# Question On Reserving At Home Resort



## AbelowDS (Mar 31, 2013)

I am sure this has been covered over and over again, but I've read the stickies in this and other forums and searched the site and didn't find it.

To make a reservation for next year - at your home resort - do the maintenance fees for next year have to be pre-paid?


----------



## Talent312 (Mar 31, 2013)

Typically, no. But if you become delinquent you can be locked out.
At some places, only if you want to trade next year's stay, next year's fees must be paid.
.
.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 31, 2013)

It depends on the resort. Sheraton Broadway Plantation and Sheraton Desert Oasis both do require fees to be paid. The only resort I own that doesnt require this is Marriott Manor Club.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 31, 2013)

I would say, typically yes, fees have to be paid before you make a reservation, at least thats the case with the weeks I own

Wyndham and Worldmark,points systems,  however,  dont work that way. I pay my fees monthly, (so I havent even paid all I owe for this year, and I can make reservations as much as 13 months in advance


----------



## VegasBella (Mar 31, 2013)

This should be spelled out in the owner's booklet. At my resorts, yes.


----------



## AbelowDS (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks, I'll check the OA docs.  Kinda sucks since if you want to use the 12-month reservation window, there is one year where you're going to get hit with 2 maintenance fees. 

Imagine it's December 2013, and I want a reservation for January 2015.  I have to pay the 2014 fees and the 2015 fees at the same time. Granted, My next fees are not due until 2016, but it's still a double whammy all at once...


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 31, 2013)

Is this a Starwood questions?  The rules vary from resort to resort, even in the same system.  When the MF is due is not set in stone.  This is something that the BOD can and does change.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 31, 2013)

AbelowDS said:


> Thanks, I'll check the OA docs.  Kinda sucks since if you want to use the 12-month reservation window, there is one year where you're going to get hit with 2 maintenance fees.
> 
> Imagine it's December 2013, and I want a reservation for January 2015.  I have to pay the 2014 fees and the 2015 fees at the same time. Granted, My next fees are not due until 2016, but it's still a double whammy all at once...



But imagine if you wait...you may not get the date you want..as they say...you have to pay to play..and as you say...no fees until 2016


----------



## AbelowDS (Mar 31, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Is this a Starwood questions?  The rules vary from resort to resort, even in the same system.  When the MF is due is not set in stone.  This is something that the BOD can and does change.



Yes, all I own are SVO resorts



DeniseM said:


> Is this a Starwood questions?  The rules vary from resort to resort, even in the same system.  When the MF is due is not set in stone.  This is something that the BOD can and does change.



Thanks. Will check the docs for each of my properties.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 31, 2013)

The best place for Starwood questions is the Starwood forum, because each system has their own rules, so I will move your post there.

This isn't going to be in the Docs for your resort - it's a BOD decision that can change - it isn't set in stone.

In the last few years, we have seen many BOD's make the rules stricter about paying MF's to be sure that owners can't use their ownership before they pay, so it can change over time.


----------



## grgs (Mar 31, 2013)

With SDO, you have to pre-pay mf if you're going to deposit your week with an exchange company.  If you're reserving at SDO, you shouldn't need to pre-pay.  I just made my March 2014 reservations and didn't have to pre-pay.  My SDO weeks are in SVN, though.  That might make a difference.

Here's the TUG thread from last year when the new policy went into place:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167562

Glorian


----------



## sjsharkie (Mar 31, 2013)

grgs said:


> With SDO, you have to pre-pay mf if you're going to deposit your week with an exchange company.  If you're reserving at SDO, you shouldn't need to pre-pay.  I just made my March 2014 reservations and didn't have to pre-pay.  My SDO weeks are in SVN, though.  That might make a difference.
> 
> Here's the TUG thread from last year when the new policy went into place:
> 
> ...



I can confirm Glorian's experience and my SDO weeks are not in SVN.  I already made a reservation for next year as well.

-ryan


----------



## beachlynn (Apr 6, 2013)

I have already posted, rented out and been paid for my Princeville villa for next Feb. and my MF's aren't due until 1/2014. I have rented out my WKORVN for this August and those MF's are due in Dec. I think. I might pay them early to be done with it. But I certainly don't have to. 
Things must be picking up. I have also been contacted about my Maui unit for next March. I am pretty happy.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 6, 2013)

For my SVO TS weeks (aka VOI) - WKORV, WPORV, WKV, and WSJ - you do not have to prepay MFs a year in advance to make a reservation (if this is what you are asking) - for example - I have reserved WKV next March and WSJ in 2014 but will not have to pay MFs until they are due (usually early Jan 2014).


----------



## grgs (Apr 6, 2013)

beachlynn said:


> I have already posted, rented out and been paid for my Princeville villa for next Feb. and my MF's aren't due until 1/2014.



If you don't mind saying, how much were you able to rent out your WPORV unit for?  Just curious.

Thanks,

Glorian


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 6, 2013)

grgs said:


> If you don't mind saying, how much were you able to rent out your WPORV unit for?  Just curious.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Glorian



Glorian,
Some questions are best ask via a PM or an email ...FYI


----------



## scootr5 (Apr 6, 2013)

AbelowDS said:


> I am sure this has been covered over and over again, but I've read the stickies in this and other forums and searched the site and didn't find it.
> 
> To make a reservation for next year - at your home resort - do the maintenance fees for next year have to be pre-paid?



In 2012 Broadway Plantation started requiring MF to be paid prior to reserving. I was able to reserve a 2012 week in 2011 without paying them, but had to pay in 2012 to reserve 2013.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 6, 2013)

beachlynn said:


> I have rented out my WKORVN for this August and those MF's are due in Dec.



Your WKORVN MFs for 2013 should have been due in/by Jan 2013 - how would your 2013 fees (used for the WKORVN August 2013 rental) be due in Dec?  Did you mean Dec 2012?

I am also curious on what rental price you got for WPORV - I have no plans to rent as we use our EOY WPORV, but curious.  Not sure why it is better to share via PM, but can do if that would be better.

I am in the process of renting our WKORV OFD studio that is reserved for 4th of July week - it was getting close to the 60-day period.  I had hits, but no follow through.  Are you using RedWeek, or another rental site?  I use TUG, but only get people looking for exchanges.  RedWeek has been the best.  CraigsList is just too full of scammers, and too much hassle to keep up-to-date.

I was able to rent both 2012 WKV weeks - one was easy and the other not as easy (generally no issue renting these during SpringTraining).

And I always keep the rental price on the low side of spectrum.


----------



## grgs (Apr 6, 2013)

vacationhopeful said:


> Glorian,
> Some questions are best ask via a PM or an email ...FYI



It's perfectly fine if beachlynn doesn't want to state anything publicly (and that's why I started my question with "If you don't mind saying"), but I don't see anything wrong with my asking the question.  Some people don't mind sharing what they get for rentals, and if that's the case, then why not let everyone else have the info, too?  I didn't particularly want to know for myself.  It's just that consensus is WKORV/N weeks have much higher rental demand, and I was curious what a WPORV rental could get.

