# Starwood and II have destroyed trading value of Broadway Plantation



## RLG (Nov 25, 2009)

I've followed the many threads regarding the change in the rules for trading non-SVN weeks through II.  I understand the impact of the use of generic weeks and how it particularly can prevent savvy owners from maximizing their trade power. 

In the case of Broadway Plantation, something else appears to be going on than the advertised use of a "generic" week which averages the trading power of all weeks in the season.

I own several 2 bedrooms in "Gold" season.  In the past, I have always let Starwood pick the week to deposit and I have always been able to see the SVO bulk deposits in Hawaii with my deposited week.

Now my new rules week which is supposed to represent the average week in my season sees ZERO Hawaii 2brs while my old rules week (week 8) sees 20 weeks.

This is a huge reduction in average trade power.

This is a lot different than the situation with SDO.  At SDO it's pretty easy to believe that the average trading power for the entire 1-52 season is far weaker than for the typical week which was hand selected by a savvy Tugger. 

That shouldn't be the case for Gold season at SBP.  My season is only 9 weeks out of the year: 1,7,8,44,45,46,48,51,52.   I have probably gotten deposits from all of these weeks in the past and they have all traded the same, so an average week shouldn't be much different than any particular week.

SVO and/or II appear to have virtually eliminated the trading power of SBP.

Has anyone else at SBP seen this as well?


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

RLG said:


> I've followed the many threads regarding the change in the rules for trading non-SVN weeks through II.  I understand the impact of the use of generic weeks and how it particularly can prevent savvy owners from maximizing their trade power.
> 
> In the case of Broadway Plantation, something else appears to be going on than the advertised use of a "generic" week which averages the trading power of all weeks in the season.
> 
> ...



This is strange. I wonder if it is a technology issue with II's ability to display inventory on the net.

When you logged in on the net, did you first check with the "old" rules week and _then_ the "new" rules week? If so, try logging back in and checking with teh "new" rules week first.

Probabaly has nothing to do with it but, you never know.


----------



## RLG (Nov 25, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> This is strange. I wonder if it is a technology issue with II's ability to display inventory on the net.
> 
> When you logged in on the net, did you first check with the "old" rules week and _then_ the "new" rules week? If so, try logging back in and checking with teh "new" rules week first.



Unfortunately, I'm quite familiar with II's technology glitches.  I already tried logging in and out between searches and changing the order I do them.  I consistently get lots of availability using my old week and NONE using my new ones.  

SBP's estimate of 20% delinquencies may turn out to be LOW if all of the offseason weeks have gone from great traders to dogs.

More importantly, it indicates that we may not be getting the full story from SVO/II regarding what changed.


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

RLG said:


> Unfortunately, I'm quite familiar with II's technology glitches.  I already tried logging and in out between searches and changing the order I do them.  I consistently get lots of availability using my old week and NONE using my new ones.
> 
> SBP's estimate of 20% delinquencies may turn out to be LOW if all of the offseason weeks have gone from great traders to dogs.
> 
> More importantly, it indicates that we may not be getting the full story from SVO/II regarding what changed.



Thats a shame. I suppose I was being a little optimistic in hoping there was an error in the process.


----------



## ocdb8r (Nov 26, 2009)

RLG said:


> Unfortunately, I'm quite familiar with II's technology glitches.  I already tried logging in and out between searches and changing the order I do them.  I consistently get lots of availability using my old week and NONE using my new ones.
> 
> SBP's estimate of 20% delinquencies may turn out to be LOW if all of the offseason weeks have gone from great traders to dogs.
> 
> More importantly, it indicates that we may not be getting the full story from SVO/II regarding what changed.



RLG, will you try again today.  I just checked with a large 1bdrm SBP (9-43, 47)  new rules and can see quite a bit of the new WPORV deposit (it may be all of it as some of the units have likely been snapped up since the last post I had to compare it to.)

On another note...what are we calling this float now (the 9-43, 47)...is it "Gold Plus"?  I get so confused when I read posts...I wasn't sure if we are comparing the same unit type or not.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 26, 2009)

There are 18 2 bedrooms at WPV.  If you don't see the 18, then your trading power on your old rules one bedroom unit has possibly changed.  I was looking with a 2 bedroom SBP, old rules.


----------



## djyamyam (Nov 26, 2009)

RLG said:


> That shouldn't be the case for Gold season at SBP.  *My season is only 9 weeks out of the year: 1,7,8,44,45,46,48,51,52.   *SVO and/or II appear to have virtually eliminated the trading power of SBP.
> 
> Has anyone else at SBP seen this as well?





ocdb8r said:


> RLG, will you try again today.  I just checked with a large 1bdrm SBP (9-43, 47)  new rules and can see quite a bit of the new WPORV deposit (it may be all of it as some of the units have likely been snapped up since the last post I had to compare it to.)





rickandcindy23 said:


> There are 18 2 bedrooms at WPV.  If you don't see the 18, then your trading power on your old rules one bedroom unit has possibly changed.  I was looking with a 2 bedroom SBP, old rules.



The OP has a gold season week, not the new "gold plus" which Starwood arbitrarily changed from the old platinum that the other two posters have; so you're comparing apples to oragnes.  Having said that, it is quite possible that the OPs trading power has changed.  We have seen other threads demonstrating trade power changes on the gold plus/platinum season weeks.  It stands to reason the drop there also applied to gold and silver season weeks, although to a lesser extent.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 26, 2009)

I was actually giving that info to ocdb8r, not the OP, who does have a lesser season.  If ocbd8r cannot see those 2 bedrooms, I would be surprised.


----------



## RLG (Nov 26, 2009)

The results are the same today.  18 2brs at WPV using my old rules SBP Gold, NONE using the same unit new rules.

I would actually be surprised if ocbd8r can see them all using a new rules 1br.  I would have expected that SBP platinum would be one of the units that would be most affected by the switch to generic weeks.  The difference between the best week (July 4) and the average of 9-43 is pretty big.


----------



## madouglas3 (Nov 26, 2009)

I checked today and I was able to see 15 two bedrooms at WPV under the new rules with my SBP small 1 bedroom gold plus unit.  The 1st time I checked I only saw 1 studio unit, I then used the back key and then hit search again and that is when I saw the 2 bedroom units.  

Mary Ann


----------



## RLG (Nov 26, 2009)

madouglas3 said:


> I was able to see 15 two bedrooms at WPV under the new rules with my SBP small 1 bedroom gold plus unit.




Wow, that's a big difference between your season (Gold Plus) and mine (Gold).  

That difference wasn't there before and clearly didn't come about because of the change to generic rather than assigned weeks.

It looks like my title should have been "Starwood/II destroy value of off-peak SBP weeks".  

16 of the 51 weeks are off-peak at SBP, i.e 31%.  I wouldn't count on them paying maintenance for too much longer.


----------



## grgs (Nov 26, 2009)

While it's disappointing to lose what you had before, I'll interject that getting a 1 bedroom WPORV unit for a 2 bedroom off-season SBP isn't exactly a bad trade.  I'm in a similar situation with my SVR-Cascades 2 bedroom units--it doesn't pull 2 bedroom units in Hawaii, but it does pull 1 bedroom & studio units.

Also, it would be interesting to see if you would get the trade with an ongoing request.  I wanted to trade my SVR unit for WMH.  I could only see 1 bedroom units, but wanted a 2 bedroom unit, so I put in an ongoing request.  It was filled in a few weeks.

Don't throw anything at me--just trying to look at the bright side.  

Glorian


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 26, 2009)

I have a "pending confirmation" today (I expect it to be confirmed tomorrow) at II for a WPV 2-bed next Sept in exchange for my SVR Dec 2010 week. I did this via a request first, since the 2-bed units were *NOT* showing when searching online with this week, but were available with my spring week. 

FWIW, it seems contrary to my earlier opinion about my two II accounts (Denise, you may recall the other thread where I posted this) it seems I am no longer able to renew my personal II account and must trade via the SVN account. And yes, this means II thinks I now have floating weeks at SVR instead of the fixed weeks I do have, the same problem everyone else had. At the moment I'm not sure if I should fight this or not. My Dec SVR week may actually trade better under the new system but I think my spring week won't. Sigh.

Either way, why would I want to bring these SVR weeks into SVN, or sell them, if I can continue to get Hawaii 1 & 2-bed units every year instead? I'm sure things will change eventually, but for the next few years I tend to think we'll be able to continue trading there in the off-season (which is exactly when I prefer to travel). MF+II exchange fee / 7 nights = $119.28/night for a 2-Bed (and considering the deed was quite inexpensive this is very close to accurate total costs).

In any case, if anyone wants the name/number of a rep at II that understands the system (insofar as II booking is concerned), very quick, and no nonsense, just send me a PM. He's helped me out twice now when others just kept wasting my time.

Frankly, I'm getting such great II trades for next year (WKORV in Jan (1-bed) & May (2-bed), WPV (2-bed) in Sept) I'm not sure where/when I'll use my WKV StarOptions! We might not like what Starwood is doing with our weeks, but the trades are still working for the moment quite well.


----------



## ocdb8r (Nov 27, 2009)

This morning I can still see 18 2bdrms will my large Gold Plus SBP new rules deposit.  

I think its a bit much to say that those with off season weeks are going to stop paying their maint. fees.  First, I don't think a majority of owners own their weeks just to trade in II.  Maybe a majority of TUG owners, but certainly not a majority of overall owners.  Second, as pointed out above, request first exchanges might still be able to pull some, if not all, of these weeks.  Finally, I agree that in todays maint. fee world even grabbing a 1bdrm at the HI properties with a 2bdrm at SBP is still quite a win $$$ wise.


----------



## RLG (Nov 27, 2009)

Ken555, did you mean to post in a different thread?

I can't figure out how your post about SVR and SVN is at all related to the subject of the II trading power of *Broadway Plantation*.


----------



## RLG (Nov 27, 2009)

grgs said:


> I'm in a similar situation with my SVR-Cascades 2 bedroom units--it doesn't pull 2 bedroom units in Hawaii, but it does pull 1 bedroom & studio units.



Did your SVR previously pull 2brs until the change to generic weeks?  The TUG consensus and Starwood's claim has been that the new generic weeks have the average trading power of their seasons. This appears to be untrue for at SBP Gold and silver season. 



grgs said:


> Also, it would be interesting to see if you would get the trade with an ongoing request.  I wanted to trade my SVR unit for WMH.  I could only see 1 bedroom units, but wanted a 2 bedroom unit, so I put in an ongoing request.



An ongoing request is great for ensuring that I'm at the front of the line to get a unit, *for which I have the trading power*, before it's made available to other SVO owners on the website.  I've used them succesfully in the past for hard to get weeks.  However, now I no longer have the trading power to pull 2brs.  I'm not sure why you think an ongoing request would work in the situation where the weeks are already deposited but I don't have the trading power to get them.


----------



## RLG (Nov 27, 2009)

ocdb8r said:


> This morning I can still see 18 2bdrms will my large Gold Plus SBP new rules deposit.



Yep, I think we figured out upthread that the reduction in trading power only applied to the Gold and Silver seasons not the Gold Plus.  I find this surprising since the main impact of the generic week concept should have been on those units with excessively long seasons (e.g. SDO 1-52, SBP 9-43, etc)




ocdb8r said:


> I think its a bit much to say that those with off season weeks are going to stop paying their maint. fees.  First, I don't think a majority of owners own their weeks just to trade in II.  Maybe a majority of TUG owners, but certainly not a majority of overall owners.



