bought in 2009 - sold in 2010) I managed to sell 3 timeshares on EBay that I bough initially for <$500. On 2 I managed to make small amount of profit and on the 3rd one I lost ~$150. So on average I sold these an year later at $0 (with only expense being MFs but I got usage that was worth to me more than these MFs). Part of this was thanks to the great closing costs that Alan and Lisa from Time Travel Traders/Ready Legal have and me passing these savings to my buyers but bottom line is that selling these sub $500 timeshare is not as bad as it seems.




DanCali said:


> This is a fair comment. We all have different risk tolerances.
> 
> In my case, I don't feel comfortable buying a $1 or $500 timeshare  (go figure) knowing I may have to pay thousands to some shady company to take it off my hands if any material adverse changes happen that would devalue its resale "value" by thousands of dollars into negative territory. Saying you can lose less on SVV just because its cheaper is a fallacy, IMO. In fact, had you bought SVV in late 2009 and paid $6K for a 2BR LO with 95.7K SOs on eBay you would have lost more money if you sold today than if you had paid $18K for WKV at the time (this is based on eBay prices).


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 10, 2011)

siesta said:


> tomandrobin,
> 
> taking me out of context doesnt support your argument, which to be honest, is very hard to follow when you jump from one random point to another and call other timeshares that will pull four seasons and every bulk starwood deposit "crappy".



I didn't take you out of context. You keep throwing out things that are not facts to support your argument. Starwood is not doing away with SVN, so why use that to support your point? You need to based your posts on trends from the past, and stop ignoring facts of the present. 

SVV is a OK timeshare. The resort is very nice, and this discussion isn't about which resort is better. Its about the better deal for Staroptions for trading in the SVN system. WKV is a very good trader in II, SVV is not.....it does ok, but mostly for off-season and studios. These are facts.....check the sightings boards. 

This is the third time I am posting this.....

Short term, 5 years or less, SVV is the better deal.
Long term WKV is the better deal.  

There is a reason that a sold out resort still sell resale for $15k and a resort that is still building is selling resale for under $3k.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

for the record, I never once said SVN was going away. quote me if I did.  There are plenty of reasons for a TS to lose value.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> Dan, I do not know how much were WKV in late 2009 on EBay for sure since these were quite rare and fluctuated quite a bit but SVV was not $6k in late 2009 - I was watching EBay very closely and still have database with these auctions at that time and the only auction for Annual 95K SO SVV LO that crossed $3K was shill bidding in my opinion.



I'll let glorian chime in on this since she has a record of every single auction 

I still maintain SVV 2BR LO 95.7K SOs was around $5-$6K in Fall 2009. They were certainly not as low as $3K. Prices crashed a few weeks or months after 2010 MFs (30% increase) came out.


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

Originally Posted by LisaRex  


"While you're an offensive player and focusing on what a savvy BUYER would do, I'm a defensive player and focusing on what the OWNER might do, then putting myself in the best possible position *should the game change*. Both sides have merit, IMO.


The biggest losers, of course, were the folks who bought at the cheaper resorts and counted on scoring boondogggle exchanges year after year. With the rules change, they can't count on those boondoggle exchanges anymore. "


siesta said:


> The way I look at it, is the one who stands to lose the most if the rules should change is the person who has more invested (the wkv owner who put in $15k+), not the mandatory SVV owner who bought his timeshare for $1500 (or even a SDO owner who got one for  a few $100 bucks).



Now, you see I was responding to someone.  LisaRex is the one who brought up SVN rules changing or going away. So you are either taking me out of context, or misunderstanding me completely.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 10, 2011)

DanCali said:


> I'll let glorian chime in on this since she has a record of every single auction
> 
> I still maintain SVV 2BR LO 95.7K SOs was around $5-$6K in Fall 2009. They were certainly not as low as $3K. Prices crashed a few weeks or months after 2010 MFs (30% increase) came out.



I think it was more like 2008... but that is not the point (obviously).  The eBay thread probaby lists SVV back then. Lots of people were considering SVV as a better resale than WKV back then.  Considering they are both Mandatory resorts - strange that SVV has declined so much... 

here goes - late 2008
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=622743&postcount=135


----------



## siesta (Jan 10, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> Lots of people were considering SVV as a better resale than WKV back then.  Considering they are both Mandatory resorts - strange that SVV has declined so much...


 SVV saw two years of 20-30% increases, although this year it decresed ~12%, that should display how easily WKV could lose value if a year or two simply got mismanaged.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 10, 2011)

DavidnRobin said:


> I think it was more like 2008... but that is not the point (obviously).  The eBay thread probaby lists SVV back then. Lots of people were considering SVV as a better resale than WKV back then.  Considering they are both Mandatory resorts - strange that SVV has declined so much...
> 
> here goes - late 2008
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=622743&postcount=135



Thanks for this link.

I'm pretty sure prices in late 2009 were similar... it's around the time I joined TUG and was looking to buy so I was following those pretty closely.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 10, 2011)

FYI, "should the game change" doesn't just refer to a dismantling of SVN, which is admittedly far-fetched.  A more likely scenario, IMO, is that the SO chart will be revamped to better reflect reality -- either they'll have SOs tied to MFs (a la Marriott Destination Club, if I understand their program correctly) in order to encourage more sales at the cheaper resorts and/or off-season, and/or they'll be more reflective of true supply & demand (e.g. HRA summer 3 bdrm will be 196.1k SOs instead of the current 125k, which is crazy low).