Glorian


----------



## beachlynn (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't mind saying that I got $2450. It does make me a little sick I get so much less in WPORV. I think , obviously, the issue is there is no close beach and there is no view designation. I mean,  honestly it is so beautiful there. While I like going to the St Regis beach, I like the set up better in Maui.
Sorry, if I messed up the year of the MF's. I am not sure what I just paid for. I know I used to pay mine in Dec and then they changed to Jan ( thank God, as Dec already has property tax and Christmas


----------



## grgs (Apr 9, 2013)

beachlynn said:


> I don't mind saying that I got $2450.



Thanks for the info.  I think that just about covers mf.  Maybe not something you would want to do regularly, but it's nice to have the option.

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 9, 2013)

grgs said:


> Thanks for the info.  I think that just about covers mf.  Maybe not something you would want to do regularly, but it's nice to have the option.
> 
> Glorian



Sadly, the best option to rent WPORV is to use the Staroptions and make a resv. at WKORV or Harborside to rent.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 9, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Sadly, the best option to rent WPORV is to use the Staroptions and make a resv. at WKORV or Harborside to rent.


I'm confused (not hard).  Are you saying use your SOs to make a reservation at WKORV or Harborside and rent that for $$ then use those $$ to rent WPORV?


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 9, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> I'm confused (not hard).  Are you saying use your SOs to make a reservation at WKORV or Harborside and rent that for $$ then use those $$ to rent WPORV?



I was talking about renting out WPORV.  Unfortunately, demand and rental rates are low at WPORV, so it's more profitable for WPORV owners to use their Staroptions, make a Resv. at WKORV or HRA, and rent it - rather than trying to rent a Resv. at WPORV.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 9, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> I was talking about renting out WPORV.  Unfortunately, demand and rental rates are low at WPORV, so it's more profitable for WPORV owners to use their Staroptions, make a Resv. at WKORV or HRA, and rent it - rather than trying to rent a Resv. at WPORV.


Ah, got it!


----------



## grgs (Apr 9, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Sadly, the best option to rent WPORV is to use the Staroptions and make a resv. at WKORV or Harborside to rent.



True, but if Starwood ever enforces their rules (SO reservations for rental are disallowed in the T&C), it would be helpful to know the rental potential for each resort.  

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 9, 2013)

grgs said:


> True, but if Starwood ever enforces their rules (SO reservations for rental are disallowed in the T&C), it would be helpful to know the rental potential for each resort.
> 
> Glorian



The renting potential for WPORV is poor - even with a fixed ocean front unit, there is little demand, and prices are lower than Maui.

I don't think it's the resort, I just think that over-all, there is far more demand for Maui.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

grgs said:


> (SO reservations for rental are disallowed in the T&C)



Hi Glorian -
Interesting, I have never read this before (or heard about this on TUG - actually the opposite), but understood this to be that case for II exchanges. Where in the Owner's Manual (CCRs) does it state that SO reservations cannot be rented?

*added - in looking at the WKORV OM (2010) I found the following in reference to renting:*

Under Section III: StarOptions
3.3 Additional StarOptions. If an SVN Member does not have sufficient StarOptions to make a desired
reservation or access desired SVN benefits during a given Use Year, the SVN Member may Borrow StarOptions
from the next Use Year as set forth in Section 3.5; or, if available, purchase an additional VOI to supplement the
SVN Member's total StarOptions. SVN Members may not be able to rent or buy StarOptions for one-time use.
The assignment or transfer by one SVN Member of the use of the SVN Member's StarOptions to another SVN
Member is prohibited.

4.5 Owner Rental. Before an SVN Member may rent the SVN Member's Vacation Period, the SVN Member
must receive a reservation confirmation for the SVN Member's Vacation Period at the SVN Member’s Home
Resort

Under External Exchange Program (assume this means II or the like)
(7) With the exception of Vacation Periods reserved at the Home Resort, SVN Members are
prohibited from renting to a third party any accommodation

Under Misc provisions
8.2 Club Member Rentals. A Club Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the Club Member’s Home
Resort and rent it on the Club Member's own account. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of
the Resort Documents affecting occupancy, and the renting Club Member will be responsible for the acts or
omissions of the Club Member's renters or any other person or persons permitted by the Club Member to use the
Unit. *Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved
at the SVN Member’s Home Resort) is prohibited.*

So... based on this last section (8.2) - it appears that you are correct - a reservation using StarOptions outside of Home Resort CANNOT be rented (at least according to SVO/SVN)

DeniseM - is it proper that TUG endorse an activity that is not allowed (like renting II exchanges)?

Perhaps the new mantra should be "Buy where you want to go, and where you want to rent"?

thread with response to this question...
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1450756#post1450756


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 9, 2013)

This has been discussed before, going back at least to 2008:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61640&highlight=StarOption+rental

P.S. I've personally done an SO exchange and rented it out, with no issues.  That's not to say that the rules won't change tomorrow, of course.


----------



## grgs (Apr 9, 2013)

It also came up in this thread in February:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1429258

To date, Starwood has not opted to enforce this policy, but presumably it could change as noted by Denise in 2008:



DeniseM said:


> Has anyone ever rented a Staroption week and gotten away with it? - so we've heard.  It would make me nervous, since Starwood could pull the plug on it at any time and leave the owner and the renter in a difficult situation.



If people are going to rent out SO reservations, they should be aware of the above policy.

In the thread Lisa posted above, Pointsjunkie said that she contacted Owner Services, and they said it was ok to rent out an SO reservation.  This was back in 2008, though.

Glorian


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> This has been discussed before, going back at least to 2008:
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61640&highlight=StarOption+rental
> 
> P.S. I've personally done an SO exchange and rented it out, with no issues.  That's not to say that the rules won't change tomorrow, of course.



My mind is getting old - I even posted on the thread, but was focused on the SVO rental portion of it as Tugger LauraS93 got <50% of her MFs back when renting her WSJ villa via SVO.

Certainly, based on the 2010 SVEC (Starwood Vacation Exchange Company - aka SVN) Disclosure Document Sec 8.2 it is not-ambigious, and clearly states that these types of rentals (using non-Home Resort SOs) are prohibited.

Of course - with SVO/SVN reading the Starwood TUG Forum (cat is out of the bag) - see enforcement coming soon... :ignore: 

'Buy where you want to go, and buy where you want to rent'


----------



## grgs (Apr 9, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Of course - with SVO/SVN reading the Starwood TUG Forum (cat is out of the bag) - see enforcement coming soon... :ignore:



I'm not so sure about that (and, yes, I see you have a ).  Enforcement could be complicated.  How do you differentiate between rentals and legitimate reservations made for family & friends?  It may be that it doesn't happen enough to be worth the enforcement hassle.  I don't think there are Starwood mega-renters like you see with other point systems.  I would guess the mf on Starwood units are too high to make it an attractive proposition.