I'm curious what they're doing with their weeks then.  Do a lot of people go to Myrtle Beach in January?  If so, I don't think it would cost almost $900 to rent a place.



ocdb8r said:


> Finally, I agree that in todays maint. fee world even grabbing a 1bdrm at the HI properties with a 2bdrm at SBP is still quite a win $$$ wise.



I can pull the same 1brs using my 1br SMV lockoffs with less than $600 maintenance instead of the 2br SBP's with almost $900.  Not much incentive for me to pay the $900.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 27, 2009)

grgs said:


> While it's disappointing to lose what you had before, I'll interject that getting a 1 bedroom WPORV unit for a 2 bedroom off-season SBP isn't exactly a bad trade.



I agree with the above.   When you buy to trade you should do so with the understanding that trade power changes over time.

And I would like to point out that Marriott has some quality control filters that don't let owners at some Marriotts see certain other Marriott resorts in II.  So it isn't just Starwood.


----------



## grgs (Nov 27, 2009)

RLG said:


> Did your SVR previously pull 2brs until the change to generic weeks?  The TUG consensus and Starwood's claim has been that the new generic weeks have the average trading power of their seasons. This appears to be untrue for at SBP Gold and silver season.



To be honest I can't remember.  I've only had this week for a couple of years, and haven't been looking to trade to Hawaii.  However, I have  noticed that my 1 bedroom true plat SDO unit is pulling 2 bedrooms that my 2 bedroom SVR unit does not see.



RLG said:


> I'm not sure why you think an ongoing request would work in the situation where the weeks are already deposited but I don't have the trading power to get them.



Because before I deposited the SVR week, I could only see 1 bedroom units for the dates I was interested in.  When I made the actual deposit with an ongoing request for a 2 bedroom unit it was match fairly quickly.   Of course, it's possible that there just weren't any 2 bedroom units available at the time I looked, and then when I finally deposited, someone actually had just deposited their 2 bedroom unit.  No way to know, though.

Glorian


----------



## RLG (Nov 27, 2009)

grgs said:


> Of course, it's possible that there just weren't any 2 bedroom units available at the time I looked, and then when I finally deposited, someone actually had just deposited their 2 bedroom unit.



My guess would be that this is what happened.  

In this case we know the 2brs are there because we can see them with different units.

 I went ahead and gave it a try with an ongoing request for the 2brs at WPV, KAA and KAN.  I'm not optimistic, however, since I've never seen mention on TUG that trade power would be higher for an ongoing request than for an online confirmation.


----------



## grgs (Nov 27, 2009)

RLG said:


> I went ahead and gave it a try with an ongoing request for the 2brs at WPV, KAA and KAN.  I'm not optimistic, however, since I've never seen mention on TUG that trade power would be higher for an ongoing request than for an online confirmation.



Let us know what happens.

Based on this earlier post, I think you may have a chance:



Ken555 said:


> I have a "pending confirmation" today (I expect it to be confirmed tomorrow) at II for a WPV 2-bed next Sept in exchange for my SVR Dec 2010 week. *I did this via a request first, since the 2-bed units were *NOT* showing when searching online with this week*, but were available with my spring week.



Glorian


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 27, 2009)

RLG said:


> Ken555, did you mean to post in a different thread?
> 
> I can't figure out how your post about SVR and SVN is at all related to the subject of the II trading power of *Broadway Plantation*.



Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. 

No, I purposefully posted this in this thread, since by and large the Sheraton and older Starwood resorts trade very similarly - and sometimes Vistana/Orlando trade worse. The fact that I can get such trades from an Orlando resort should really make one pause about your result coming out of SBP. And as others have already posted, you should try a request first to see if things improve.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 27, 2009)

RLG said:


> I'm not sure why you think an ongoing request would work in the situation where the weeks are already deposited but I don't have the trading power to get them.



Because II reps are PAID to fill transactions, and do make "adjustments" to make the sale (since that's what a trade is).


----------



## Fredm (Nov 27, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Because II reps are PAID to fill transactions, and do make "adjustments" to make the sale (since that's what a trade is).



Exactly... Which is why it is always better to call I.I.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 27, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Exactly... Which is why it is always better to call I.I.



Actually, that's not what I meant. II has reps who review the online submissions, at least that's what I was told. Those individuals get credit for every successful transaction they manage, so they are encouraged to find a trade, even if it means "upgrading" the trade value of your week a bit. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## Fredm (Nov 28, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Actually, that's not what I meant. II has reps who review the online submissions, at least that's what I was told. Those individuals get credit for every successful transaction they manage, so they are encouraged to find a trade, even if it means "upgrading" the trade value of your week a bit. Of course, YMMV.



Yes, I understood what you meant.
My comment was intended to advise that the same dynamic exists irrespective of the form of submission. 
In the final analysis,  members cannot benefit from what may be possible without speaking with an I.I. rep.  
Hence, call.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 28, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Yes, I understood what you meant.
> My comment was intended to advise that the same dynamic exists irrespective of the form of submission.
> In the final analysis,  members cannot benefit from what may be possible without speaking with an I.I. rep.
> Hence, call.



Yes, I agree it's sometimes better to call. In this instance, however, there's no difference (based on my experience and from what I've been told by II) in placing the request online or via a rep on the phone.


----------



## RLG (Nov 28, 2009)

So far no "upgrade" from II to allow my SBP generic week to trade into one of the many 2brs that can be pulled by my old rules week at SBP.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

RLG said:


> So far no "upgrade" from II to allow my SBP generic week to trade into one of the many 2brs that can be pulled by my old rules week at SBP.



Yet II and Starwood want us all to believe the change was in our best interests and not theirs.


----------



## gmarine (Nov 28, 2009)

RLG said:


> So far no "upgrade" from II to allow my SBP generic week to trade into one of the many 2brs that can be pulled by my old rules week at SBP.



Just another reason why I will never again deposit any of my Starwood weeks with II. You should let II know that you are unhappy with the results and as such you wont deposit your week with them anymore. And dont forget to let Starwood know how happy you are with the new system.


----------



## Bucky (Nov 28, 2009)

RLG said:


> The results are the same today.  18 2brs at WPV using my old rules SBP Gold, NONE using the same unit new rules.
> 
> I would actually be surprised if ocbd8r can see them all using a new rules 1br.  I would have expected that SBP platinum would be one of the units that would be most affected by the switch to generic weeks.  The difference between the best week (July 4) and the average of 9-43 is pretty big.



There is just some type of glitch in the system.

I just searched with the studio side of my lockoff at SBP under new rules and found 15 2Br units.  I then looked using the full 2Br and found only 4 units total, no 2Br.  I then looked with the A side of the lockoff and found only 4 total units.  Cleared my cache and used the B side again and saw all 15 2Br's again.

Now the only difference I can see with any of these is that I currently have an ongoing search with my studio side undeposited week.  Cannot figure out why I would be able to see all of those 2brs with that and not the full unit or A side.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

Bucky, is this a Gold Plus deposit, or a lesser season?  This is very important information for RLG to compare.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

My not-deposited shell SBP week under the new rules does not see the Princeville summer 2 bedrooms.  Neither does my SDO non-deposited shell week.  I

 searched with my large one-bedroom sides of the lockouts, and both are Gold Plus/Red season.

I don't know if the "shell" week has less trading power than an actual deposited week.  Does anyone know?


----------



## gmarine (Nov 28, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> My not-deposited shell SBP week under the new rules does not see the Princeville summer 2 bedrooms.  Neither does my SDO non-deposited shell week.  I
> 
> searched with my large one-bedroom sides of the lockouts, and both are Gold Plus/Red season.
> 
> I don't know if the "shell" week has less trading power than an actual deposited week.  Does anyone know?



I get the same results using SBP but using SDO I can see some summer Princeville units.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

The two-bedroom shell weeks see all of the 2 bedrooms.  I guess I will have to try a 2 bedroom new rules deposit, using an ongoing search, to get whale season weeks in 2 bedrooms.  

II is not allowing us to trade into larger units in high seasons.  It's going to be an issue for me.  I am actually not going to deposit anything for a good long time, because I can rent July weeks at SBP, and SDO is EOY even, so I don't have to worry until 2012 on that one.  

I have lots of time for Starwood and II to change their minds.


----------



## Gundy1 (Nov 29, 2009)

*SDO vs SBP with new trading rules*

How do SDO and SBP compare with the new Sheraton rules through II? I want to buy a 2 bedroom while resales are low. 

Where can I find one that has reasonable closing fees? I really don't want to pay $500-600 in closing costs. 

Any other suggestions besides SDO or SBP? I'm really hoping to get some good exchanges through II and also get access to their Getaway weeks.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 29, 2009)

All owners have the same access to II getaways.  That shouldn't figure into what or where you buy.

My vote would be SDO because they don't seem to be having the same issues with rising fees as SBP.  As long as you buy a plat week or a 1-52 float I think your trade power will be fine.   SBP-plat would also be a good trader but the rising fees may be a concern.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 29, 2009)

The ebay auctions have such high closing costs because the sellers make a profit by requiring you to use their closing company and then inflating the costs.  The only way around that is to find a private (non-ebay) sale.


----------



## gmarine (Nov 29, 2009)

I own both and right now I wouldnt buy either of them, regardless of price. Starwood's new II trading system is terrible for owners and maintenance fees at SBP are up over 20% from last year. SDO probably wont be far behind next year.

The way Starwood is treating owners makes any Starwood purchase risky right now.

Also keep in mind that trading power can and will change from year to year.


----------



## RLG (Nov 29, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't know if the "shell" week has less trading power than an actual deposited week.  Does anyone know?



Under the new rules there isn't any such thing as a deposited week.  I seem to recall that, under the old system, my undeposited weeks traded much worse than the deposited ones.



rickandcindy23 said:


> II is not allowing us to trade into larger units in high seasons.



II doesn't seem to be consistent in this.  My new rules SMV 1br ski season weeks still see the 2br deposits.  None of my new rules off season weeks (SMV or SBP) see them even though my old rules weeks do.


----------



## RLG (Nov 29, 2009)

Stefa said:


> I agree with the above.   When you buy to trade you should do so with the understanding that trade power changes over time..



That's true.  However it's pretty unusual for a name brand resort to have such a drastic decline in trade value in the space of a month.  I'm sure it's unprecedented for the decline in trade value to be deliberately imposed by the name brand sponsor.

It seems like a pretty bad idea when they need the holders of those offseason weeks to pay their maintenance fees to avoid a death spiral.



Stefa said:


> And I would like to point out that Marriott has some quality control filters that don't let owners at some Marriotts see certain other Marriott resorts in II.  So it isn't just Starwood.



It is just Starwood where two weeks of the same size at the same resort and same season deposited a few days apart can have such a big difference in trade power ("old rules" vs "new rules").


----------



## Bucky (Nov 29, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Bucky, is this a Gold Plus deposit, or a lesser season?  This is very important information for RLG to compare.



Sorry.  It's a Gold Plus unit.

Just checked again using the 1BedB that I have an ongoing search with and I see 14 2Br's.

Again, all I can see with the full 2Br L/O is 4 studio units?

Same thing with the 1BedA side, 4 studio units?

After all of this I go back and use the original 1BedB that I saw 14 2Br's just a couple of minutes ago and now I get the same 4 studio's that my others were seeing. No 2Br's.  I've cleared my cache again to no avail.  