Or, they might do nothing at all and SVV owner will get boondoggle trades for years to come.


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 10, 2011)

Dan I was shopping for SVN trader in Fall 2009 and I have every EBay completed auction in my database for mandatory resorts during several months that I was watching EBay daily. Trust me prices for SVV were nowhere near $6K. I even purchased Annual 2BR LO with 95K SO in Key West section for $1.5k with free closing from reputable PCC but then found (relatively) cheap OV EOY WKORV and decided not to go trough with that SVV purchase.
The funny thing is that I may actually be able to use SVV resort much more frequently than WKORV since I usually spend at least a week or two in Orlando each year but since I was buying it strictly for exchange purposes (HRA) I disregarded "buy where you want to go" part. Plus I already have Wyndham points and can book Bonnet Creek internally anytime I want and I prefer Bonnet Creek over SVV. 



DanCali said:


> I'll let glorian chime in on this since she has a record of every single auction
> 
> I still maintain SVV 2BR LO 95.7K SOs was around $5-$6K in Fall 2009. They were certainly not as low as $3K. Prices crashed a few weeks or months after 2010 MFs (30% increase) came out.


----------



## grgs (Jan 11, 2011)

DanCali said:


> I'll let glorian chime in on this since she has a record of every single auction
> 
> I still maintain SVV 2BR LO 95.7K SOs was around $5-$6K in Fall 2009. They were certainly not as low as $3K. Prices crashed a few weeks or months after 2010 MFs (30% increase) came out.



Here's what I have for SVV 2 bdrm LO (95,700 SOs) in 2009:

4/15/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,162
3/11/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	5,680
10/6/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	6,200
11/18/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	5,047
11/30/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,162
11/30/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,262
12/12/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	3,650
12/25/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	3,275

BTW, I don't claim to have every auction--I'm sure I've missed some from time to time.  

Just because I have the data, here's the list of all entries I've got for this unit type from Aug. 2007-Oct. 2010:

8/27/2007	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	10,434
9/6/2007	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	12,600
12/3/2007	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	12,000
2/12/2008	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	14,300
7/22/2008	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	9,600
10/23/2008	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	7,964
4/15/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,162
3/11/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	5,680
10/6/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	6,200
11/18/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	5,047
11/30/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,162
11/30/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,262
12/12/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	3,650
12/25/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	3,275
2/9/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	2,912
5/17/2010	2 bd LO	EY 	Prime	2,850
6/17/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	2,125
7/12/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	1,875
7/16/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	2,025
10/2/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	2,455
10/7/2010	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	1,025

Glorian


----------



## DanCali (Jan 11, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> Trust me prices for SVV were nowhere near $6K.






grgs said:


> Here's what I have for SVV 2 bdrm LO (95,700 SOs) in 2009:
> 
> 4/15/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	4,162
> 3/11/2009	2 bd LO	EY	Prime	5,680
> ...



Thanks, Glorian, for bailing me out here!

I knew I wasn't dreaming when I said $5-$6K...

And the impact of 2010 MFs (announced in late 2009) was quite dramatic.



DanCali said:


> I still maintain SVV 2BR LO 95.7K SOs was around $5-$6K in Fall 2009. They were certainly not as low as $3K. Prices crashed a few weeks or months after 2010 MFs (30% increase) came out.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 11, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> FYI, "should the game change" doesn't just refer to a dismantling of SVN, which is admittedly far-fetched.  A more likely scenario, IMO, is that the SO chart will be revamped to better reflect reality -- either they'll have SOs tied to MFs (a la Marriott Destination Club, if I understand their program correctly) in order to encourage more sales at the cheaper resorts and/or off-season, and/or they'll be more reflective of true supply & demand (e.g. HRA summer 3 bdrm will be 196.1k SOs instead of the current 125k, which is crazy low).
> 
> Or, they might do nothing at all and SVV owner will get boondoggle trades for years to come.



Lisa, I agree with most of the stuff you wrote in this thread but not with this post.

First off, there is absolutely no relation between the level of MFs and the demand for vacationing at a resort. If MFs at WKORV were $4000 people would still want to go there. Also, Marriott's points allocation is unrelated to MFs (if it was then all weeks at the same resort would be equal since they pay the same MFs...). If anything, Marriott's point allocation is more similar to hotel rental rates and they may have 5-10 different tiers at any one resort and unit size. Here is their point allocation chart. But those are points required to trade in - the actual points a resort/unit size/season got is the average points required to trade into a resort/season/unit less a 6%-10% "skim" factor, so each resort/season/unit got the same number of points.

Starwood has absolutely no record of doing this. The only thing they have done similar to Marriott is folded in a resort like SVR with 1-52 float weeks and assigned them 76K SOs which is a weighted average of 67K and 81K SOs required to trade into that resort during the two Starwood season in Orlando (no "skim" here). 

It may be the case that they are allowed to change point allocations at resorts, but they haven't done it in the 10-15 years of SVN. No reason to believe they would now, and MFs changing has nothing to do with it. There is no justification to give owners more points simply because operating costs or taxes went up more relative to other resorts.