----------



## PamMo (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't think this was an issue during the recession, when resorts were trying to fill empty rooms. Occupancy has gone up with the economy, and banking will definitely increase the competition for high demand resorts (the ones that are always good rentals).

I can definitely see SVN members getting frustrated and complaining about lack of inventory in resorts they've saved up StarOptions to book for personal use. If enough people complain, I suspect Starwood will have to look at enforcing the existing rule prohibiting rental of StarOption exchanges.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

anyway... (man-o-man was that other thread getting to be annoying)

I also wonder as an Owner of SVO resorts that people want to exchange into, or use SOs for potential rentals - how this may affect my resort value and ownership? Especially, as Pam points out, as people start banking SOs and then making non-Home Resort reservations using SOs, and then renting.  I haven't gotten my mind around this, but I can see it as a potential issue. Perhaps not, but may be a worthwhile (constructive) discussion.

I can certainly see the benefit for those with SOs from low MF resorts that are not profitable or negative rentals.  I guess from the other standpoint (as a Home Resort owner) it doesn't matter anymore than the issue of renters in general (not unlike SVO/SVN renting the weeks) in the lack of pride in ownership (as in 'who cares' it ain't my place...) - but that already goes on...

As to Glorian's point about regulation - I do not see it as that hard to control by SVO/SVN - because they know when it is a non-home resort SVN use of SOs, and can easily inquire upon reservation if this for rental purposes (as it is part of the Owner's Manual) especially when the name on the reservation is not same as the SVN member.  Of course, one could lie and say it is not a rental, but that does open oneself to knowingly violating the T&Cs of their agreement (much liek I hear that II does...) and deny usage.

I am not looking for an argument, and already made the point of TUG's somewhat hypocritical response when discussing renting an II exchange or a SO rental (regardless of enforcement) - just curious what other reasonable Tuggers opinions are onthis topic?

Oh yeah - it was good to know what beachlynn's rental was for WPORV - getting the MFs back isn't the worse that could happen. Thanks.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 9, 2013)

Dave - In what universe would DeniseM preach the Starwood Party Line?

I didn't drink the Kool-aide!  

However, please do not call my opinions and experiences "TUG" policies.

No one but Brian Rogers creates TUG Policies.


----------



## grgs (Apr 9, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> As to Glorian's point about regulation - I do not see it as that hard to control by SVO/SVN - because they know when it is a non-home resort SVN use of SOs, and can easily inquire upon reservation if this for rental purposes (as it is part of the Owner's Manual) especially when the name on the reservation is not same as the SVN member.  Of course, one could lie and say it is not a rental, but that does open oneself to knowingly violating the T&Cs of their agreement (much liek I hear that II does...) and deny usage.



Then it will take even more time to get through the reservation process. 

I think some people would lie.  Then what?  Does Starwood check with the renter?



PamMo said:


> I can definitely see SVN members getting frustrated and complaining about lack of inventory in resorts they've saved up StarOptions to book for personal use. If enough people complain, I suspect Starwood will have to look at enforcing the existing rule prohibiting rental of StarOption exchanges.



I would guess that Starwood doesn't have an issue with SO rentals at this point.  I agree with Pam that if owner complaints were to grow about lack of inventory, Starwood might look for ways to enforce the rule.  

I'm not sure if we'll get there or not--time will tell. Again, I suspect that the relatively high costs of Starwood ownership does not encourage mega-renters.  I would be curious to find out if others agree with me or not on that point.

Glorian


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Dave - In what universe would DeniseM preach the Starwood Party Line?
> 
> I didn't drink the Kool-aide!
> 
> ...



Really? Well since you called me on this...
I never said TUG policy (nor anything about SVO party-line - where the heck does that come from?).  I know there is no TUG policy regarding this topic, or renting II exchanges for that matter. I did incorrectly use endorsement (which is not totaly incorrect) - which I restated. As I write quickly - I am sorry if my words/meanings are not perfect.

I made my point as clear as can be - AGAIN - when someone discusses renting II - the TUG collective seems to come immediately and in force to warn about doing this as it is wrong and against II rules.  Well... it turns out that it is also also against SVN rules to rent out SVN SOs. Yet, I think that easily >90% of people here did not know this especially when it is often stated here (especially recently) to use renting SVN SOs as a tactic to offset MFs (etc).  Other than a couple of posts that mentioned this last year and in 2008 (?) - this was certainly not well-known (at least by me - why woul dI have looked it up?) and certainly not well-messaged - regardless if it is enforced or not.

While I realize that you do not create TUG policies - many people (including me) on TUG listen closely to your advice as both a TUG Moderator (thus representing TUG whether true or not - it is perceived that way) and often has great and invaluable advice to share . However, in this instance since you have a vested interest in renting SOs it can easily be perceived (whether true or not) as not being as forthcoming as perhaps you should be with this topic. 

It has nothing to do with a SVO party line - it is a fact according to the SVEC Disclosures and it would truly suck if people (renters and rentees) were to get screwed by not being informed of this fact if SVN did start enforcing - instead thinking that there was zero risk because it is being openly messaged on TUG that is perfectly okay - when the risk does exist - albeit apparently quite low.
Is that clear enough?

oh yeah... IMO


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 9, 2013)

Thank you for clarifying.

A gentle suggestion - to me, "TUG" is the website, and "TUG" is Brian Rogers.

If your intention is to post about what TUG *members* advise on this issue, then call them "Tuggers," or TUG members, rather than "TUG."

The way your post was written, I thought you were talking about "TUG policy." 





> TUG's somewhat hypocritical response


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

grgs said:


> Then it will take even more time to get through the reservation process.
> 
> I think some people would lie.  Then what?  Does Starwood check with the renter?
> 
> ...



I was just looking for input/opinion as well - but appears that it is being taken to personal.

Of course, people can lie, but it would certainly deter me if I were to be in the position of SO rentals (which I am not).  I understand II enforces this (at least what I hear on TUG when this topic comes up) and they are a much larger organization - and I understand that it goes on anyway.

As an Owner - I am unsure if this this disregard for the SVO policy impacts me in ways I haven't thought about.  Certainly - people can now profit by buying up cheap SOs and then using then and potentially preventing Owners who intend to actually use their SO benefit of staying at another resort.  It sort of irks me when people blatantly break rules (like children in hot tubs - running in pool area - or littering their cig butts ) - but not sure why - perhaps it is the Eagle Scout in me (or just more grumpy in my old age)?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 9, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Thank you for clarifying.
> 
> A gentle suggestion - to me, "TUG" is the website, and "TUG" is Brian Rogers.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I meant TUG as a collective - sort of like the BORG 
(however, I think my posts were pretty much clear on the topic considering the entire content and responses...)