This appears to be a major flaw with Intervals site right now and not Starwood IMHO.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 29, 2009)

RLG said:


> That's true.  However it's pretty unusual for a name brand resort to have such a drastic decline in trade value in the space of a month.  I'm sure it's unprecedented for the decline in trade value to be deliberately imposed by the name brand sponsor.
> 
> It seems like a pretty bad idea when they need the holders of those offseason weeks to pay their maintenance fees to avoid a death spiral.



RLG

I understand why you are frustrated and disappointed with the changes, but, as I stated above, I believe a 1br in Hawaii is a fair exchange for a gold SBP week.  I looked at the travel demand index in II and those weeks all have very low demand relative to supply.

As far as other major brands, II has drastically reduced the number of ACs they give to Marriott owners.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 29, 2009)

Stefa said:


> RLG
> 
> I understand why you are frustrated and disappointed with the changes, but, as I stated above, I believe a 1br in Hawaii is a fair exchange for a gold SBP week.  I looked at the travel demand index in II and those weeks all have very low demand relative to supply.



Not that StarOptions are a measure of supply and demand, but we should keep in mind that, although this is a 2BR, it is worth only 44K SOs which would not even get you a studio in Hawaii if traded via SVN (which you can't do anyway as a resale buyer). Stefa may have a point that getting a 1BR in Hawaii for a Gold 2BR in SC via an II trade is not necessarily a bad deal.

Yes, it's disappointing that it could be done before and now it can't and it's wrong that you don't get to deposit a week you reserve but, trying to be objective, it's hard to argue that Gold 2BRs is SC have the same demand as Platinum 2BRs in Hawaii...


----------



## Bucky (Nov 30, 2009)

Bucky said:


> Sorry.  It's a Gold Plus unit.
> 
> Just checked again using the 1BedB that I have an ongoing search with and I see 14 2Br's.
> 
> ...



Like I said, there's a glitch in II system somewhere.  Here's what I just saw a few minutes ago:

All of these are using a Gold Plus.

Using my 1BedB unit that has a current ongoing search I see 13 2Br's.

Using my 1BedA unit with no current search ongoing I see 3 2Br's and a few studios.

Using the full 2Br L/O I see 15 2Br units.

Using a completely different 1Br Dlx w/no ongoing search I see 10 2Br units.

IMHO this may not be a Starwood problem but in fact be Interval's.  These search results make absolutely no sense which leads me to believe it's a program error.  JMHO.


----------



## RLG (Nov 30, 2009)

Bucky, II's technology issues are well documented.  That's what the second post in this thread suggested might be causing my sudden loss of trading power might.  Unfotunately, that wasn't the case for me.

You should try logging out and back in again before doing the next search.  That usually fixes the problem for me if it's a technology glitch.


----------



## RLG (Nov 30, 2009)

DanCali said:


> it's hard to argue that Gold 2BRs is SC have the same demand as Platinum 2BRs in Hawaii...



I don't disagree with this.  That's why I and many others considered SBP and SDO great trading values.  



DanCali said:


> Stefa may have a point that getting a 1BR in Hawaii for a Gold 2BR in SC via an II trade is not necessarily a bad deal.



As I said previously in this thread, I don't agree with this.  If I can get the same trades with lower maintenance 1br units (which I can) there's no benefit of paying for the more expensive 2brs.



DanCali said:


> ..it's wrong that you don't get to deposit a week you reserve..



For my ownership, I don't care about depositing a week I reserved.  I've never done that with any of my units.  

Probably the most important info for non-SBP owners in this thread is  that Starwood/II have imposed an overall loss of trading power IN ADDITION to that resulting from the difference between depositing the new "average" weeks versus the old "best" weeks.

This last effect hasn't been documented anywhere else on TUG previously.


----------



## Bucky (Nov 30, 2009)

RLG said:


> Bucky, II's technology issues are well documented.  That's what the second post in this thread suggested might be causing my sudden loss of trading power might.  Unfotunately, that wasn't the case for me.
> 
> You should try logging out and back in again before doing the next search.  That usually fixes the problem for me if it's a technology glitch.



I'm aware of this work around also but it doesn't help.  Here's a thought!  Have you called II and asked them to perform the searches for you?  I'm not an ardent supporter of either Starwood or Interval but before I blame them for one problem I would make absolutely sure it's not a different problem.  I myself am not trying to do an exchange right now so I'm not going to waste their time researching this for me.  I don't have an old week avail so it would be like comparing apples to oranges for me but in your case I think I would call them.  Good luck.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 30, 2009)

Often when searching II I perform the same search several times... each time I receive different results. We all know II's site doesn't work consistently well, but when the results are all poor then you know there's a problem.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 30, 2009)

RLG said:


> As I said previously in this thread, I don't agree with this.  If I can get the same trades with lower maintenance 1br units (which I can) there's no benefit of paying for the more expensive 2brs.



Nowhere is it written that II is obligated to assign high trade power to worthless weeks just because you can get good trades with smaller/cheaper units.  I agree it doesn't make sense to own this week, but that's one of the reason you were able to pick it up for so much cheaper than a plat SBP.  

I will also point out that your trading strategy depends on thousands of owners paying higher MFs for 2br units in Hawaii that they could trade into with a cheaper 1br.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 30, 2009)

RLG said:


> As I said previously in this thread, I don't agree with this.  If I can get the same trades with lower maintenance 1br units (which I can) there's no benefit of paying for the more expensive 2brs.



Your strategy seems to be to pay the lowest possible MFs in a location with low demand in order to trade into the largest units in the more expensive places which have higher demand. Even the SVN StarOptions system doesn't let you do that... As you probably realize, your II trading strategy means that somewhere down the line someone else is trading down. If you get lucky, that's great. If you can do it cosistently, more power to you. But please don't act like getting a 2BR in Hawaii for a 1BR in the desert or an off peak 2BR in SC is an entitlement, especially when we all agree that these are not "like for like" trades.

There is a reason why these units are selling for virtually nothing on the resale market. If the value you are expecting was there they would be priced differently.


----------



## RLG (Nov 30, 2009)

DanCali said:


> ... As you probably realize, your II trading strategy means that somewhere down the line someone else is trading down. If you get lucky, that's great. If you can do it cosistently, more power to you. But please don't act like getting a 2BR in Hawaii for a 1BR in the desert or an off peak 2BR in SC is an entitlement, especially when we all agree that these are not "like for like" trades.
> 
> There is a reason why these units are selling for virtually nothing on the resale market. If the value you are expecting was there they would be priced differently.



Since you've only been a Tugger for a few weeks, maybe you're not aware that people have routinely gotten the kind of trades that I describe and that you consider "getting lucky".  I have gotten many such trades with my SBP units.  I can even "get lucky" right now with my SBP week that was deposited before the Starwood rules changed a few weeks ago.

My complaint isn't that I don't get good trades anymore.  It's that Starwood appears to have deliberately made this so.  Additionally, they have mislead people by claiming that they didn't change the average trade power.


----------



## Pit (Dec 2, 2009)

Have you contacted II about this problem? I would expect them to explain the difference in search results - specifically why your new week returns fewer exchange opportunities than your previous deposit (they are equivalent weeks after all). Bringing it to their attention may be the only way to correct it.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

Many of us have contacted II about the decrease of trading power under the new rules - they won't admit that it is happening...


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

RLG said:


> My complaint isn't that I don't get good trades anymore.  It's that Starwood appears to have deliberately made this so.  Additionally, they have mislead people by claiming that they didn't change the average trade power.



Exactly - trading power is lower under the new system.  How can that possibly be OK???  ALL owners should be unhappy about this - regardless of where you own.  What Starwood does to the voluntary owners Starwood can do to YOU.  

I own at WKORV too, and I paid full sticker from the developer, but I don't resent the fact that voluntary owner can exchange in through II for a fraction of the cost.  More power to them - wish I figured it out sooner!  If someone has a problem with it, it sounds like sour grapes to me...


----------



## Pit (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Many of us have contacted II about the decrease of trading power under the new rules - they won't admit that it is happening...



Yes, I know. But this is an interesting example. The OP is comparing the results of two identical weeks within his own account. He need not rely on trade tests or search results preformed by others, which eliminates a host of possible excuses. Nor can the differences be explained away by "averaging," since the season weeks are all equally poor. This seems pretty clear cut, which makes denial implausible (even to the II reps). They should be hard-pressed to explain these results.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

Pit said:


> Yes, I know. But this is an interesting example. The OP is comparing the results of two identical weeks within his own account. He need not rely on trade tests or search results preformed by others, which eliminates a host of possible excuses. Nor can the differences be explained away by "averaging," since the season weeks are all equally poor. This seems pretty clear cut, which makes denial implausible (even to the II reps). They should be hard-pressed to explain these results.



I can do the same exact thing with my SDO week - I have an old week and a new week - they don't trade the same.  II doesn't even try to explain it - they talk around it.  "It doesn't matter what exchanges you can see on line, all that matters is what exchange you get, and we think you will be happy with the results if you just give it a try."


----------



## Pit (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I can do the same exact thing with my SDO week - I have an old week and a new week - they don't trade the same.  II doesn't even try to explain it - they talk around it.  "It doesn't matter what exchanges you can see on line, all that matters is what exchange you get, and we think you will be happy with the results if you just give it a try."



That's a non-answer. It does matter what you can see online, but you know that. I hope you didn't let them get away with _that_ explanation.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

Pit said:


> That's a non-answer. It does matter what you can see online, but you know that. I hope you didn't let them get away with _that_ explanation.



I agree completely - but that is the party line that II has decided to adopt about trading power.


----------



## ecwinch (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I own at WKORV too, and I paid full sticker from the developer, but I don't resent the fact that voluntary owner can exchange in through II for a fraction of the cost.  More power to them - wish I figured it out sooner!  If someone has a problem with it, it sounds like sour grapes to me...



I think DanCali was simply making the point that if you are taking advantage of an imbalance in the system (buying a cheap week to trade for a great week), then what is the basis for your complaint when that imbalance is corrected? 

Everything returns to mean over time and timeshares are a zero sum game. For every great trade we make - someone on the other end accepts a less than optimal outcome. Having the expectation that you are "entitled" to get those great trades indefinitely is not well-reasoned. Pointing out that fact is not sour grapes IMO.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I think DanCali was simply making the point that if you are taking advantage of an imbalance in the system (buying a cheap week to trade for a great week), then what is the basis for your complaint when that imbalance is corrected?
> 
> Everything returns to mean over time and timeshares are a zero sum game. For every great trade we make - someone on the other end accepts a less than optimal outcome. Having the expectation that you are "entitled" to get those great trades indefinitely is not well-reasoned. Pointing out that fact is not sour grapes IMO.



Thank you...


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I think DanCali was simply making the point that if you are taking advantage of an imbalance in the system (buying a cheap week to trade for a great week), then what is the basis for your complaint when that imbalance is corrected?
> 
> Everything returns to mean over time and timeshares are a zero sum game. For every great trade we make - someone on the other end accepts a less than optimal outcome. Having the expectation that you are "entitled" to get those great trades indefinitely is not well-reasoned. Pointing out that fact is not sour grapes IMO.




I don't buy this for a second.  It is unethical for a timeshare system to make calculated decisions to devalue the very product that they sold to consumers who bought it in good faith.

And Dan, I find it very ironic that you are so eager to defend your own "right" to pay lower taxes in Hawaii, but you have no problem with owners at other resorts losing trading power...