So maybe they could change the points required to trade into resorts based on more accurate demand (this would be similar to Marriott), but the total points in the season have to remain the same. So, in this example, some Hawaii weeks may be 180,000 SOs to trade in and others 110,000 SOs, but all owners would still have 148K SOs. They would still have to let Hawaii owners book any week (that's a deeded right) but a WKV owner couldn't get a summer 2BR anymore (and you may not be able to get a 2BR at Kierland or Harborside in March). Maybe this could be done, but I think most owners would hate that since it will reduce their ability to trade in prime time without giving them much in return. It just hurt people with school age kids and helps people who can travel off season. Personally, I wouldn't be too happy if they did that, but I have 296K SOs so I'll should be fine... 

In addition, if there are any changes to points allocations like you suggest, I see no reason why WKV should be adversely affected (punish owners because that resort has been managed (relatively) more responsibly?). It is a top notch resort and, as discussed earlier, Starwood rents Platinum season small 1BRs at $500/night. In fact, I dare to guess that the average rental rates for the small 1BR at WKV (67K SOs) during weeks 50-21 is higher than the Maui/Princeville studios (also 67K SOs) average rental rates during weeks 1-50... By that more realistic metric, I think WKV Platinum is safe...

I also disagree with the example that HRA summer should be equivalent to Platinum season. If you look at the II TDI chart for the Bahamas, there is a very big difference in the relative demand for Spring vs. summer weeks. The only reason you are saying this is the high MFs but by that argument let's give the Silver weeks 196K SOs too? Those owners may have not known what MFs would be a few years after they bought but the current SO allocation is not a surprise to any owner... they knew what they were buying on that front.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 11, 2011)

Dan -- The TDI is a tool, created by accountants, to measure relative demand by area (not by resort, not by captive timeshare owners, etc.).


Using your rental rate argument, you will see that Harborside commands an equal rent during the summer months as it does during "platinum plus" season"

*2/19 - 2/26*
1Bedroom Deluxe Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$509* $399* $399* $399* $399* $509* $509* 

 TOTAL 
$3,123*

*4/09 - 4/16*
1Bedroom Deluxe Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$509* $399* $399* $399* $399* $509* $509* 

 TOTAL 
$3,123*   

1Bedroom Premium Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$579* $469* $469* $469* $469* $579* $579* 

 TOTAL 
$3,613*  

2Bedroom Deluxe Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$829 $719 $719 $719 $719 $829 $829 

 TOTAL 
$5,363*    

*7/09 - 7/16*

1Bedroom Deluxe Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$509* $399* $399* $399* $399* $509* $509* 

 TOTAL 
$3,123*  

1Bedroom Premium Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 
$579* $469* $469* $469* $469* $579* $579* 

 TOTAL 
$3,613* 

With regard to Scottsdale, here are Starwood rental rates for a non-Spring Training week in the platinum season:

*5/07 - 5/14 (Week 18??)*

The Westin Kierland Villas, Scottsdale 

USD 198 >  Lowest Standard Rate
USD 389 >  Our generous SVO corporate rate :hysterical: 
USD 131 >  AAA Rate
USD 131 >  Senior Discount

I don't think your argument that the rental rates are stable throughout the platinum season is necessarily valid.

I don't have a dog in this fight (I'm on the "would never buy WKV at current prices" side of things but that's just my opinion ... my risk tolerance ... my choice of vacation destinations -- whatever, it's all about personal preferences, isn't it?).  My gut tells me that the secondary market is pretty small (that's a good thing -- owners feel they're getting value from their purchase), the resale price is strong because of the SO/maintenance fee value .... the demand is decent (not like Harborside where you have to call within 1 minute of the opening bell) for some number of weeks per year, etc.  But, if Starwood ever realigns the SO system (ala Marriott), very few weeks will command 148,100 SOs ... and the price will drop tremendously. 

I really think we should come up with a sticky on this subject!  TomnRobin makes an excellent point about past history -- and it's great where WKV is concerned.  On the other hand, I'm in an industry where the phrase "past history is no guarantee of future results" is Rule #1 ... and the timeshare industry in general, and Starwood in particular, drive that point home each and every day!  I think there are valid points to both sides of the argument ... and, presented fairly ... every potential buyer should be able to make a decision that he/she is comfortable with.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 11, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I think there are valid points to both sides of the argument ... and, presented fairly ... every potential buyer should be able to make a decision that he/she is comfortable with.



I agree 100%.  And I appreciate that people in this thread have presented their argument, for the most part, without being disrespectful.  I think both sides present very strong arguments for each side.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 11, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I don't think your argument that the rental rates are stable throughout the platinum season is necessarily valid.



Nothing like waking up at 6am and getting an earful from Jerseygirl on my phone browser first thing in the morning... 

I'm sure the numbers are accurate but I do have a couple of comments.

First, I never said rental rates at WKV are "stable throughout the Platinum season". What I said was:



> In fact, I dare to guess that the average rental rates for the small 1BR at WKV (67K SOs) during weeks 50-21 is higher than the Maui/Princeville studios (also 67K SOs) average rental rates during weeks 1-50.



...which is different. I still think I'm right on that one, but if I am wrong it's not by much.