----------



## PamMo (Apr 9, 2013)

I tend to agree that Starwood doesn't appear to have the mega-renters that some of the other systems (Wyndham, for example) have, but the common wisdom on TUG is to reserve a good week in Hawaii, HRA, or WKV (WSJ is never mentioned because who can ever get a week there with StarOptions?!? ) and rent it out. Perception sometimes trumps reality, and if owners or SVN members start to think "their" vacations are being taken by renters, there are going to be complaints.

TUG members make up a very small portion of Starwood owners, and I don't believe the average owner would ever think of using their developer purchased SDO, SPB, SVR, or other resort StarOptions to book WKORV to rent out. I find TUG members are w-a-y more timeshare savvy and cost conscious than the average owner. If there is a way to recoup MF's for a week that can't be used or traded (and even make some money on it), it's posted on TUG. If renting StarOption exchanges are prohibited, I don't think we should be encouraging it. "It isn't enforced" does not make it OK.


----------



## jarta (Apr 10, 2013)

^^^   You are not making friends here (lol!), but I agree that it is a good idea for TUG posts to admit that rental of StarOption reservations is prohibited - just like rental of II reservations is prohibited.  There is no good reason to post erroneous information on TUG.  However, I see nothing wrong with adding that Starwood is not currently enforcing the prohibition.

II and SVO own the trading "clubs" and get to make the trading rules when a Starwood owner doesn't want to make and utilize a home resort reservation (one at your resort during your fixed week or your float season).  The home resort reservation is guaranteed by the deed.  So, you, by yourself, can do anything with it once you make it - without having Starwood or II involved or squawking about their rules.

StarOption trading and II trading are not guaranteed by the deed.  Big difference!

I also agree that as availability decreases as the economy continues to recover, Starwood will come under pressure from SVN owners at SVO resorts to enforce the prohibition on rental of reservations made with StarOptions.   Salty


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 10, 2013)

Personally, as a former owner at WKORV (where everyone wants to go, but no one wants to actually own because of the high MFs), I don't LIKE that anyone with sufficient SOs can exchange into WKORV and then turn around and rent it.  I think the current ease of exchanging, combined with the high MFs, makes it much less attractive for folks to actually own there.  I think allowing exchangers to game the system is squeezing out SVNers who want to exchange for their personal use, which is a huge selling point to people who buy within networks. Plus, the plethora of rentals is leading to a decline in rental rates for everyone, including owners who are struggling to recapture their high MFs. 

I mean, if an owner who pays $1500/year in MFs can exchange to WKORV, he can rent out a 2 bdrm unit at $2000 and still come out ahead. But $2000 wouldn't even be a break-even point for an owner.  In order to price it competitively, he might actually LOSE money.  Doesn't seem fair.   It also doesn't sit right with me that non-Tuggers aren't privy to the fact that Starwood doesn't enforce this "rule," and therefore might not even attempt it.   Starwood should either formally change the rule, or they need to enforce it.  

Admittedly, this would a rather difficult rule to enforce, but I'd certainly support it.  Being able to rent out your unit should be a privilege reserved for the folks who pay to own there.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2013)

Having slept on this - I totally agree with LisaR in this respect (and others according to PMs who may be apprehensive to speak out as it may bring wrath upon them - my words {sarcasm...}).  Working the system to ones' advantage (within the rules) is one thing, but gaming SO rentals (realizing it is not being enforced) only affects other Owners (legit use of SVN exchanges and Owners looking to rent within the rules) and not SVO - which is why I didn't understand the previous reference to Starwood as this has no affect on SVO/SVN as they get their $$ no matter (and can already rent villas owned by them or obtained via SO-SP conversions).

As mentioned, I do not think it is that hard to enforce - especially if they add language to this aspect on the reservation confirmation.  Renters of villas reserved with non-Home Resort SOs certainly would be apprehensive about doing this if it were on the confirmations.

My opinion, after hearing arguments here TUG (is this correct usage?) and PMs - as someone who rents Home Resort VOIs - the ability of non-Owners to rent out villas (against rules) at my Resort is affecting my ability to maximize my usage (within rules) which I paid a premium to own with MFs highest within SVO.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Apr 10, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Having slept on this - I totally agree with LisaR in this respect (and others according to PMs who may be apprehensive to speak out).  Working the system to ones' advantage (within the rules) is one thing, but gaming SO rentals (realizing it is not being enforced) only affects other Owners (legit use of SVN exchanges and Owners looking to rent within the rules) and not SVO - which is why I didn't understand the previous reference to Starwood as this has no affect on SVO/SVN as they get their $$ no matter (and can already rent villas owned by them or obtained via SO-SP conversions).
> 
> As mentioned, I do not think it is that hard to enforce - especially if they add language to this aspect on the reservation confirmation.  Renters of villas reserved with non-Home Resort SOs certainly would be apprehensive about doing this if it were on the confirmations.
> 
> My opinion, after hearing arguments here TUG (is this correct usage?) and PMs - as someone who rents Home Resort VOIs - the ability of non-Owners to rent out villas (against rules) at my Resort is affecting my ability to maximize my usage (within rules) which I paid a premium to own with MFs highest within SVO.



As with everything and anything in life, there are rules. How strictly we follow them is a matter of the enforcement. I am not saying it is right, but if there is no enforcement by Starwood, they are really saying it is not an issue for them. 

If it is an issue to you, then you should speak to Starwood as an owner who put the money down on buying the unit. I personally think it will be hard to enforce just as II has a difficult time enforcing rentals as well. I think that their would be a big backlash from owners who rent theirs out to recover some of the MF when they can't use it or don't want to use it. Hard to change the game after it has been started. You can't make everyone happy no matter what you do or don't do. Its a no win situation.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 10, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> I think that their would be a big backlash from owners who rent theirs out to recover some of the MF when they can't use it or don't want to use it.



To clarify, we're not talking about prohibiting people who OWN at a particular resort from renting out their unit (to recover their MFs, etc).  Since they are deeded owners, I don't think Starwood can even legally intervene in such rentals, even if they wanted.  

What we're talking about are people who own at OTHER SVN resorts, who use their SOs to exchange into the higher end resorts, only to turn around and rent those weeks out.  For instance, a WKV owner who has much lower MFs ($1800/year?) can currently make a StarOption exchange for a WKORV week, and then rent that week out for a tidy profit.  Or a WKORV owner could use his SOs to exchange into a 3 bdrm unit at HRA during shoulder season, and rent that unit out for a profit.  (Disclaimer: I've done this myself, and may continue to do so until Starwood puts a stop to it.)