----------



## ocdb8r (Dec 2, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I think DanCali was simply making the point that if you are taking advantage of an imbalance in the system (buying a cheap week to trade for a great week), then what is the basis for your complaint when that imbalance is corrected?
> 
> Everything returns to mean over time and timeshares are a zero sum game. For every great trade we make - someone on the other end accepts a less than optimal outcome. Having the expectation that you are "entitled" to get those great trades indefinitely is not well-reasoned. Pointing out that fact is not sour grapes IMO.



First, I totally agree on the entitlement argument, however I have to disagree on the zero-sum game argument on 2 levels.

1) You assume that lower cost equates to lower quality or lower value.  I think the SBP 4th of July weeks that I have traded into the HI resorts was a totally fair trade.  I took slightly off season weeks in HI for a prime time and location in SC.  Other might differ about the equality of this trade, however I think your zero-sum argument would fail in this respect.  What is optimal for many owners is flexibility.  I don't think par for par cost should be the gauge of when a trade is optimal or not.

2) More importantly, you must realize that the major trading systems (II and RCI) are flooded with developer weeks as well as unsold/unowned weeks controlled by HOA's.  They receive the same amount from II/RCI regardless of who or what weeks trades into the weeks they deposit.  

3) Don't forget about owned weeks that an owner just cannot use in a given year.  While this may qualify as a less than optimal trade, traded or not they might have gone completely unused.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I don't buy this for a second.  It is unethical for a timeshare system to make calculated decisions to devalue the very product that they sold to consumers who bought it in good faith.
> 
> And Dan, I find it very ironic that you are so eager to defend your own "right" to pay lower taxes in Hawaii, but you have no problem with owners at other resorts losing trading power...



Can you honestly say that SBP (offseason) is "like for like" with WKORV? I understand that people were getting these trades for years, but do you think it is a "like for like" trade? If it is not, then someone on the other end is losing out...

That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to do it (change trading power) the way they did it and mislead people about it. But if a SBP 2BR in the offseason now gets a 1BR in Hawaii that's still not a bad deal and better than what you get with StarOptions. If people can get a 2BR in Hawaii more power to them - I certainly don't have a problem with that, just not my type of game to play. I also don't think it is sustainable or treated like an entitlement for reasons stated by ecwinch.

As for the Maui taxes, I actually never made a big fuss about that... I think it's wrong but the bigger picture (in my mind) is how MFs have been spiraling out of control over the last 5 years under our nose and driving equity values down. The taxes are a new cost, but it is fixed. Starwood costs continue to rise in every economic environment. I think focusing on the taxes detracts from the real issue an that's exactly what Starwood wants us to do.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

ocdb8r said:


> You assume that lower cost equates to lower quality or lower value. I think the SBP 4th of July weeks that I have traded into the HI resorts was a totally fair trade.  I took slightly off season weeks in HI for a prime time and location in SC.



RLG (started this thread) was complaining about "Gold" season (weeks 1,7,8,44,45,46,48,51,52).

Your argument goes back to supply and demand (not necessarily cost), which is the right way to think about fair trades... And what I was pointing out is that a 2BR in the offseason at SBP doesn't have the same demand like a 2BR on Maui. It's very hard to argue otherwise, especially if you average those weeks out.

But if they did change the trading power - they should just say that...


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 2, 2009)

This is the way I look at it:  When mandatory week owners shrug off the loss of trading power that the voluntary week owners have suffered, it is the same as if volutary week owner say, "I don't care that the MF's are escalating at the mandatory resorts, because *I'm* only paying $600 a year."

ALL owners need to work together on ALL issues if we expect to protect our rights.

Together we stand, divided we fall...


----------



## James1975NY (Dec 2, 2009)

DanCali said:


> RLG (started this thread) was complaining about "Gold" season (weeks 1,7,8,44,45,46,48,51,52).
> 
> Your argument goes back to supply and demand (not necessarily cost), which is the right way to think about fair trades... And what I was pointing out is that a 2BR in the offseason at SBP doesn't have the same demand like a 2BR on Maui. It's very hard to argue otherwise, especially if you average those weeks out.
> 
> But if they did change the trading power - they should just say that...



I can agree with that. I understand the frustration of not seeing certain weeks for exchange that were once available, but at the end of the day, an off season Myrtle Beach week does not really match up to a week in Maui.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I don't buy this for a second.  It is unethical for a timeshare system to make calculated decisions to devalue the very product that they sold to consumers who bought it in good faith.
> 
> And Dan, I find it very ironic that you are so eager to defend your own "right" to pay lower taxes in Hawaii, but you have no problem with owners at other resorts losing trading power...



I have a slightly different perspective on this situation.  I see timesharing and specifically timeshare exchange nothing but a game with ever changing rules.  Rules that can be arbitraged to the great benefit of savvy players.

  When any one wants to join the game, they should know the rules of the road before they buy their way into it.  One of those rules is that the exchange companies and/or the developers can, will and have proven to change the rules to devalue ownerships.   Those are all givens.  As long as you know and accept that to be a fundamental law of timesharing, then you can plan accordingly and you can be rewarded handsomely even in a devaluing environment.

I almost bought a unit at the Sheraton Broadway Plantation 2br lockoff unit because I knew it to be a great trader with very low maintenance fees.  I didn't do it only because I didn't have time.  Otherwise, I would be an owner now.  If I were an owner, I wouldn't be complaining that Starwood and II colluded to change the rules.  After all, I would have expected that.  I only would have been sad that it took me so long to enter the game and I didn't leave it in time.

The bottom line is that everyone should have a timeshare strategy that provides guidelines to them for what they should do at any given time.  As Kenny Rogers once said, "you need to know when to hold 'em.... know when to fold 'em....know when to walk away.... know when to run....."


----------



## Stefa (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> This is the way I look at it:  When mandatory week owners shrug off the loss of trading power that the voluntary week owners have suffered, it is the same as if volutary week owner say, "I don't care that the MF's are escalating at the mandatory resorts, because *I'm* only paying $600 a year."
> 
> ALL owners need to work together on ALL issues if we expect to protect our rights.
> 
> Together we stand, divided we fall...



Denise

I don't see this as part of the debate over the new rules.  As such, my posts were not an endorsement of the new deposit rules for voluntary resorts.  It appears that, as RLG suggested earlier in this thread, II has adjusted the trade power of SBP-gold independently of the new rules.  Given the relatively low demand for these weeks, I don't see this as that surprising.  One of the reasons we TUGgers advise others to "buy where you want to go," is because we know trading isn't a guarantee.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> *Together we stand, divided we fall...*



That I completely agree with.

I am pretty biased against Starwood at this point, but try to be objective when I judge them and my bias is based on multiple observations. If I saw any justification for MFs escalating, I wouldn't be so vocal about it. I look at inflation, energy costs, other resorts in the same area and then reach a conclusion. And this problem is not new and not limited to voluntary resorts (SVR Springs up 14% in 2010, Lakes up 15%, not to mention SBP up more than 20%).

If regards to Gold season at SBP losing trading power, if they did change something I think they should be upfront with owners. Things should be open and transparent, not sneaky and underhanded. In my view, that is what is wrong here. 

That said, if a 2BR offseason in SC can't get a 2BR in Hawaii (and can get a 1BR) I think it's pretty fair and a 1BR for $800-$900 is still a great deal. If it used to be different and people took advantage of it that's great for them, but it was never put in writing or an actual owner benefit that a Gold 2BR in SC should always see 2BRs in Hawaii and everyone knows trades are based on supply and demand. It's hard to compare this change even to changing the requirements for Platinum/5*, or eliminating upgrades when requalifying voluntary resorts, or eliminating the ability to waitlist for a SVN trade, or eliminating a true "request first" (all of which I am against) because those were actual benefits that existed and were taken away or changed by Starwood per their ability to change anything anytime. 

I should also point out that my point of view is not related to voluntary or mandatory. It's related to the fact that it's SPB and it's offseason. It you said that WPORV 2BRs can't see Maui 2BRs I'd be on the other side of this debate even though WPORV is voluntary and I don't own there...


----------



## Fredm (Dec 2, 2009)

"Like for like" has always been the cornerstone of timeshare exchange.

The fact that Starwood is now assigning blended seasonal values to owner deposits helps some, and hurts others.

I do not mean to resurrect that discussion here. It is what it is.
It does highlight another truth. Anything and everything is subject to change. Except "like for like".

Those who purchased an off season interest with the expectation that it would perform on par with a prime season were fooling themselves. Even if it did so for a while.

Those who purchased into a "club" or "points" system believing that the system was actually intended to provide disproportionate flexibility and value were sold a bill of goods. They are designed to benefit the manager, not the owner.

I.I. is nothing more than a clearing house. A broker for competing timeshare interests. Devaluations are not created by I.I. They take what is given them. If what they receive is allocated a lesser value now, then the prior greater value is being diverted elsewhere. Simple. 

Dan has it right, IMO.


----------



## Take Action (Dec 2, 2009)

*Its the fees!*

[Deleted - duplicate posts are not permitted on TUG and the info. you postedhas already been posted and discussed at great length. - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 2, 2009)

Take Action said:


> Its the fees!
> 
> Take action and call your state, federal and local representatives for protection. Call the state District attorney. You can google all of these folks and email them.
> You can also contact the resort development association and they list the CEO of starwoods email and other people of interest.




Dear "Take Action":

Your multiple similar posts does not help this discussion. Anonymous posts like yours, regardless of position, only detract from the issue, in my opinion. While you may be a TUG member in disguise, this really isn't productive.

If you're an owner, tell us what you own and why you're upset. Be part of the discussion.

Ken


----------



## Courts (Dec 2, 2009)

This sounds very much like a discussion about a South Africa timeshare (Dikhololo ?) not sure of the name.

Everyone was bragging about the trading power for such low MF's. So much so that I *almost* bought one. 

Then came the devaluation of trading power.  Maybe some here can remember the situation. 

My point is Starwood sucks but timesharing can be a crap shoot no matter what.

.


----------



## grgs (Dec 2, 2009)

Stefa said:


> I don't see this as part of the debate over the new rules.  As such, my posts were not an endorsement of the new deposit rules for voluntary resorts.  It appears that, as RLG suggested earlier in this thread, II has adjusted the trade power of SBP-gold independently of the new rules.  Given the relatively low demand for these weeks, I don't see this as that surprising.  One of the reasons we TUGgers advise others to "buy where you want to go," is because we know trading isn't a guarantee.



I agree with this.  I think we're mixing up two different things here.  What is not right is that a voluntary owner can't pick the specific week to deposit.  Given the small range of weeks involved, it may well be that all the SBP Gold weeks trade similarly.  Nonetheless, the owner should still get to select the specific week.

The problem is much worse for SBP Plat owners and SDO 1-52 float owners.  We all know there's a wide variation in the trade power for those weeks.  To take away the owner's right to deposit a specific week definitely affects what one is likely to pull.  While Starwood has the right to do this for SVN weeks, I still don't believe they should be able to do this with non-SVN weeks.

Coincidentally, I received my two new II directories yesterday.  For my SVN weeks, I received the special Starwood edition which as the new exchange rules.  I also received the standard edition for my non-SVN Starwood weeks (I don't own non-Starwood weeks).  It seems to me, my non-SVN weeks should be bound by the terms & conditions listed in the standard edition.  That does include a true request first option.  I didn't really see anything that obviously addresses Starwood's right to control non-SVN Starwood weeks.  However, in the beginning there is a definitions section which includes:

_*"Network Resort" means a SVN Resort which, from time to time, is owned by the Network or, becomes affiliated with the Network by virtue of the execution of a resort agreement between the developer and/or managing entity of such resort and SVEC.*_

I guess this could mean that an HOA could sign the agreement with II, and even if your specific week wasn't in SVN, it might still be subject to these T&C?