Secondly, while Atlantis seems to have the same rates for hotels all the time, they offer discounts during off-peak times in other ways. For example, right now you can get free companion airfare if you book 4+ nights (including HRA) for travel until June 30 but excluding March and April. So, depending when and where you fly from, that's a $200-$600 discount for January, February, May and June stays. Last year they were running a 4th night free promotion in addition to free companion airfare, but also excluded select weeks. So the "stability" of the HRA rental rates is also debatable, but they are discounted indirectly.

Lastly, while the validity, ability, and possibility of re-seasoning or reallocation Starpoints at some of the resorts can be debated, I have yet to see anything that says WKV Platinum is a candidate to get hurt from that. Rental rates for the Deluxe 1BR during Feb-April (much of the Platinum season) are comparable (in fact, higher) than comparable rooms in Palm Springs and even Hawaii, HRA and the various ski resorts like WRF during their respective Platinum seasons. The main (only) argument I hear is "their MFs are lower so they shouldn't be able to trade into Prime Resorts" but since when are MFs a determinant of trading power? Quality of resort, unit size, supply, demand - all these matter... but not fees.


----------



## mstoyanov (Jan 11, 2011)

Dan,

You may be right - I just looked at my spreadsheet and I seems that I started tracking mandatory resorts after Thanksgiving 2009 and by then probably news of the 2010 MFs have been known. I made my purchase (that I later declined) of SVV KW phase in the middle of Dec so that was probably after 2010 MFs were widely known. Anyway for some strange reason I am missing 2 of the entries from 11/30/2009. Also on both 12/25 and 12/12 auctions I have remarks for irregularities - one of these auctions was re-listed with the same week/unit number while on the other I received second offer for much lower price directly from the seller despite bidding much lower (I was not even the third highest price). I also noticed that the one that I bough for $1.5K didn't have "staroptions" in the description - only "Sheraton Vistana Villages" which may have contributed to the lower price. I also have quite a bit more auctions in my spreadsheet that are missing from Glorian's data.



DanCali said:


> Thanks, Glorian, for bailing me out here!
> 
> I knew I wasn't dreaming when I said $5-$6K...
> 
> And the impact of 2010 MFs (announced in late 2009) was quite dramatic.


----------



## grgs (Jan 11, 2011)

mstoyanov said:


> I also have quite a bit more auctions in my spreadsheet that are missing from Glorian's data.



I don't track the auctions that don't sell or don't make reserve.  Not sure if you do or not, but I thought that might be a difference.  And, of course, I do miss auctions from time to time.  It would be great if you could post your results, so we'll have as complete information as possible.

Thanks!

Glorian


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 11, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Nothing like waking up at 6am and getting an earful from Jerseygirl on my phone browser first thing in the morning...
> 
> I'm sure the numbers are accurate but I do have a couple of comments.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I body slammed you at 6AM!  I'll do it at 9 PM instead!  

First of all, I do apologize if I misquoted you.  I thought you were implying that the rental rates were stable throughout platinum season at WKV.

I have never said, nor will I ever say, that MFs are a determinant of trading power.  This is America!  Trading power is pure "supply vs. demand" (except when Starwood manipulates it!).

I do feel forced to comment on the following statement:



> Rental rates for the Deluxe 1BR during Feb-April (much of the Platinum season) are comparable (in fact, higher) than comparable rooms in Palm Springs and even Hawaii, HRA and the various ski resorts like WRF during their respective Platinum seasons.



I don't follow the other resorts, but I don't think the numbers bear you out as it relates to HRA.  See below -- note I didn't include the potential savings from the airfare specials if you can get one:

WKV			
Dates / Price / With Taxes / Weekly Price
Jan 15-22	284	321.97	2253.79
Jan 22-29	same		
Jan 29 - Feb 5	same		
Feb 5 - 12	same		
Feb 12 - 19	356.15	403.41	2823.87
Feb 19-26	same		
Feb 26 - Mar 5	same		
Mar 5 -12 	same		
Mar 12 - 19	sold out		
Mar 19-26	sold out		
Mar 26 - Apr 2	sold out		
Apr 2 - 9	               398.65	451.55	3160.85
Apr 9 - 16	same		
Apr 16 - 23	500	566.36	3964.52 (PEAK)
Apr 23 - 30	same			
Apr 30 - May 7	387.71	439.16	3074.12	
May 7 - May 14	131.4	148.84	1041.88	
May 14 - May 21	$357 / week -- Interval Getaway			
May 21 - May 28	$337 / week - Interval Getaway			
June forward	Drops to $297 / week - II			

HRA				
Jan 15-22	446	581.56	4070.94	4208.94 with 2 kids
Jan 22-29	same			
Jan 29 - Feb 5	same			
Feb 5 - 12	same			
Feb 12 - 19	same			
Feb 19-26	same			
Feb 26 - Mar 5	same			
Mar 5 -12 	same			
Mar 12 - 19	same		
Mar 19-26	sold out		
Mar 26 - Apr 2	sold out		
Apr 2 - 9	               446	581.56	4070.94
Apr 9 - 16	same		
Apr 16 - 23	same		
Apr 23 - 30	same		
Apr 30 - May 7	same		
May 7 - 14	same		
May 14 - 21	same		
May 21 - 28	same		
May 28 - Jun 4	same		
Jun 4 - 11	same		
Jun 11 - 18	same		
Jun 18 - 25	same		
Jun 25 - Jul 2	same		
Jul 2- 9	               same
Jul 9 - 16	               same
Jul 16 - 23	same
Jul 23 - 30	I'm bored!