I just think that renting is a privilege that should be enjoyed by owners only.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> As with everything and anything in life, there are rules. How strictly we follow them is a matter of the enforcement. I am not saying it is right, but if there is no enforcement by Starwood, they are really saying it is not an issue for them.
> 
> If it is an issue to you, then you should speak to Starwood as an owner who put the money down on buying the unit. I personally think it will be hard to enforce just as II has a difficult time enforcing rentals as well. I think that their would be a big backlash from owners who rent theirs out to recover some of the MF when they can't use it or don't want to use it. Hard to change the game after it has been started. You can't make everyone happy no matter what you do or don't do. Its a no win situation.



Quad - thanks for the input and suggestions.  IMO (yet outside of my field) - I do not think it is that difficult to enforce (or remind...) - however, I also do not think a true on-line reservation system is that difficult (at least after all this time).

Also, I am not so sure that SVO/SVN management is necessarily aware (other than antedotal Owner Services associates phone discussions reported by certain Tuggers - is that correct usage...), or as you stated - realize the potential issue that Home Resort Owners may have - as this would be speculation.

As to enforcement - the amount of villas that this is an issue with is quite small relative to total SVO VOIs.  II's inventory is huge comparatively.  Also SVN controls the reservation system on a relatively easy scale as this is only an issue with SVN Non-home SO rentals (<8 months).  They know who owns and doesn't - so this only impacts these SO rentals types - and just need to look at reservation names outside of Home Owners and 1) inquire, and 2) inform of the SVEC Disclosure as it relates to SO rentals.  The OS associates clearly can identify the Owners-type for the person calling in (as anyone who has called OS knows...).  In addition, a reminder of this SO renting conditions on the email/paper reservation confirmations would make potential renters and people renting out SOs cautious and concerned (I know I would be...).  If enforced, most would look to Home Resort Owner rentals (like me - who pay $$$ for my Home Resorts - upfront and annually) versus a non-Home Resort Owner - and that advantage shifts to me.

It may not only be just me that may have issue with this - like many things in TSing (such as non-resort folks using the BBQs which created an email campaign...) and 'Life' - until there is awareness and concern - things go undone/unchanged.

Thanks again.  I personally welcome any discussion outside of tangential legality/ethical comparison issues which seems to be often discussed on TUG (as a website forum), and likely better on TUG Lounge.  :ignore:


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> To clarify, we're not talking about prohibiting people who OWN at a particular resort from renting out their unit (to recover their MFs, etc).  Since they are deeded owners, I don't think Starwood can even legally intervene in such rentals, even if they wanted.



Correct, this is allowed per terms of the SVEC Disclosures (Sec 8.2) for all 'Club' resorts (SVO/SVN term 'Club' = SVN resorts; SVEC = SVN). It is the non-Home Resort SO Rentals at issue here - as this is prohibited in SVEC Sec 8.2 (and apparently not enforced).


----------



## Quadmaniac (Apr 10, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> To clarify, we're not talking about prohibiting people who OWN at a particular resort from renting out their unit (to recover their MFs, etc).  Since they are deeded owners, I don't think Starwood can even legally intervene in such rentals, even if they wanted.
> 
> What we're talking about are people who own at OTHER SVN resorts, who use their SOs to exchange into the higher end resorts, only to turn around and rent those weeks out.  For instance, a WKV owner who has much lower MFs ($1800/year?) can currently make a StarOption exchange for a WKORV week, and then rent that week out for a tidy profit.  Or a WKORV owner could use his SOs to exchange into a 3 bdrm unit at HRA during shoulder season, and rent that unit out for a profit.  (Disclaimer: I've done this myself, and may continue to do so until Starwood puts a stop to it.)
> 
> I just think that renting is a privilege that should be enjoyed by owners only.



I am aware of that, what I meant was that some people bought resorts with the SOs so they could do that, so it would pose a backlash anyway you slice it was my point.

True that's the way it should be but we always know what should and what does happen are never the same.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Apr 10, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Correct, this is allowed per terms of the SVEC Disclosures (Sec 8.2) for all 'Club' resorts (SVO/SVN term 'Club' = SVN resorts; SVEC = SVN). It is the non-Home Resort SO Rentals at issue here - as this is prohibited in SVEC Sec 8.2 (and apparently not enforced).



If it is a concern to you as an owner, then bring it up to SVN is my suggestion. You have a right to be miffed, I just don't know how much good it will do or if much change will happen to be honest.


----------



## jarta (Apr 10, 2013)

> I personally welcome any discussion outside of tangential legality/ethical comparison issues which seems to be often discussed on TUG (as a website forum)



TUG is a timeshare user's BBS.  It's not a web site forum.  Maybe I personally welcome the comparison issues.  I'm a big boy!  I can sort out the issues and draw my own conclusions.

The ethics and legality of trading for and renting out StarOption reservations is not merely "tangential" to timeshare usage given the consistent advice given to newbies on this forum to buy where the MFs are low and trade elsewhere where the MFs are higher to save money on using or make money (hopefully) on renting.  In fact, IMO, that type of thinking and discussion predominates and overwhelms everything else on this Starwood forum.

I agree with LisaRex that those trading into WKORV/N and HRA and WSJ (with Staroptions *or* using II    from low MF places like SDO and SBP) can undercut the price charged by WKORN/N and HRA and WSJ resort owners seeking to rent out home resort reservations.   Salty


----------



## Quadmaniac (Apr 10, 2013)

jarta said:


> The ethics and legality of trading for and renting out StarOption reservations is not merely "tangential" to timeshare usage given the consistent advice given to newbies on this forum to buy where the MFs are low and trade elsewhere where the MFs are higher to save money on using or make money (hopefully) on renting.  In fact, IMO, that type of thinking and discussion predominates and overwhelms everything else on this Starwood forum.
> 
> I agree with LisaRex that those trading into WKORV/N and HRA and WSJ (with Staroptions *or* using II    from low MF places like SDO and SBP) can undercut the price charged by WKORN/N and HRA and WSJ resort owners seeking to rent out home resort reservations.   Salty



It is what it is and the same correlation/complaint could be made from people who bought from the developer at full price being miffed at people buying resale for a fraction of what they paid to get the exact same product at a much lower entry point. Life is full of inequalities, we didn't create the system, we just work with what we have been given. Like the old saying goes "DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!". Blame Starwood for the flawed system. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

If they're giving me the opportunity, I am not looking a "gift horse in the mouth".


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 10, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> To clarify, we're not talking about prohibiting people who OWN at a particular resort from renting out their unit (to recover their MFs, etc).  Since they are deeded owners, I don't think Starwood can even legally intervene in such rentals, even if they wanted.
> 
> What we're talking about are people who own at OTHER SVN resorts, who use their SOs to exchange into the higher end resorts, only to turn around and rent those weeks out.  For instance, a WKV owner who has much lower MFs ($1800/year?) can currently make a StarOption exchange for a WKORV week, and then rent that week out for a tidy profit.  Or a WKORV owner could use his SOs to exchange into a 3 bdrm unit at HRA during shoulder season, and rent that unit out for a profit.  (Disclaimer: I've done this myself, and may continue to do so until Starwood puts a stop to it.)
> 
> I just think that renting is a privilege that should be enjoyed by owners only.