However, it also notes in the fees section:

_*3. Where a Network Member also owns a Vacation Interest at a Member Resort through which the Network Member participates as an Individual Member of the II Exchange Program, said Network Member must maintain his or her Individual Membership in the II Exchange Program, separate and distinct from his or her participation in the corporate membership program offered by the Network.*_

It seems to me that if we have to pay for a separate II membership for non-SVN weeks, we shouldn't be bound by the corporate membership T&C. 

However, there is this on p. 1:

_*The terms and conditions set forth herein are different from II's standard terms and conditions of individual membership ... The terms and conditions set forth herein have been specially agreed upon by SVEC and II for obtaining resort accommodations through the II exchange program.  Therefore ... you should refer to these terms and conditions and not the standard terms and conditions that are set forth in the II Resort Directory ... In the event of a conflict between these terms and conditions and such other standard terms and conditions, these terms and conditions shall prevail.*_

I'm still not clear where non-SVN weeks fall.  Can they be considered part of SVN if the resort is (and bound to these T&C), even if a particular week is not?

Glorian


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

Courts said:


> My point is Starwood sucks but timesharing can be a crap shoot no matter what.
> 
> .



It's shouldn't be a crapshoot if you don't expect to always trade up. A 1 BR in Hawaii should get a 2BR in Orlando but a 1BR in Orlando shouldn't expect to get a 2BR in Hawaii, certainly not every year. Simple supply and demand...

Remember you want to give II weeks 1,7,8,44,45,46,48,51,52 at SBP. The TDI chart for that is: 






And you want to trade to Hawaii which has the following TDI chart:






All the 9 weeks in SC have more supply-demand imbalance than any of the 52 Hawaii weeks...

And you want to trade a 2BR for a 2BR... from a Sheraton to a Westin...

I just don't see how that is "like for like" in any dimension - sorry. If it used to work that's great. If it stopped working I can see why...


----------



## RLG (Dec 2, 2009)

Stefa said:


> It appears that, as RLG suggested earlier in this thread, II has adjusted the trade power of SBP-gold independently of the new rules.



Actually, I pointed out that II/Starwood reduced the trading power of SBP for new rules deposits ONLY.  If it were "independent of the new rules" I wouldn't be able to see Hawaii 2brs with any of my SBP gold weeks.



BocaBum99 said:


> I see timesharing and specifically timeshare exchange nothing but a game with ever changing rules.  Rules that can be arbitraged to the great benefit of savvy players.
> 
> When any one wants to join the game, they should know the rules of the road before they buy their way into it.  One of those rules is that the exchange companies and/or the developers can, will and have proven to change the rules to devalue ownerships.   Those are all givens.  As long as you know and accept that to be a fundamental law of timesharing, then you can plan accordingly and you can be rewarded handsomely even in a devaluing environment.



I generally agree with Boca's point of view.  The SBP trade was great while it lasted.  I have no ability to investigate why II has historically considered SBP gold to be equal in demand to Hawaii offseason.  I was aware that II could decide there was a supply demand imbalance and reduce trade power.  

I did not, however, expect Starwood to be the one that initiated the change.  (Remember, I don't have this problem with my old rules deposits.) It is even more surprising given that SBP has a problem getting owners to pay maintenance as is.  On the margin, reducing trade power can only result in more defaults in the future.




BocaBum99 said:


> As Kenny Rogers once said, "you need to know when to hold 'em.... know when to fold 'em....know when to walk away.... know when to run....."



I haven't decided whether I am going to keep my SBP weeks if they aren't going to have the same trade value going forward.  Since they appear to have a sale value of approximately zero, that would involve giving them away.  If you see them on the bargain deals giveaway board you'll know what I decided.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 2, 2009)

grgs said:


> _*"Network Resort" means a SVN Resort which, from time to time, is owned by the Network or, becomes affiliated with the Network by virtue of the execution of a resort agreement between the developer and/or managing entity of such resort and SVEC.*_
> 
> I guess this could mean that an HOA could sign the agreement with II, and even if your specific week wasn't in SVN, it might still be subject to these T&C?
> 
> ...




The way I read it is that all resort owners are subject to the same exchange rules with I.I. 
Non-SVN members must maintain an individual I.I. account.


----------



## RLG (Dec 2, 2009)

DanCali said:


> All the 9 weeks in SC have more supply-demand imbalance than any of the 52 Hawaii weeks...
> 
> And you want to trade a 2BR for a 2BR... from a Sheraton to a Westin...
> 
> I just don't see how that is "like for like" - sorry. If it used to work that's great. If it stopped working I can see why...



I guess I was too vague before when I suggested that you might not understand the actual workings of II exchanges very well given your few weeks of participating on TUG.  You really should read some of the threads on the exchanging and sightings boards.  I think you'll find that there's nothing that unusual about trading an offseason week at one resort for an offseason week at what is apparently a much better resort.  That's what actually happens in practice regardless of what you think should happen in theory based on your vast experience.

BTW, I think you'll also find from previous Tug discussions (search is your friend) that the TDI charts can't actually be used to compare trading power between resorts they way you are using them.   If they could, SBP summer weeks would be the strongest traders in the whole system even ahead of Hawaii at the holidays.


----------



## Stefa (Dec 2, 2009)

RLG said:


> Actually, I pointed out that II/Starwood reduced the trading power of SBP for new rules deposits ONLY.  If it were "independent of the new rules" I wouldn't be able to see Hawaii 2brs with any of my SBP gold weeks.



Trade power is assigned at the time of deposit so your week deposited under the old rules would keep its value even though the rules have changed and the week now has less value.  

I know the reduction in trade power happened at the same time as the change to generic deposits.  But, as you said before, they did not average out the trade power of the weeks under the old system to determine the trade value of the weeks under the new system.  They assigned the generic weeks a lower value.  This is what I meant when I said the reduced trade power was independent of the new rules.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 2, 2009)

RLG said:


> I guess I was too vague before when I suggested that you might not understand the actual workings of II exchanges very well given your few weeks of participating on TUG.  You really should read some of the threads on the exchanging and sightings boards.  I think you'll find that there's nothing that unusual about trading an offseason week at one resort for an offseason week at what is apparently a much better resort.  That's what actually happens in practice regardless of what you think should happen in theory based on your vast experience.
> 
> BTW, I think you'll also find from previous Tug discussions (search is your friend) that the TDI charts can't actually be used to compare trading power between resorts they way you are using them.   If they could, SBP summer weeks would be the strongest traders in the whole system even ahead of Hawaii at the holidays.



I understand that comparisons across resorts are iffy, but what the TDI charts tell me is that Platinum weeks 9-43, 47 at SBP (even averaged out) should trade much better than the Gold season at SBP. Since it appears that Platinum season (1BR and 2BR I think) at SBP can see 2BR Hawaii weeks, I think I am reading the TDI charts pretty good.

I don't claim to have experience with II... I own mandatory resorts and have yet to get my feet wet with II. However, I do know a thing or two about economics and am basing my opinions on ideas like supply and demand and market equilibrium which have been around for only a few centuries. I have read plenty of posts detailing trades like the ones you describe. I've also seen the NASDAQ index go from 2000 to 5000 in the late 1990's and 2000... we all know how that ended... not to mention home prices going up 15% a year... What I'm getting at is that things that are too good to be true may happen, but they don't last forever.


----------



## Stefa (Dec 2, 2009)

RLG said:


> I generally agree with Boca's point of view.  The SBP trade was great while it lasted.  I have no ability to investigate why II has historically considered SBP gold to be equal in demand to Hawaii offseason.  I was aware that II could decide there was a supply demand imbalance and reduce trade power.
> 
> I did not, however, expect Starwood to be the one that initiated the change.  (Remember, I don't have this problem with my old rules deposits.) It is even more surprising given that SBP has a problem getting owners to pay maintenance as is.  On the margin, reducing trade power can only result in more defaults in the future.



Just because you can trade one unit for another does not mean II has determined they have equal demand.  I saw a lot of weeks with my 1br SDO that were definitely in higher demand seasons and locations.  II allows for upward trading quite often.   They only let you trade up so far, however.

I have my theories as to why Starwood implemented the new rules when they did, but that is another topic altogether.


----------



## ecwinch (Dec 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I don't buy this for a second.  It is unethical for a timeshare system to make calculated decisions to devalue the very product that they sold to consumers who bought it in good faith.
> 
> And Dan, I find it very ironic that you are so eager to defend your own "right" to pay lower taxes in Hawaii, but you have no problem with owners at other resorts losing trading power...



Denise,

I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge and experience as a Starwood owner. I can only hope that you are not fully reading our posts or are reading into them a meaning not intended.

Buying an off-season week at a low price and using it to trade into a much more expensive (m/f + cost) week is exploiting an imbalance in the system. When that imbalance returns to the mean, I do not feel that there is a significant basis for complaint. 

Trading power is a temporal element of timeshare ownership. It is not an entitlement.


----------



## ecwinch (Dec 2, 2009)

ocdb8r said:


> First, I totally agree on the entitlement argument, however I have to disagree on the zero-sum game argument on 2 levels.
> 
> 1) You assume that lower cost equates to lower quality or lower value.  I think the SBP 4th of July weeks that I have traded into the HI resorts was a totally fair trade.  I took slightly off season weeks in HI for a prime time and location in SC.  Other might differ about the equality of this trade, however I think your zero-sum argument would fail in this respect.  What is optimal for many owners is flexibility.  I don't think par for par cost should be the gauge of when a trade is optimal or not.
> 
> ...



No, my position is not necessarily predicated on low cost + low m/f being the only qualifier. It certainly is one. Sometimes a high value owner will trade down - but that is not the norm. Expecting it to be is problematic.

Bulk deposits of developer weeks is the major component of the imbalance that feeds the problem. But expecting them to always be available is not realistic.


----------



## slock (May 25, 2010)

I have been learning a lot from these forums but I must be a newbie and ask a question about SBP. Considering the changes would you buy there if your primary interest was to use it every other year and trade it in the other years? Does  me buying from the owner cause me to have less benefits than someone buying from the developer?  Thanks for bearing with me as I learn.


----------



## DeniseM (May 25, 2010)

You can buy this resort resale for nearly nothing - less than $100.  If buy a week from the developer, it will cost you several thousand dollars.  The only thing you lose is the ability to convert to Starpoints, which is a bad value anyway.  See the FAQ at the top of the page for all the details about how Starwood works.


----------



## DanCali (May 25, 2010)

Actually if you buy developer you also get Staroptions. You would not get those on a resale purchase at this resort.


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 25, 2010)

The developer price is well over $20,000; the resale price on eBay is $1 - $200.

The differential is a lot to pay for StarOptions and StarPoints.  As Denise said above, converting to StarPoints seldom makes sense.  And if you want StarOptions, consider a resale purchase at a mandatory resort (Kierland, etc.) which will give you more StarOptions for less money than a developer purchase at SBP.  Details in the FAQ's.


----------



## DeniseM (May 25, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Actually if you buy developer you also get Staroptions. You would not get those on a resale purchase at this resort.



My apologies - I was posting under the influence of cold medication last night.  DanCali is right, however if you want Staroptions, I wouldn't buy at SBP.  You can get more Staroptions at WKV.  If you specifically want to own at SBP, absolutely buy resale.