As you can see, there's not one single instance where WKV's rental rate is higher than HRA's (ergo, the SO ratios do not reflect supply vs. demand in the real world).  Also, these prices reflect the current 40% off special ... when the economy is booming, they're significantly higher.

And this, my friend, is why I fear for a WKV SO realignment at some point in the future.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 11, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> I agree 100%.  And I appreciate that people in this thread have presented their argument, for the most part, without being disrespectful.  I think both sides present very strong arguments for each side.



YES - THANK YOU!


----------



## DanCali (Jan 11, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> *4/09 - 4/16*
> 1Bedroom Deluxe Villa Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
> $509* $399* $399* $399* $399* $509* $509*
> 
> ...







jerseygirl said:


> Apr 2 - 9	               446	581.56	4070.94
> Apr 9 - 16	same



Are you sure you were looking at the small 1BR the second time because I'm having trouble reconciling $3123 (your prior post, on which I based my statement) and $4070? 

But even if HRA rents for more (and it actually wouldn't surprise me if it did) why not devalue Palm Springs, ski resorts, Orlando, Cancun etc before WKV Platinum? Those $400+/night weeks are still (probably) much more expensive than all those other places at peak season. I just don't see WKV as a prime candidate for a (hypothetical) devaluation...


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 12, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Are you sure you were looking at the small 1BR the second time because I'm having trouble reconciling $3123 (your prior post, on which I based my statement) and $4070?



No ... I'm not positive.  The first night I looked, I was defaulting to the overly generous SVN rate and had to go in manually and ask for other rates to see the best prices.  Last night, I signed out of spg.com to leave the SVN rate out of the picture (I think I made my point on that one already!  ).

It's possible the rates are changing daily ... but here's what SPG.com shows for those dates this morning:

1 Queen & 1 Dbl Sofa Bed 
 1 Bdrm Villa Non-smoking, Heavenly Bed, Separate Living Rm/w Dining Tb, Kitchenette, Balcony Or Patio 
 Aaa Rate

Terms & Details
 USD 398.65 (This is an average, I think -- higher on weekends)

+ charges & taxes

= USD 451.55

Total $3160.86




DanCali said:


> But even if HRA rents for more (and it actually wouldn't surprise me if it did) why not devalue Palm Springs, ski resorts, Orlando, Cancun etc before WKV Platinum? Those $400+/night weeks are still (probably) much more expensive than all those other places at peak season. I just don't see WKV as a prime candidate for a (hypothetical) devaluation...



I've never researched the demand/rental rates for Palm Springs or the ski resorts ... they're not really in my travel plans (Palm Springs is too far and I hate snow!).  Orlando is already valued significantly lower than WKV from a SO perspective.  If I were re-doing the SO chart, I wouldn't necessarily give WKV the same # of SOs as Orlando ... that's not what I'm saying.  For the best season, SVN basically has a two-tiered system:  148,100 SOs/81,000 SOs.  I don't think that's enough tiers ... and I would put WKV in a middle tier.  And, I would definitely re-do the seasons (ala Marriott syle).

With regard to Cancun, I think I've made my opinion known many times in the past .... my typical phone call with SVN, "No, I'm sorry, HRA and WSJ are sold out for those dates ... would you like to try Westin Lagunamar?"  :ignore:   The rental rate for 4/09 - 4/16 is $179/night ... $204/night with taxes by the way.  Remember, even Starwood originally gave it fewer SOs but found it needed to "up the ante" to sell the units ... I guess if they say it's worth more, people believe them!    Enough said!

I really don't mean to pick on WKV specifically in this discussion -- it's just that it's the one lucky resort that has mandatory status and has the best SO/maint fee value ... so, on the surface, it appears to be the best value for someone looking to buy SOs.  I do hope it holds its value -- that would be a wonderful thing.  I'd be happy to be wrong.  I'm just stating how I look at the long-term economic value and why I've never jumped on the WKV bandwagon.  As I mentioned above, I think it's completely a personal decision.

There are two reasons I buy timeshares:

#1)  Because I want to go to a specific resort every year and buying is less expensive than renting (and I'm not big on taking chances with craigslist bargains).  My "conservative" approach!

#2)  Spend very little money (generally less than $500) for a trader that I can use to trade into better places.  If trading falls apart, I won't be happy -- but don't hate any of the underlying resorts and could see myself using or renting for close to the maintenance fees.  My "speculative" approach!

WKV doesn't fit into either of the reasons for me -- again, my personal approach only.

I think you and TomnRobin (perhaps others -- sorry if I'm leaving anyone else out) have presented a great case for your side of the argument.  I'm simply trying to present another side for those with similar goals/risk tolerance/etc.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 12, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> ...And, I would definitely re-do the seasons (ala Marriott syle).