I think you have picked the only possible arbitrage opportunity in the system at present.  This is not an arb opportunity that has particular upside though.  After all WKV is #11 in the TUG top 30.  Looking to Redweek which seems to have a more active WKV rental listing it looks like you can get about $1400-$1700 a side ($3k for the unit though two separate rentals seems to be the way to go) for the WKV booking Spring Training which if you pull that off gets you more than double your MF and you can book that 12 months out.

Also, as others have said, the cost of getting into 148k points at WKV means you are not really doing this as a rental business, you would be putting up a lot of upfront capital.  To do it with less up front you would be buying 81k weeks and doubling the MF bill so ending up about a wash.

This all said, based on the current platinum plus purchase price this is a 7-10% ROCE which is not bad in the current environment.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 10, 2013)

jarta said:


> I agree with LisaRex that those trading into WKORV/N and HRA and WSJ (with Staroptions *or* using II    from low MF places like SDO and SBP) can undercut the price charged by WKORN/N and HRA and WSJ resort owners seeking to rent out home resort reservations.   Salty


But if you have SOs at SBP or SDO then you retroed or bought retail.  Either way your cost of buying those points is really high!  For SBP the most SO you would have is 125,000 (3Br LO Plat Plus - which probably has a good summer resale price in MB, SC) so not enough for WKORV.
SDO True Plat Plus comes with 148k points when developer purchased but so do hens teeth.
The other Mandatory is Bella or Key West which again even for the 3Br LO only come with 139,700 points (and I would imagine a fairly steep MF considering the square footage) so not an easy trade into WKORV, though this and the SBP 3Brd could get a shoulder 3bed in WSJ.

It would seem the points system itself actually encourages home resort booking as opposed to arbitrage if you are a single week owner


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2013)

jarta said:


> TUG is a timeshare user's BBS.  It's not a web site forum.



Very few people use the term "BBS" any longer. Forum is much more common. In all practical aspects, they mean the same thing.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2013)

FWIW, I agree with David and Lisa. It would be nice if II and SVN actually enforced their own rules and policies, not just those they want to enforce (oh wait...that's just like many governments...). However, given the choice I'd rather SVN focus their efforts on providing us the online reservation system promised since 2005.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2013)

SH - as an owner of WKV Plat - this may potentialy impact (perhaps positively or negatively).  Meaning if you choose to ever rent your WKV VOI, you may be potentially be competing with those non-WKV Owners than may choose to use their SO (alone, combined, banked) that may have cost them less (e.g. purchase and MF) to reserve WKV (e.g. during Spring Break) and then rent it (against documented T&Cs) - thus creating more supply (this downward price pressure based on my limited knowledge of macroeconomics - even though I aced Econ in college) and competing with your rental in a negative fashion.

However, if you were to choose to use your WKV SOs to make a reservation at WKORV/N to maximize your 'profit' - then SVN actively prohibiting this activity (as their right) may negatively impact you as well.  However, as a owner of WKORV/N who rents all/part of their WKORV/N, then you may another view on this.

Regardless, as it is supposedly prohibited by SVN and as an Owner affected by this practice - I/we have the right to speak up if we so choose, and actually allowed to get SVN to enforce the T&Cs that they wrote and we signed up for.  Of course, it may be one of those 'be careful what you wish for..." situations - but SVEC should either change their documented position on this or enforce it.  This could be a legal concern for SVO/SVN - especially if persued by Owners who wish to enforce their contract with SVO/SVN.

"ain't this a predictament" - as Curly would say...

Ken - have I mention how great my OFD views are?... :hysterical:


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> FWIW, I agree with David and Lisa. It would be nice if II and SVN actually enforced their own rules and policies, not just those they want to enforce (oh wait...that's just like many governments...). However, given the choice I'd rather SVN focus their efforts on providing us the online reservation system promised since 2005.



These types of 'false' dichotomies seem to be prevalent nowadays (e.g. you are either for us or against us...) - however, you can have both, and not just one or the other. My opinion is that a online reservation system may actually help enforcment (i.e. click on a button that you agree to the T&Cs like normally performed for online requests)


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 10, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> SH - as an owner of WKV Plat - this may potentialy impact (perhaps positively or negatively).  Meaning if you choose to ever rent your WKV VOI, you may be potentially be competing with those non-WKV Owners than may choose to use their SO (alone, combined, banked) that may have cost them less (e.g. purchase and MF) to reserve WKV (e.g. during Spring Break) and then rent it (against documented T&Cs) - thus creating more supply (this downward price pressure based on my limited knowledge of macroeconomics - even though I aced Econ in college) and competing with your rental in a negative fashion.
> 
> Ken - have I mention how great my OFD views are?... :hysterical:


I concur.  For what I imagine is the 'average' SVOwner who has one week somewhere in the system at retail pricing the opportunities for these arb opportuities are limited and the cost / benefit goes down as you start paying to bank StarOptions from year to year to get to the 148k or 125k points you need for the specific week for the arb opportunity.  You also need to factor in the personal time cost of this process.

I'm guessing that while some of the posters in this thread can sheepishly raise their hand and admit guilty to this the 'average' user is thinking more about where they are going to use their week or renting at home resort, not banking one years points into the next year (and thus paying out the MF and bank fee in yr 1) to rent Spring training at WKV the next year for a higher rental than two single rental at their own resort.  Or taking their 2 bed 81k and rolling into a 1bed at WKV etc.  I also have 4 months of home field advantage. 

Most users are more likely to be doing that to get themselves out of SBP to WKORV for a more exotic vacation.

I would love to know some SVO stats such as 
1) how many SVI are retail and how many are resale.
2) how many SO rentals vs buy where you go rentals
3) how many SO rentals use combined points to expand opportunities
4) how many SVI pay MF and don't use
I think we would all be surprised at some of those numbers.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

Interesting... (at least to a few I am sure)

Not to re-iterate fully - SO Rentals (non-Home Resort) are prohibited by SVN Disclosure Docs (sec 8.2) and apparently is not enforcing

So... in the entire Owners Manual (that all owners and SVO/SVN agree to per contract) - SO Rentals is the only item I could find that is not strictly adhered to by SVO/SVN as executors of the conditions in the contract (sorry, not an attorney - so I hope you get my drift...). 

Since they are expected (and I believe required) to uphold the contract (as they do for everything else) - this opens an interesting conundrum.

If they knowingly allow this prohibited activity they can be held accountable by Owners of the resort(s) affected by this.  Essentially (as discussed) allows non-Home resort Owners an advantage over the Home Resort Owners my renting out VOIs at a resort they do not own. With HomeResort Owners paying higher MFs per SO than owners at other resorts - this may make some Owners unhappy (whether or not it is profitable has nothing to do with this issue) 

So - I can just imagine what SVO/SVNs Legal Dept are going to think about this?  I can just imagine what my corporation's Legal Dept would say or do...