----------



## slock (May 25, 2010)

Wow, thanks for the quick replies. I'm looking at one now that has floating weeks (1-52). I read about the changes and understand (i think) about how *woods has changed their system for the value of the weeks. My question is what kind of trade value does this have at non-*wood properties through RCI. Also is it better to get a 2bedroom with a L/O compared to a 2bd without a L/O

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## DeniseM (May 25, 2010)

slock said:


> Wow, thanks for the quick replies. I'm looking at one now that has floating weeks (1-52). I read about the changes and understand (i think) about how *woods has changed their system for the value of the weeks. My question is what kind of trade value does this have at non-*wood properties through RCI. Also is it better to get a 2bedroom with a L/O compared to a 2bd without a L/O
> 
> Thanks again for all your help.



If you tell us when and where you want to go with an exchange, we can probably answer your question a little better.

A 2 bdm. lock-off is much more flexible than a conventional 2 bdm., because  you can:
Use both sides at the same time for Max. capacity.
Split the unit and use them consecutively for a 2 week vacation
Split the unit and take 2 separate vacations
Rent one side and use the other
Deposit one side and use the other
Split it and make 2 deposits for 2 vacations
Deposit it as a 2 bdm. to put in a request for a 2 bdm.​


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 25, 2010)

slock said:


> Wow, thanks for the quick replies. I'm looking at one now that has floating weeks (1-52). I read about the changes and understand (i think) about how *woods has changed their system for the value of the weeks. My question is what kind of trade value does this have at non-*wood properties through RCI. Also is it better to get a 2bedroom with a L/O compared to a 2bd without a L/O
> 
> Thanks again for all your help.



There is no 1-52 float at SBP.  Are you talking about SDO?  

If you want prime season at SBP, you need to buy 9-43, 47.


----------



## slock (May 25, 2010)

Thanks again. I live in New England so was hoping to trade this unit every now and again for places in New Jersey, New York or Mass. Does this seem reasonable?


----------



## yumdrey (May 25, 2010)

slock said:


> Thanks again. I live in New England so was hoping to trade this unit every now and again for places in New Jersey, New York or Mass. Does this seem reasonable?



Buying a timeshare for trading purpose is not a good idea.
If you want Mass. NJ and NYC locations, consider buying Hilton (HGVC) or Marriott. HGVC has a resort in W. 57th street and so far, getting a unit at 44 days out is easy. You also can get an access to RCI by using HGVC points, and trading to Mahattan club in NYC would be another option.
Marriott has custom house in Boston and fairway villas in NJ (near atlantic city). If you own marriott timeshare, you can have 21 days Marriott priority for trading.
Starwood has no resort on new england area, so I would not buy starwood resort to trade into Mass, NJ or NYC.


----------



## LisaH (May 26, 2010)

2BR EOY Oceanfront at WKORVN sold for $10,700.00
Very tempting...

http://cgi.ebay.com/WESTIN-KAANAPAL...md=ViewItem&pt=Timeshares&hash=item2ead308eb1


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 27, 2010)

I am very late to this thread, but figured I would add my experience with Starwood's new system/SBP.........

I own a July 4th week which has gone from Platinum to "Gold Plus." Trading power has changed considerably for the worst, IMO.

Not only has our trading power been diminished, but it appears to me that a quality filter has been put in place as well, similar to Marriott. Some might consider this to be a good thing, but I do not. I liked being able to see weeks in drivable locations such as Newport, Cape Cod, Maine, etc.

Now, I can no longer see many of the lesser rated, or non-rated resorts that my week in the "old system" was able to see. For example, I can no longer see weeks that are not rated in Cape Cod, the Caribbean, and Europe.

Basically, I can no longer see anything that does not have a "select resort" rating, or better.....So, I've lost on both ends. Of course, you can always put in a request for these weeks, but I can no longer see them while doing searches.


----------



## Captron (May 27, 2010)

*The bottom line...(as I see it)*

I know I will be corrected if I am wrong but from how I see it:

There was an "adjustment" made to the trading power of SBP (and others). The timing seems logical as they would have evaluated/reevaluated trading power assigned for each season when making the change to the "new rules".

It is also logical that the "adjustment" would not apply to an "old-rules" deposit since, according to II's own rules, trading power is assigned on deposit of the week.

This certainly seems to have had a negative impact on trading power of some weeks at SBP, et al.

If anything I believe this change was made primarily by II with some Starwood involvement.

Don't get me wrong, as a SBP owner, I certainly don't like the change, but that does not make it "unjust". I concur that I shall enjoy the exchanges I received "pre-change" and make the best of what I have to work with now.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 27, 2010)

Captron said:


> I know I will be corrected if I am wrong but from how I see it:
> 
> There was an "adjustment" made to the trading power of SBP (and others). The timing seems logical as they would have evaluated/reevaluated trading power assigned for each season when making the change to the "new rules".
> 
> ...



I agree that it's always possible that II has made some changes to their system, and will always adjust trading power based on supply and demand. However, I strongly believe that in this case, it is Starwood that has made the changes in our current situation, and not II........Starwood has taken it upon themselves to deny us our right to reserve our deeded week, if we are making a deposit into II. It is not that II has downgraded the value of SBP, July 4th week, it is that we have been forced to be grouped together with other less popular weeks, diminishing our trading power. 

That's how I it, at any rate.


----------



## Captron (May 28, 2010)

ArtsieAng said:


> I agree that it's always possible that II has made some changes to their system, and will always adjust trading power based on supply and demand. However, I strongly believe that in this case, it is Starwood that has made the changes in our current situation, and not II........Starwood has taken it upon themselves to deny us our right to reserve our deeded week, if we are making a deposit into II. It is not that II has downgraded the value of SBP, July 4th week, it is that we have been forced to be grouped together with other less popular weeks, diminishing our trading power.
> 
> That's how I it, at any rate.



I absolutely agree with your statements regarding the results of the implementation of the new rules. What i was specifically referring to was the devaluation of the average trading unit from SBP stated in the OP. 

"I've followed the many threads regarding the change in the rules for trading non-SVN weeks through II. I understand the impact of the use of generic weeks and how it particularly can prevent savvy owners from maximizing their trade power. In the case of Broadway Plantation, something else appears to be going on than the advertised use of a "generic" week which averages the trading power of all weeks in the season."

That was the point I was addressing, the "something else". 

To specifically address your points, however, I also agree with some others in disagreeing with your argument. If you really read the contract, I believe Starwood has acted well within their "right" as expressed in their contracts, as one sided as those documents are. We all accepted those when we signed on as owners of a float based seasonal product. The only exception would be those that do own TRUE FIXED WEEKS. I do believe they were lumped in unfairly but I understand that their true "rights" have been restored, (if they assert them forcibly) so this does not apply to them any longer. Again, I DON'T LIKE IT any more than any one else, but I do believe that they were within their legal right to do so. If you look carefully, no where does the contract state that you have the "right" to deposit your deeded week within the exchange system. It is a "right" we all assumed we had that does not really exist. We did it so we assumed we had that "right" but that "right" is not supported by the contracts, and in reality that is all that matters. I was right with you step for step until I reread the contracts, IN DETAIL, and confirmed to my disappointment that we did not have the "right" to deposit that week. I dislike it as much as you do but that is the fact and the facts do not always feel "fair". Life is not fair and I left that belief way back in adolescence. The "average" season value is what very few of us here would have settled with before but, as has been pointed out a few times in various threads, this type of valuation is very common in other systems, especially points based systems and seasonal float systems like the one most of us own.

I would also agree with arguments that this change and the flexibility of being able to pull your week back or to switch a lockout from 1BR to 2BR or back after placing it up for exchange will benefit most average owners, as uneducated as they may be vs the average TUGger. Again, as has been stated by Fred, James, and others (if I am remembering correctly) I believe the changes will benefit the "average" owner. The average owner does not really understand what they own or anywhere close on how to maximize it to get best use/best exchanges, etc. Most TUGgers are not that average owner, we were the exception to the rule and are being brought down to the average by this change and that is why most of us are so upset about this change. Unfortunately, we will have to live with it or "vote with our feet" and get out.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

> Captron
> 
> If you really read the contract, I believe Starwood has acted well within their "right" as expressed in their contracts, as one sided as those documents are. We all accepted those when we signed on as owners of a float based seasonal product. The only exception would be those that do own TRUE FIXED WEEKS. I do believe they were lumped in unfairly but I understand that their true "rights" have been restored, (if they assert them forcibly) so this does not apply to them any longer. Again, I DON'T LIKE IT any more than any one else, but I do believe that they were within their legal right to do so. *If you look carefully, no where does the contract state that you have the "right" to deposit your deeded week within the exchange system*





Does the contract state that you DO NOT have the right to deposit your week into an exchange company? Because if it does not, they are in violation of the Sherman Act. They can not force you into using II, RCI, or any other particular exchange company. That choice, along with your week (according to individual deeded rights) should be yours to do with what you please.


Under the Sherman Act and other various Anti-Monopoly laws, service is completely "distinct and separate" from the timeshare product. They are not allowed to force you into using a particular exchange company, or to force you into a "group deposit" situation.

To prove my point.......Currently, I can reserve my deeded July 4th week, and deposit it into SFX. Starwood can not prevent me from doing so with SFX, and they should not be allowed to prevent me from doing so with any other exchange co. 

Of course, I'm just giving you my opinion, and how I understand the law.


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 28, 2010)

ArtsieAng said:


> Does the contract state that you DO NOT have the right to deposit your week into an exchange company? Because if it does not, they are in violation of the Sherman Act. They can not force you into using II, RCI, or any other particular exchange company. That choice, along with your week (according to individual deeded rights) should be yours to do with what you please.
> 
> 
> Under the Sherman Act and other various Anti-Monopoly laws, service is completely "distinct and separate" from the timeshare product. They are not allowed to force you into using a particular exchange company, or to force you into a "group deposit" situation.
> ...



It is not Starwood that is preventing you from depositing your reserved week.  As you say, you can deposit your July 4 week into SFX; Starwood does not control SFX and cannot prevent SFX from accepting your week.  It is *Interval* that is preventing you from depositing your reserved July 4 week; Interval will not accept your week without Starwood's permission.  Collusion?  Absolutely.  Actionable under the Sherman Act?  I don't know.  

Starwood has a lot of "influence" with Interval at this point.  Disney moved to RCI.  Marriott is going to do whatever it is Marriott is going to do.  Interval is running scared that it will lose all of the premium hotel systems that are affiliated with it.  So it kow-tows to what Starwood wants -- for what it sees as business necessity.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

vacationtime1 said:


> *It is not Starwood that is preventing you from depositing your reserved week. * As you say, you can deposit your July 4 week into SFX; Starwood does not control SFX and cannot prevent SFX from accepting your week.  *It is Interval that is preventing you from depositing your reserved July 4 week; Interval will not accept your week without Starwood's permission. * Collusion?  Absolutely.  Actionable under the Sherman Act?  I don't know.
> 
> Starwood has a lot of "influence" with Interval at this point.  Disney moved to RCI.  Marriott is going to do whatever it is Marriott is going to do.  Interval is running scared that it will lose all of the premium hotel systems that are affiliated with it.  So it kow-tows to what Starwood wants -- for what it sees as business necessity.