In Marriott's points exchange, it is impossible to trade laterally and it would be impossible to get high-demand weeks at "like for like" resorts even without the skim. If you were a Maui owner and got the average SOs in your season (say 148K) even without a skim but weeks within the same season had a different point requirement to trade into (some 180K some 120K SOs) based on rental prices and they did the same thing at Princeville and everywhere else, you couldn't go to a "like for like" resort like WPORV or HRA if you wanted a more desirable week. How do you think that change would fly with SVO owners?




jerseygirl said:


> There are two reasons I buy timeshares:
> 
> #1)  Because I want to go to a specific resort every year and buying is less expensive than renting (and I'm not big on taking chances with craigslist bargains).  My "conservative" approach!



Given where you want to go, I call this the "expensive" approach, but can't argue too much with buy where you want to go. At least you are guaranteed (or close to it) to getting you week. 



jerseygirl said:


> #2)  Spend very little money (generally less than $500) for a trader that I can use to trade into better places.  If trading falls apart, I won't be happy -- but don't hate any of the underlying resorts and could see myself using or renting for close to the maintenance fees.  My "speculative" approach!



That's "speculative" in my book too. In fact, too speculative that I haven't done it (but not ruling it out completely). 



jerseygirl said:


> WKV doesn't fit into either of the reasons for me -- again, my personal approach only.
> 
> I think you and TomnRobin (perhaps others -- sorry if I'm leaving anyone else out) have presented a great case for your side of the argument.  I'm simply trying to present another side for those with similar goals/risk tolerance/etc.



The main point I wanted to get across was that (IMO) it's wrong to view the $15K+ purchase price of WKV as a sunk cost. I have no real reason to believe I couldn't sell it in 1-2 years for almost the same price. And assuming you lose $15K upfront is an approach that can lead to a different conclusion than if you didn't make that assumption.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Jan 12, 2011)

*Best to view TS Purchase as a SUNK cost*



DanCali said:


> The main point I wanted to get across was that (IMO) it's wrong to view the $15K+ purchase price of WKV as a sunk cost. I have no real reason to believe I couldn't sell it in 1-2 years for almost the same price. And assuming you lose $15K upfront is an approach that can lead to a different conclusion than if you didn't make that assumption.



And there are many of us who believe that it is best to view a TS purchase as a sunk cost in the long term.

Anyone buying a TS should avoid doing so unless they're planning to use this for 10/15/20+ years. Otherwise simply rent where you want to go. And if the purchase is indeed a long-term decision, assuming any significant retained value, IMO, is simply not sensible.

This discussion has been rehashed many times now. Anyone thinking about WKV would be wise to avoid buying this with the expectation that it will hold its value. Buy it for other reasons, particularly if you like to go there regularly. A TS is NOT a financial investment ... it is an investment in future enjoyment/vacations. Getting too focused on short-term retained value can also lead to making the wrong conclusion about which TS to purchase.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137919

sorry - couldn't help myself...


----------



## siesta (Jan 12, 2011)

As the OP, I did not expect WKV plat. owners to be very insightful to someone on the sidelines looking for a logical analysis, I considered their vested interests to defend their so-called "equity" to be too great to overcome.   To those that did contribute, thank you. But I must say, some of the owners' rationale, and more importantly how they presented their posts, did not surprise me.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 12, 2011)

siesta said:


> As the OP, I did not expect WKV plat. owners to be very insightful to someone on the sidelines looking for a logical analysis, I considered their vested interests to defend their so-called "equity" to be too great to overcome.   To those that did contribute, thank you. But I must say, some of the owners' rationale, and more importantly how they presented their posts, did not surprise me.



Do I have a vested interest in preserving my equity? Sure I do. Even the ones who allegedly bought assuming it's a sunk cost care about the resale values. But that doesn't mean I don't believe WKV will preserve it's value.

I bought 2 2BRs at WKV in the past year. If I didn't believe what I said I would not have bought the second one just a few months ago...


----------



## siesta (Jan 12, 2011)

I said "some" posts did not suprise me. Yours did, you expressed yourself quite well and made many valid points, as I've already said. Although I don't agree with your underlying theory, your well-stated position is the yin to my yang in the current "debate"


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 12, 2011)

siesta said:


> As the OP, I did not expect WKV plat. owners to be very insightful to someone on the sidelines looking for a logical analysis, I considered their vested interests to defend their so-called "equity" to be too great to overcome.   To those that did contribute, thank you. But I must say, some of the owners' rationale, and more importantly how they presented their posts, did not surprise me.



Really... WKV Plat Owners are not insightful as someone sitting on the side-lines? - :hysterical:  - you certainly should go back and see what people (e.g. me) have been saying about WKV value as well as other SVO VOIs (and SVO TS ownership) they own for years and 1000s of posts before making such an ***inine remark.  I personally consider myself very insightful to WKV value - as well as other SVO VOIs - regardless of your bias.

I consider my WKV VOIs to have the highest value of my SVO VOIs - regardless of your perception of the un-insightful WKV Plat owners...

You should consider reading Sklanksky's DUCY...

btw - I only responded because I found your comment insulting.  I can (and do) take pride when total strangers have stopped me at a resort (or sent me a PM) and thanked me for my input and insight.  When you have this happen to you - perhaps you also can say to yourself that spending time on TUG was worth it...


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 12, 2011)

Hey everyone, lets try to keep this from getting personal.  I stepped out of this thread for a bit because I was afraid it was turning too heated but it's actually been relatively useful until the last few posts...let's not let it go down a dark road...