In my naive view - SVO/SVN will either have to change Sec 8.2, or enforce this condition of the contract.  If they don't enforce  - some informed Owners could challenge them legally on this activity (I would imagine).  If they change the contract - I guess they can use their semi-secret majority vote and change it, but Owners may be able to request the HOA be informed as most owners are not likely aware (or care?) of the consequences of changing the contract that they signed - and what about past activities?

Interesting... (just me?)
I wonder what the professionals have to say?


----------



## jarta (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Interesting... (at least to a few I am sure)
> 
> Not to re-iterate fully - SO Rentals (non-Home Resort) are prohibited by SVN Disclosure Docs (sec 8.2) and apparently is not enforcing
> 
> ...



Stick to science.  lol!   Salty


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Since they are expected (and I believe required) to uphold the contract (as they do for everything else) - this opens an interesting conundrum.



Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney although I do watch a lot of law TV shows 

However, just because they have a right to enforce something in the contract doesn't mean that they have to enforce it.  I work in software, and there are tons of things in the contracts that I come across which are not enforced -- it's up to the company's discretion whether or not to enforce those things unless otherwise stated in the contract.

-ryan


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney although I do watch a lot of law TV shows
> 
> However, just because they have a right to enforce something in the contract doesn't mean that they have to enforce it.  I work in software, and there are tons of things in the contracts that I come across which are not enforced -- it's up to the company's discretion whether or not to enforce those things unless otherwise stated in the contract.
> 
> -ryan



I do not even watch TV law shows...

I do not know if software is the the same as Real estate (e.g. pirating is frowned upon), but as I tried to express - it is the Owners can hold them accountable fo renforcement I would imagine.  (like paying full-freight for a software program and then finding out the same company is allowed cheaper pirated versions to be sold and used...)

I guess what irks me (and silent others btw) - is that someone can pick-up cheap SOs (and even cheaper resale) - and then use (abuse) their privledge in reserving a resort they do not own and renting it (regardless if it is profitable or not).  This does not 'stick it' to SVO - it sticks it (IMO) to the owners of that resort who paid a premium to buy (esp full-freight) and annually maintain the HOA.  And, btw, it turns out to be expressly prohibited (unique instance in the contract as I read it.)

far from expert opinion by me...


----------



## jarta (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I do not even watch TV law shows...
> 
> I do not know if software is the the same as Real estate (e.g. pirating is frowned upon), but as I tried to express - it is the Owners can hold them accountable fo renforcement I would imagine.  (like paying full-freight for a software program and then finding out the same company is allowed cheaper pirated versions to be sold and used...)
> 
> ...



You are right to be irked.  How about your firm inventing magic pills for those who pick-up cheap SOs?  lol!

However, the only way to pick up cheap SOs is to buy a resale mandatory week.  The advice here is to buy Plat WKV for trading.  It has the cheapest SO/MF ratio.  

Are you against that?  I thought you bought your WKV week resale?  lol!  I guess the ethics here on TUG are getting really complicated.     Salty


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I guess what irks me (and silent others btw) - is that someone can pick-up cheap SOs (and even cheaper resale) - and then use (abuse) their privledge in reserving a resort they do not own and renting it (regardless if it is profitable or not).  This does not 'stick it' to SVO - it sticks it (IMO) to the owners of that resort who paid a premium to buy (esp full-freight) and annually maintain the HOA.  And, btw, it turns out to be expressly prohibited (unique instance in the contract as I read it.)
> 
> far from expert opinion by me...


I guess I still don't understand where you can pick up these 'cheap StarOptions'.
You either pay little up front, say a grand up front for WKV and get 81k options but then you are paying 1400MF for those 81k of options - each SO is .017/option/yr.  You need two of those to get your 148,100 (and change so that is 2800 you pay a year in MF to have the 162,000/yr) 

WKV Premium Plat is about 16k and up so you can then get your 148,100SO for .009/so.yr

WKROV is how much to buy into these days?  Could you pass ROFR at $16k on an OV?  I'm thinking you are not far off.  Certainly could on a IV.
2600 MF gives you 0.017/mf/yr (same as the Gold WKV but that had no upfront cost).

So if you want to go to or to rent WKORV regularly then the buy where you want to go still stands.  You are calling at 12 months out and have your 4 m window.  If you want to buy a cheap TS and use the SO elsewhere the math does not stack up at an MF level as the MF for the SO to get to WKORV with a cheap buy in or the up.  I'm pretty sure the math on the Bella/KeyWest SVR would be worse because of the higher than WKV MF.  

So in conclusion, where are the cheap SO's?

I'm only focussing on the Mandatory SO properties as anyone paying full fare to keep the good ship SVN afloat has to factor in a massive depreciation of their upfront costs into their annual vacation cost.  Any non mandatory would go through II which we have already noted does try to enforce their no rental rule.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

use HRA as an best example - get 81K SOs somewhere cheap as resale buyer (either by banking or straight-up) with cheap MFs (or a retroed SDO Plat), or owners at V resorts that have SOs with low MFs (SDO Plat) - reserve at 8 months - and then rent it out for $$$ (as some have claimed)

interesting... this is never mentioned as a someone hidden perk for 5* Elite that attained this elite level by using retros and strategic SVO purchases - convert to SOs (no charge) or bank (no charge) - then reserve whatever SOs are not used/converted to rent for profit - and still get benefits of 5*

again - I never said it was a good use of money - nor do I feel 5* (retro or straight-up) is a good use for money (for most people) - but people do and have been renting SOs - sure is eerily silent...


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 12, 2013)

As I said you are now getting well outside your 'average' SVO owner.  I could easily see a 5* pulling some of something like this.  Use your WKORV week to book a week at 12m and see if you can book another one at 8m and rent one of them, especially as you can now confirmed book and request which most can't.  Many 5* talk of renting weeks to cover some of their MF but 5* are not generally concentrated in one resort and seem to own at the top 3 resorts so would usually be renting out a top 3 they own anyway.  You are then in such a comingled world of reservations and SOs what is home field advantage etc.  Again only SVO knows this but I would be surprised if there are many 5* that don't own one of WSJ, HRA or WKORV in their portfolio.  After all you need 4 148k weeks + another 57k SO to get there, you are not getting that level of points with the East Coast resorts.

I'm trying to get my head around your HRA example.  So I'm buying a 2Br Gold LO HRA (which will cost a couple of grand to close) and getting 81kSO.  I thought HRA had higher MF than WKV though.  I still have to have 2 years of this to go to the WKORV and a $99 bank fee.

Retroed SDO, buying the plat cost $3k plus and the Retro requires $20k of new money into SVO so your retro SDO costs as much as your used WKORV or WKV (which has similar MF).  That $20k is dead money has it has no resale value as the retro is lost on your resale.