Personally, I find that very hard to believe.......It is not II's normal policy to insist upon deposits of this kind. II takes deposits of individual weeks, and without Starwood behind this, I can't see why they would treat Starwood weeks any differently then any other week. Why would II refuse to take individual Starwood weeks? I just can't see II saying "sorry, we won't accept your St John's week, your Atlantis week, etc.," unless Starwood was calling the shots. 


Granted, it takes two to tango, but IMO, it is Starwood, not II who brought on these changes. And let's not forget that Starwood could simply have said "no."


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 28, 2010)

I agree with Angela.  Starwood isn't looking out for owners, and we know it's entirely Starwood that pushed II into this.  Would II rather have summer weeks or fall and winter weeks?  It's absolutely Starwood.  The evidence is there, so Starwood is at fault.


----------



## jarta (May 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23,   ...   "Gmarine has been trying to fight Starwood through legal channels, with no lawyer who will take the case."

No lawyer will take the case?  In our litigation-happy society?  lol!

Then, despite everything that's been said here about violations of "owners' rights," perhaps there are none that are being violated.

Maybe it's time to stop the complaining and go back to enjoying the great II trades that are still available.

As for Starwood "not looking out for owners," which owners are you talking about?  Perhaps the owners Starwood is looking out for are the ones who want to stay at the resort they own and not the ones who want to vacation elsewhere by trading through II.  Maybe rewarding owners who actually vacation at their home Starwood resort is a good thing.   ...   eom


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 28, 2010)

Jarta, you have already said SBP is probably not going to be in the Starwood system for much longer, and that is fine by me.  I hope we get our trading rights back.  A summer week in Myrtle Beach has a great value to most people, and when I can deposit those weeks into RCI and II again, as I could before, my trading power will improve phenomenally.  Who cares about Starwood?  I sure don't, and they have proven they don't care about SBP owners, that's for sure.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

> jarta
> 
> Maybe it's time to stop the complaining and go back to enjoying the great II trades that are still available.



I was told by more than one representative from II that under the new system, I simply didn't have the exchange power that I once had.....Not that I needed to be told!




> Jarta
> 
> As for Starwood "not looking out for owners," which owners are you talking about? Perhaps the owners Starwood is looking out for are the ones who want to stay at the resort they own and not the ones who want to vacation elsewhere by trading through II. Maybe rewarding owners who actually vacation at their home Starwood resort is a good thing. ... eom



Funny thing about "owner rights," is that Starwood should not have the ability to arbitrarily pick and choose which "owner rights" they are going to protect.....That's the whole point in having _rights_ to begin with... Otherwise, why bother? 

 To believe that an owner staying at their resort should have their rights protected, or be rewarded, while an owner looking to exchange their week should not, or be punished, is simply outrageous, IMO. I bet they wouldn't dare say that to anyone that they're trying to sell a timeshare to, now would they?


----------



## jarta (May 28, 2010)

Artsie Ang,   ...   Please explain to me again what "owners' rights" are being violated?

Then, explain to me why no lawyer will take a case based on the violation of those "owners' rights?"

When it comes to "owners' rights" the prevailing opinion by TUG wanna-be lawyers is just plain wrong.  That should be obvious when no real lawyer will take the case.   ...   eom


----------



## okwiater (May 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Jarta, you have already said SBP is probably not going to be in the Starwood system for much longer, and that is fine by me.  I hope we get our trading rights back.  A summer week in Myrtle Beach has a great value to most people, and when I can deposit those weeks into RCI and II again, as I could before, my trading power will improve phenomenally.  Who cares about Starwood?  I sure don't, and they have proven they don't care about SBP owners, that's for sure.



Sorry to sidetrack, but I did a search and could not find where jarta first mentioned this. Is it common knowledge that SBP probably won't be in Starwood much longer? I completely missed it. I'd appreciate a link from rickandcindy or jarta, if possible  thanks!


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

jarta said:


> Artsie Ang,   ...   Please explain to me again what "owners' rights" are being violated?
> 
> Then, explain to me why no lawyer will take a case based on the violation of those "owners' rights?"
> 
> When it comes to "owners' rights" the prevailing opinion by TUG wanna-be lawyers is just plain wrong.  That should be obvious when no real lawyer will take the case.   ...   eom



First of all, I do not know for a fact that "no" lawyer would take the case, and if so, why? If in fact that were to be true, being married to a lawyer, I'm aware of many reasons that a case might be declined, none of them having to do with the justification of the claims in question. 

Secondly, it appears to me that you're doing a bit of  "wanna be lawyering" yourself, stating as if it is "fact," that those who share a particular opinion are "wrong."

As for what "owner rights" have been violated by Starwood, well that has been discussed in depth, on many threads in this forum.


----------



## Captron (May 28, 2010)

Ang,

What I am saying is that the SVO contracts that I have seen state that if you own a floating week that Starwood has the right to choose a representative unit and week from the season owned to deposit with the exchange company. (paraphrased from memory, so not exact by any means)That is exactly what they have done with II, they are enforcing their right to select the unit and week. If owners did not want to be part of that, my understanding from others here is that they could have paid a premium to fix the week and maintain the right to deposit a specific unit and week. After all, I think that very few of the owners that are trying to deposit "premium" March, or Christmas weeks from SDO actually own units within those weeks. More of them own weeks that include those weeks in their season, are trying to reserve them and deposit them into II/RCI. The provision in the contract mentioned above is what allows SVO to keep that from happening. It is one of the perils of owning a floating seasonal based product. With the flexibility does come a cost!

SVO has entered an agreement (likely as part of their affiliation agreement) with II and RCI to make bulk deposits (or something of the like). They have instructed these companies to accept deposits only in this fashion. I believe it is a inventory management technique not collusion. Many of us do not like this but it is the way it is. James may be able to chime in more here from his experience.

I am not familiar with the Sherman Act, but from your description I would assume that is what lets the independent exchange companies exist, but the cost is availability within that companies pool of potential matches. It will meet some owners needs and not others, as does II or RCI. It is the affiliation agreement with the larger companies that makes the playing field different.

Again I will state that I believe the new rules will benefit the "average owner". That certainly seems to be the "party line" in all the SVO "propaganda". I may have fallen for that but it is an opinion shared by others here whose opinion I respect due to their knowledge and experience within the industry. Other TUGgers here have agreed that the ability to pull back your week from II if an exchange does not come through or to determine at the time of exchange if you want to use your lockout as a 2 or 3 BR or divided is very handy. The theory is also that you can deposit your week the last week of the year and suffer no hit to your trading power. I am well aware of the limited inventory that would likely be available from SVO if you pull your week back late in the year so no one has to go there. I totally agree with that point. I think we can all agree that the new rules benefit the owner who, because of poor planning or circumstances beyond their control, would have ended up with a summer week to use or deposit. I imagine the trading power of that week is almost unmeasurable it is so low.

I think at this point I have said my piece. My entrance into this discussion was to address a point in the OP. I believe I did that. I recognize how emotionally charged this topic is. I have given my opinion that many here will disagree with, that is great, it is what these discussions are all about. If new facts come to my attention I may well change my opinion. I know that there are people here who will not change their opinion regardless of the facts presented. That is great too, they are most welcome to their own opinion. As was pointed out to me, right here, a while ago "consensus opinion does not make something fact." That statement goes for and against anyones opinion, mine included.

For the record: I was burned as bad as most by this rules change last year. I closed on a SDO EOY odd unit just a couple of weeks before the change occurred. I specifically bought it to have a unit outside SVN to leverage the trading power of prime weeks. Even with the rules change, courtesy of "resolution services" I just deposited my 2011 week (an April 16 check in) and have received an awesome exchange with one of the 1BR units I deposited. Leveraging trading power from this resort can still be done, it may just take a little more work. The rules are now different and change is hard, harder for some than others.


----------



## YYJMSP (May 28, 2010)

Captron said:


> If owners did not want to be part of that, my understanding from others here is that they could have paid a premium to fix the week and maintain the right to deposit a specific unit and week.



WKORV(N) offered this -- for an extra 10% on top of the purchase price, you could fix your week instead of floating it in your season.  Another 10% (i.e. 20% total) would also fix the unit number.

Once it's fixed, I assume that you would be depositing your specifically owned week/unit...


----------



## jarta (May 28, 2010)

Captron, the Sherman Act is an anti-trust act.  From Tuesday's news:

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f8f88c6d-c4b1-4df4-b801-19e9acfdb3ca


----------



## gmarine (May 28, 2010)

jarta said:


> rickandcindy23,   ...   "Gmarine has been trying to fight Starwood through legal channels, with no lawyer who will take the case."
> 
> No lawyer will take the case?  In our litigation-happy society?  lol!
> 
> ...



Usually Cindi posts accurate info however in this case her information is not accurate nor up to date.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

jarta said:


> ArtsieAng,   ...   "it appears to me that you're doing a bit of "wanna be lawyering" yourself, stating as if it is "fact," that those who share a particular opinion are "wrong.""
> 
> I don't have to engage in wanna be lawyering.  I'm a real one.  Have been for over 40 years.
> 
> ...




Maybe  besides lawyering, you feel you have some psychic abilities too?

 I did not see the article, and was first told about the Sherman Act, and how it specifically applied to timeshares a few years back from Mark, over at SFX.

BTW, I don't need to participate in "wanna be lawyering." I have a family full of lawyers, including my husband/Starwood timeshare owner, who give me their advice/opinions on such matters.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

> Capron
> 
> What I am saying is that the SVO contracts that I have seen state that if you own a floating week that Starwood has the right to choose a representative unit and week from the season owned to deposit with the exchange company. (paraphrased from memory, so not exact by any means)That is exactly what they have done with II, they are enforcing their right to select the unit and week.



Capron.....I could be mistaken, but I think you are referring to those who belong to SVN. Many, including myself do not. I do not believe what you're quoting refers to non-SVN owners.

If I am wrong, then please correct me. I would be very interested in this type of info. Thanks!


----------



## jarta (May 28, 2010)

gmarine,   ...   So, what's the case number of the pending suit?  Or, when should we expect one to be filed?

Or, have you given up?  Or, never tried?   ...   eom


----------



## Captron (May 28, 2010)

Ang,

No I am not. It is in the original recording documents that outlines the seasons and weeks that apply. The SVN documents allowed them to deposit a representative week from ANY SVO property. That was the major difference as I saw it.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

Captron said:


> Ang,
> 
> No I am not. It is in the original recording documents that outlines the seasons and weeks that apply. The SVN documents allowed them to deposit a representative week from ANY SVO property. That was the major difference as I saw it.



It says this on your SBP recording documents? BTW, do you have the ability to reserve your deeded week 24 months in advance? 

Also, was your week purchased before or after Sheraton took over SBP?

Thanks!


----------



## Ken555 (May 28, 2010)

jarta said:


> gmarine,   ...   So, what's the case number of the pending suit?  Or, when should we expect one to be filed?
> 
> Or, have you given up?  Or, never tried?   ...   eom



I'm not gmarine, but your antagonistic style must change or even I will put you on my block list. There is no call for you to have written "Or, never tried?", and it's insulting to all of us as it detracts from this being a positive forum to frequent. No reply needed, Jim, just change your style, please.


----------



## Captron (May 28, 2010)

Ang,

I purchased SBP pre-construction loooong before Starwood was involved. I am referring to SVR's newer documents (as I owned there long before Starwood too). My SBP has since been rolled into SVN so no I can not as part of that agreement. Prior to that and if I were to terminate the SVN agreement I could reserve at 24 months.