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 12, 2011)

siesta said:


> As the OP, I did not expect WKV plat. owners to be very insightful to someone on the sidelines looking for a logical analysis, I considered their vested interests to defend their so-called "equity" to be too great to overcome.   To those that did contribute, thank you. But I must say, some of the owners' rationale, and more importantly how they presented their posts, did not surprise me.



We gave you found advice and opinions. You in turn, dismissed almost every one of them. We give you the facts on value, mf, trading power, SO use, etc and each time you keep telling us we are wrong. 

Buy your two SVV weeks. In 2021, we pull this thread back up and see how those weeks worked out for you.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 12, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> Hey everyone, lets try to keep this from getting personal.  I stepped out of this thread for a bit because I was afraid it was turning too heated but it's actually been relatively useful until the last few posts...let's not let it go down a dark road...



Ditto.....

But I am now compelled to post again. 

It took me 4 years to reach 5* Elite. I didn't buy Starwood to reach platinum status, but now I am. My first purchase was WKV, before Tug....from the developer. Over time, I learned how to use the Starwood system and the timeshare I bought. 

When I started to consider becoming 5* Elite, I looked at all the different resorts and purchase scenarios, etc. SVV was a strong consideration, but in every situation WKV beat out SVV in my research. The only only resale for Staroptions I wanted and beat WKV and SVV....was a true SDO Platinum Week. I could not find one and when I did, it was always too late.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 12, 2011)

tomandrobin said:


> The only only resale for Staroptions I wanted and beat WKV and SVV....was a true SDO Platinum Week.



I've looked at this option as well, and disagree with your conclusion.

Here the assumption of resale value and is most crucial.

Consider:

Option A: Buy 2BR Plat WKV for $16K + 2BR SVV for approx $2K (both resale)

Total cost: $18K
Immediate equity loss: $0 (you can resell these in 6 months for approx the same price)
Staroptions: 148K+81K
MFs: approx $1300+$1200

Option B: Buy 2BR Plat SDO resale for $2K and retro with 2BR Gold Cancun for approx $23K (or anything else close to $20K with 81K SOs)

Total cost: $25K
Immediate equity loss: $20K (Cancun is almost worthless if you want to sell it)
Staroptions: 148K+81K
MFs: about $900 + $1300

So yes, the ongoing MFs may look somewhat better if you buy SDO and retro it. But you incur an immediate (and substantial) equity loss on your developer purchase (even if you buy mandatory from a foreclosure). OTOH, in option A you can liquidate your timeshares a year down the road (probably) without taking a big hit. So is a $20K certain loss worth saving $300 or even $500/year on MFs?

Of course, if you assume the $16K to buy WKV in this example (and all the other timeshares) are a sunk cost and you can't ever recover anything then Option B will look better because only MFs will matter. I don't see it that way, but that was discussed much earlier in the thread...


----------



## sungandjudy (Jan 12, 2011)

I am just wondering how much value (in terms of $) do people put on SO?
Beside being nicer (to some) and newer with more amenities, it's SO that's causing WKV to sell much more then SVV or other voluntary resorts. If people believe it's important, then they will spend the money. If it's not (may be because they are more interested in II or other exchanges) then they won't pay. So I don't think you can just generalize that one is much better then the others. It all depends on what that owner is planning to do with their resorts...


----------



## DanCali (Jan 12, 2011)

Here is a quote also relevant to the question posed by the OP from someone who owns many resorts and uses a lot of Staroptions...




> i would do it over again in a heartbeat also BUT i would have bought at different resorts. i would not have bought as many in Orlando and would have bought more at WKV.



LINK


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 12, 2011)

DanCali said:


> I've looked at this option as well, and disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> Option B: Buy 2BR Plat SDO resale for $2K and retro with 2BR Gold Cancun for approx $23K (or anything else close to $20K with 81K SOs)
> 
> ...



A true platinum SDO has 148,100 staroptions, not 81,000


----------



## RoshiGuy (Jan 12, 2011)

tomandrobin said:


> A true platinum SDO has 148,100 staroptions, not 81,000



The 81,000 refers to the 2B Gold Cancun.


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 12, 2011)

RoshiGuy said:


> The 81,000 refers to the 2B Gold Cancun.



your are right....I assumed he was using the SDO and WKV for the comparison. I read and posted too quick. 

Using the SDO Plat with creative requalifying was the best way


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 12, 2011)

My WKV Platinum week is great. I don't care (too much) that it's "lost" value since I bought resale in 2005. I've used it from 2006-2010 so far, and had great vacations at an extremely low MF/night cost. Now that I'm five years into my ownership I can easily see myself keeping it another five. 

With the expected reservations later this year for 2011 ownership, I will have had a total of 111 nights in six years at an average cost of $65.82 (that includes taxes/SVN fees). All but three stays in Premium 1 Bed units.

Even assuming I sold today at ~16k my nightly cost will only be $110, by adding the ~$5k loss to the MF nightly expense (plus the loss of use of the original "investment"... but let's not revisit that issue). To me, this means it's been a very cost effective "SVN trader".


----------



## DanCali (Jan 13, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> With the expected reservations later this year for 2011 ownership, I will have had a total of 111 nights in six years at an average cost of $65.82 (that includes taxes/SVN fees). All but three stays in Premium 1 Bed units.
> 
> Even assuming I sold today at ~16k my nightly cost will only be $110, by adding the ~$5k loss to the MF nightly expense (plus the loss of use of the original "investment"... but let's not revisit that issue). To me, this means it's been a very cost effective "SVN trader".



Ken - I think this is a great way to quantify the value from the ownership ex-post (and being honest with yourself by including depreciation).


----------



## amundson (Mar 29, 2011)

siesta said:


> As the OP, I did not expect WKV plat. owners to be very insightful to someone on the sidelines looking for a logical analysis, I considered their vested interests to defend their so-called "equity" to be too great to overcome.   To those that did contribute, thank you. But I must say, some of the owners' rationale, and more importantly how they presented their posts, did not surprise me.



Ha ha. Now you are just poking for the fun of it!  IMHO, the market values the WKV and SVV plat. weeks appropriately, not the owners, so any analysis that agrees with the market would be very difficult to say is not logical.  To each his own in terms of individual value proposition, but in aggregate, they are priced as they are and it is correct because the market takes into account the opportunity cost of the $15k, not mentioned here, MFs, initial cost, as well as a discount/premium due to risk.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 29, 2015)

Bringing back this thread as I recently finalized my SVN usage of my WKV Plat week for 2016 and reviewed my ownership history since 2005 (11 use years). It might be valuable for others to see how my cost has changed since five years ago. 

Including 2016, I've reserved a total of 216 nights (ave of 19.6 per year) at SVN properties using my WKV Platinum week. Counting all MF and extra housekeeping charges (which occasionally occur when I have more than two reservations per calendar year), my average nightly cost is $73.74. I primarily reserve 1-bed units. 

I think it's worth pointing out that my annual average nightly cost (of just MF+SVN+Taxes+Housekeeping) has increased from a low of $55.88 in 2006 to $84.23 in 2016. 

Assuming I sold my WKV Plat for $16,000 (the amount I used in my post from 2011 below, though I think it's actually worth more today), my average nightly cost would be $96.86 (as expected, this nightly average is lower than in 2011). However, new buyers would have a higher average nightly cost since it's now $84.23 per night and increasing but they would have a lower purchase price. So, I think WKV Plat is still an effective trader.




Ken555 said:


> My WKV Platinum week is great. I don't care (too much) that it's "lost" value since I bought resale in 2005. I've used it from 2006-2010 so far, and had great vacations at an extremely low MF/night cost. Now that I'm five years into my ownership I can easily see myself keeping it another five.
> 
> With the expected reservations later this year for 2011 ownership, I will have had a total of 111 nights in six years at an average cost of $65.82 (that includes taxes/SVN fees). All but three stays in Premium 1 Bed units.
> 
> Even assuming I sold today at ~16k my nightly cost will only be $110, by adding the ~$5k loss to the MF nightly expense (plus the loss of use of the original "investment"... but let's not revisit that issue). To me, this means it's been a very cost effective "SVN trader".


----------



## lizap (Dec 30, 2015)

A huge point that needs to be considered: should SOs go away, where do you want to vacation? For us, the answer is easy: Scottsdale.


----------



## SMHarman (Dec 30, 2015)

lizap said:


> A huge point that needs to be considered: should SOs go away, where do you want to vacation? For us, the answer is easy: Scottsdale.


Why are the New owners abolishing the internal trade system?

My bigger concern is a Marriott style vig. It's 148100 to trade to a HI 2 bed but I only get 148.100-14,810 SO to trade.


----------



## okwiater (Dec 30, 2015)

SMHarman said:


> Why are the New owners abolishing the internal trade system?
> 
> My bigger concern is a Marriott style vig. It's 148100 to trade to a HI 2 bed but I only get 148.100-14,810 SO to trade.



Uh... what?


----------



## SMHarman (Dec 30, 2015)

lizap said:


> A huge point that needs to be considered: should SOs go away, where do you want to vacation? For us, the answer is easy: Scottsdale.





SMHarman said:


> Why are the New owners abolishing the internal trade system?
> 
> My bigger concern is a Marriott style vig. It's 148100 to trade to a HI 2 bed but I only get 148.100-14,810 SO to trade.





okwiater said:


> Uh... what?


I did not quote Liz. I should have. 

And pperhaps it should be why would they abolish. 

Finally, I am not a Marriott DC owner but my understanding is there is a vig / bid/offer spread / skim they take on thr internal exchanges making the 7 nights you put in only worth 6 and a bit nights at a similar destination. 

I'd prefer a fee and 7 nights.


----------



## lizap (Dec 30, 2015)

The rules/system can change at any point.  I don't think our SOs are going away, but if they do, I want to vacation at WKV and not SVV.  I made this point in response to the poster who was arguing that SVV was a more cost effective SO trader.




SMHarman said:


> I did not quote Liz. I should have.
> 
> And pperhaps it should be why would they abolish.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 30, 2015)

lizap said:


> The rules/system can change at any point.  I don't think our SOs are going away, but if they do, I want to vacation at WKV and not SVV.  I made this point in response to the poster who was arguing that SVV was a more cost effective SO trader.




Please quote the post you are responding to in future. I also thought you were responding to my post. 


Sent from my iPad


----------