----------



## gmarine (May 28, 2010)

jarta said:


> gmarine,   ...   So, what's the case number of the pending suit?  Or, when should we expect one to be filed?
> 
> Or, have you given up?  Or, never tried?   ...   eom



Your usual post which includes nothing other than you pretending you know something when you dont.

We?  Please dont ever include me in anything to do with you.


----------



## GrayFal (May 28, 2010)

Captron said:


> Ang,
> 
> No I am not. It is in the original recording documents that outlines the seasons and weeks that apply. The SVN documents allowed them to deposit a representative week from ANY SVO property. That was the major difference as I saw it.


It is not in mine - I have the printout from mystarcentral right in  front of me

SBP FAQs
*What if I am unsure of my vacation plans?*

If you aren't sure of when or where you would like to vacation during your Reservation Window, you should take action to reserve a 7-day Vacation Period and deposit it with your external trade company. If you are a member of an external exchange company, you can carry your 7-day Vacation Period forward which will ensure that you will not lose the use of your Vacation Period for that year."


ArtsieAng said:


> It says this on your SBP recording documents? BTW, do you have the ability to reserve your deeded week 24 months in advance?
> 
> Also, was your week purchased before or after Sheraton took over SBP?
> 
> Thanks!


My deeds originally are from "Vistana"
I have a "Fixed Week Preference Period" (24 months until 12 month 1 day) and a "Floating Use Period" as per mystarcentral section "Your Annual Ownership Interests"
I also have the option of "Split Vacation Periods" - staying 3 days and 4 days during the calendar year.



Ken555 said:


> I'm not gmarine, but your antagonistic style must change or even I will put you on my block list. There is no call for you to have written "Or, never tried?", and it's insulting to all of us as it detracts from this being a positive forum to frequent. No reply needed, Jim, just change your style, please.



Thank you Ken, it is nice to see a gentlemen posting here.


----------



## gmarine (May 28, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> I'm not gmarine, but your antagonistic style must change or even I will put you on my block list. There is no call for you to have written "Or, never tried?", and it's insulting to all of us as it detracts from this being a positive forum to frequent. No reply needed, Jim, just change your style, please.



I should have put him on my block list long ago. Now that you reminded me, I have gotten rid of him. Thank you.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 28, 2010)

gmarine said:


> Usually Cindi posts accurate info however in this case her information is not accurate nor up to date.



Yes, and I sure put my foot in my mouth.  I am sorry, George.  

And who cares what Jarta says!  I don't care at all.  He told me via PM that SBP is probably no longer going to be with Starwood.  Hooray!  I hope that comes true.


----------



## GrayFal (May 28, 2010)

Captron said:


> Ang,
> 
> I purchased SBP pre-construction loooong before Starwood was involved.* I am referring to SVR's newer documents *(as I owned there long before Starwood too). *My SBP has since been rolled into SVN so no I can not as part of that agreement*. Prior to that and if I were to terminate the SVN agreement I could reserve at 24 months.


Captron, this is the point Angela and many others are making - we did not join/belong to the SVN where you agreed to these conditions....our contention is that the original rules/agreement stands as we did not agree to a change of our usage by joining SVN and agreeing to those terms.
JMHO


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

GrayFal



> It's not in mine  - I have the printout from mystarcentral right in front of me.
> 
> My deeds originally are from "Vistana"
> 
> ...





You and I have the same deeded rights. It appears that some may differ from ours.


----------



## ArtsieAng (May 28, 2010)

Captron said:


> Ang,
> 
> I purchased SBP pre-construction loooong before Starwood was involved. I am referring to SVR's newer documents (as I owned there long before Starwood too). My SBP has since been rolled into SVN so no I can not as part of that agreement. Prior to that and if I were to terminate the SVN agreement I could reserve at 24 months.



The thing is that not all SBP owners have that in their documents. It seems that some do while others don't.  I'm guessing that those that purchased pre-Starwood and never converted, do not.


----------



## gmarine (May 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Yes, and I sure put my foot in my mouth.  I am sorry, George.
> 
> And who cares what Jarta says!  I don't care at all.  He told me via PM that SBP is probably no longer going to be with Starwood.  Hooray!  I hope that comes true.



No worries Cindy. I havent updated anyone in a while.

And unfortunately Jarta is wrong as he usually is.


----------



## jarta (May 28, 2010)

Ken,   ...   If there clearly are owners rights that have been violated, where's the suit challenging what is happening?

Pardon my aggressiveness, but I think everyone's been spewing self-serving misinformation the last year.  Where's the suit?   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (May 28, 2010)

#1 - Everyone - Please attack the ISSUES, not other posters.

#2 - jarta - seriously?  Do you really think that anyone here is going to share confidential info. with you?  You burned that bridge long ago...


*Any further personal attacks, name calling, or off topic posts will be deleted, and/or this thread will be closed.*


----------



## Ken555 (May 28, 2010)

Just waiting for Denise to close yet another thread due to childish behavior. What a shame it is that this forum is getting so distracted from its intended purpose.


----------



## alexadeparis (May 29, 2010)

I have an pga platinum unit that appears to have suffered a loss in trading power, more than what is warranted just by the virtue of averaging the trading power for the weeks in that season, so I sympathize with the op. 

From what I have read here, it seems that none of the moves recently made by either II or starwood (or any combination thereof) are actionable in a court of law. Believe me when I tell you that any major changes to a fundamental aspect of a business model are going to be thoroughly vetted before implementation. Starwood's lawyers would have done all the necessary background work to ensure they were not leaving themselves open to any palpable liability.

The changes may not seem fair to us users that know how to work the system well, but for the average person there probably has been no difference or perhaps an improvement to their trading power.

Jarta may have his own unique way of expressing things, but his underlying point is a valid one. If there was any actionable claim to a loss of a deeded right (I.e. One that was not subject to change by starwood at any time) there would be a suit in the works. As of yet, no one has made a clear case that there is truly some breach of contract going on here, and I am not convinced that there is. 

Bottom line, if starwood can benefit themselves without running afoul of the law, by adjusting trade power within the constraints of their existing agreements, they will (and apparently did) do so. 

I will risk flaming by saying that perhaps some individuals, who are convinced that jarta is some sort of villain, read more into his posts than what is actually there. This has been a common tangent on many a starwood thread. Yes, I agree his style is a bit confrontational, but that is the nature of his profession. He posts like that all the time, that just seems to be his way. I tend to read his posts in a more neutral manner, or maybe I just have thick skin, who knows? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there are also those on this board that are more than willing to jump right into the fray and give as good as they get. How boring this board would be if everyone agreed all the time. They're just words on a page,people! Feel free to read them, or not. There is more than this bs to worry about, like the BP oil spill or terrorism.


----------



## jarta (May 29, 2010)

[Post deleted - violation of TUG Posting rules]



> Honor changes entered by moderators
> You may not alter, edit, or delete any edits introduced into your message by a Moderator or Administrator. This is considered a serious offense and may result in loss of posting privileges.
> 
> *In addition, do not enter complaints about moderation into BBS messages. Such posts will be considered off-topic and will be removed. Any such complaints or discussion should be communicated to the bbs staff directly via email or personal message.*



[Per the 2nd paragraph above, if you have any complaints, please contact TUG Owner, TUGBrian. - DeniseM]


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (May 29, 2010)

alexadeparis said:


> ...Believe me when I tell you that any major changes to a fundamental aspect of a business model are going to be thoroughly vetted before implementation. Starwood's lawyers would have done all the necessary background work to ensure they were not leaving themselves open to any palpable liability...



By this reasoning, we should never (or seldom) see lawsuit payments by the corporations as a result to their bad deeds or practices in this country. And we all know that is not true. 

The reasoning sounds good on the paper though!


----------



## Ken555 (May 29, 2010)

jarta said:


> Ken555,   ...   "this forum is getting so distracted from its intended purpose."
> 
> Isn't this the intended purpose of this forum
> [...]
> ...



It's not the content of your posts that I and others question, but the manner in which you present your opinion. Learn restraint and courtesy, and you'll get along with everyone just fine, even with a minority viewpoint. Most lawyers I know understand this distinction, so I'm surprised you're having such a hard time fitting in here. Stop trying to twist posts into meaning something the poster didn't intend, even if they incorrectly worded their statement. Present your opinion in a courteous manner and you'll get thoughtful replies with the same courtesy. Ridicule and insult and you'll get banned or ignored.

Denise, if this crosses the line please go ahead and delete.


----------



## alexadeparis (May 29, 2010)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> By this reasoning, we should never (or seldom) see lawsuit payments by the corporations as a result to their bad deeds or practices in this country. And we all know that is not true.
> 
> The reasoning sounds good on the paper though!



Note Earlier that I said "palpable liability". Yes, some class actions are brought against corporations, and they have to change their practices, but at the end of the day, what does the individual that has been wronged receive? Usually the answer is next to nothing. And the reason for that is because whatever wrong has been done is usually in a gray area where the issue could go either way, and of course the corporation adopted the interpretation that best served their own interests.

No corporation is going to knowingly adopt a stance that is blatantly and indefensibly illegal. (Unless they want to increase their budget line item for outside counsel by 1000%). But will they play the angles on something that is subject to interpretation and not clearly one way or the other? Of course. They do it all the time.


----------



## RLG (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm the OP and I realized I should update this thread with more recent trading results.  I'm still not happy that SVO and II changed what wasn't broken.  However, I was far too pessimistic about the trading power of Broadway Plantation in my original post.

Shortly after creating this thread, I followed the advice I received here and put in an ongoing search using my SBP silver 2br.  Amazingly, it only took a few weeks until I got a 2br at Westin Ka'anapali starting the Friday of Labor Day weekend.  I'll be there in a few weeks.

It looks like the SBP weeks are still incredible Starwood traders.

BTW, I remembered this thread because I checked to see what I had traded this week for since I'm offering to give it away on the "Bargain Deals" forum:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=969528#post969528


----------



## Fredm (Aug 16, 2010)

RLG said:


> Shortly after creating this thread, I followed the advice I received here and put in an ongoing search using my SBP silver 2br.  Amazingly, it only took a few weeks until I got a 2br at Westin Ka'anapali starting the Friday of Labor Day weekend.  I'll be there in a few weeks.
> 
> It looks like the SBP weeks are still incredible Starwood traders.



Congrats! Nice trade.

I think you will find that all Starwood resorts are good I.I. traders


----------



## krj9999 (Aug 16, 2010)

We'll be checking in at WKORV-N Saturday going into Labor Day weekend as well.
 


RLG said:


> I'm the OP and I realized I should update this thread with more recent trading results.  I'm still not happy that SVO and II changed what wasn't broken.  However, I was far too pessimistic about the trading power of Broadway Plantation in my original post.
> 
> Shortly after creating this thread, I followed the advice I received here and put in an ongoing search using my SBP silver 2br.  Amazingly, it only took a few weeks until I got a 2br at Westin Ka'anapali starting the Friday of Labor Day weekend.  I'll be there in a few weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## vacationtime1 (Aug 16, 2010)

We traded our one bedroom SBP into WKORVN twice (studio & 2 bd) and into WPORV once (2 bd); all of these trades were for 2010.

We traded our two bedroom SBP into WKORVN once this year; we got a 2 bd. ocean front unit in exchange.

SBP is under-appreciated.


----------



## jarta (Aug 16, 2010)

From the recent posts here, maybe the name of this thread should be changed 

from "Starwood and II have destroyed trading value of Broadway Plantation" 

to "Starwood and II have *not* destroyed trading value of Broadway Plantation."   ...   eom


----------