I still can't find these cheap StarOptions you speak of.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

I appreciate you views - but bottom-line - apparently renting SOs is going on.
I was not speaking to owning HRA and renting SOs to your resort - this is not prohibited.
Back in the day - people were getting to 5* (and PFL) for ~$60K before SVO wised up to certain practices.  It used to be only 551K SOs for 5*/PFL - I think it is 651K SOs now (?).  Regardless - there are 5* elites (I was just using that as an additional benefit who is using their 5* status to rent SOs for brag/justification rights) - and this is an additional benefit.

3 x 2Bd SDO Plat (resale, retro'd) - low MFs 
plus 3 x 2Bd EOY WLR Plat (via SVO, used to retro) - low MF, and relatively cheap SVO-wise
This may do it...?


----------



## PamMo (Apr 12, 2013)

OK, I'll step back into the conversation here. As an owner of high rental value VOI's, I have a stake in this issue.

To try to explain my chagrine with SVO not enforcing the rule about renting only where you own, please try to see my point of view. Earlier in this thread, beachlynn told us she rented her WPORV week for $2,450. DeniseM then posted that the best option would have been to do a SO exchange for WKORV/N or HRA and rent that unit instead. Other than it's against SVO rules, when owners at other resorts constantly target Maui and Harborside to rent, it devalues my ownership by glutting the rental market at those resorts. Right now, RedWeek has 394 rentals for WKORV and WKORVN. (SDO has 28. WKR has 22.) A lot of those rentals have the view classified as "varies", and the people don't seem to know much about the villas or resort, so I suspect they don't own there. Summer 1BR's are listed for just over $2,000, and I can definitely see the allure of trading your 81K SVN unit for a Maui villa rental, and pocketing the change. Besides making it harder to rent my unit, it diminishes the supply of StarOption exchanges available for actual vacationing. The demand for those units is going to increase as people start banking their points this year.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 12, 2013)

I think that all hits on the one rule for them kind of thing.  They have put $60-100+k into the system.  I would imagine the average 5* is timely with MF etc and renting MF, rather than renting a unit then putting an ad up for it would be even harder to detect.

Someone posts a wanted ad here, you respond saying you can fulfil that, decide on a price and make a reservation.  Thing is, if you had a unit at that resort (clearly your SDO&WLR model (though I think the $ is more for MX due to VAT) would show they didn't ) then which one are you staying in and which is your home resort reservation.

I fully see where you are coming from and when I go to SO into WSJ or WKORV etc I don't want to be competing against SO rentals either but unless people get greedy and pervasive it is hard to detect and as the cost of acquiring SOs is not cheap however you look at it you are not likely to run into this kind of scenero.
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1433191


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I do not know if software is the the same as Real estate (e.g. pirating is frowned upon), but as I tried to express - it is the Owners can hold them accountable fo renforcement I would imagine.  (like paying full-freight for a software program and then finding out the same company is allowed cheaper pirated versions to be sold and used...)
> 
> I guess what irks me (and silent others btw) - is that someone can pick-up cheap SOs (and even cheaper resale) - and then use (abuse) their privledge in reserving a resort they do not own and renting it (regardless if it is profitable or not).  This does not 'stick it' to SVO - it sticks it (IMO) to the owners of that resort who paid a premium to buy (esp full-freight) and annually maintain the HOA.  And, btw, it turns out to be expressly prohibited (unique instance in the contract as I read it.)



Again, I am not an expert either.

I can understand you being irked.  But at the end of the day, unless the contract states that SVO that they must enforce and how to enforce, I don't see any way they are breaking the agreement. I agree that there is a provision that prohibits renting the unit, but there is nothing that I have seen that covers required enforcement of the clause.  Or worse (or maybe not), they could say we will enforce it, but enforcement costs $$$ and those will be tacked on to the SVN fees.

I have no skin in the game here since I don't own properties that have SOs.  

-ryan


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 12, 2013)

PamMo said:


> SDO has 28. WKR has 22.


I don't know for sure but if you had run this same analysis in October or Novemeber I am sure you would have found a lot more SDO and WKR weeks as the peak rental time for those is Winter / March - Spring Training.  Summer when the place hits consistent 100+ is when you want to be in Maui.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> Again, I am not an expert either.
> 
> I can understand you being irked.  But at the end of the day, unless the contract states that SVO that they must enforce and how to enforce, I don't see any way they are breaking the agreement. I agree that there is a provision that prohibits renting the unit, but there is nothing that I have seen that covers required enforcement of the clause.  Or worse (or maybe not), they could say we will enforce it, but enforcement costs $$$ and those will be tacked on to the SVN fees.
> 
> ...



hmmm.... good point - except I do not see anywhere in the Owners Manual that SVO/SVN is required to enforce anything - so I perhaps they can pick and choose - especially if Owners do not complain.  Of course, likely >99% of owners are unaware - or do not care - or do not get it.

I posted 2 easy ways to enforce or inform - for example: would you be comfortable renting a villa from someone that made that reservation by renting SOs when it states in the reservation confirmation that this is prohibited?  What about someone who rents SOs still be likely to do so if this were stated?  I know I wouldn't... (btw - I was thinking of doing this for a WKV week - glad I found out even if it isn't enforced - especially because it can be).

Sure - there are ways to buck the system - people do rent II exchanges (even knowing it is prohibited, but II doesn't actually own these resorts like SVO). The TUG collective will instantly state that renting II is not allowed, yet there is apparently a different standard for SO rentals.  Few were aware until glorian (oops!  re-raise this topic and I ran with it to the dismay (I am sure) of some with vested interest - putting me on the 'coal for xmas list' (hoping the topic doesn't gain traction I would gather...).


----------



## PamMo (Apr 12, 2013)

SMHarman, winter/spring training weeks are less than a year out, and could be booked and listed for rent by owners now. But, see below for resorts in season.

Current rentals listed on RedWeek:

Harborside - 367
Sheraton Broadway Plantation - 22
Sheraton Vistana Resort - 64
Sheraton Vistana Villages - 18


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I posted 2 easy ways to enforce or inform - for example: would you be comfortable renting a villa from someone that made that reservation by renting SOs when it states in the reservation confirmation that this is prohibited?  What about someone who rents SOs still be likely to do so if this were stated?  I know I wouldn't... (btw - I was thinking of doing this for a WKV week - glad I found out even if it isn't enforced - especially because it can be).
> 
> Sure - there are ways to buck the system - people do rent II exchanges (even knowing it is prohibited, but II doesn't actually own these resorts like SVO). The TUG collective will instantly state that renting II is not allowed, yet has a different standard for SO rentals.  Few were aware until glorian (oops!  re-raise this topic and I ran with it to the dismay (I am sure) of some with vested interest - putting me on the 'coal for xmas list' (hoping the topic doesn't gain traction I would gather...).



I think the only way this changes if enough owners consider it a problem.  Even the solution you mentioned requires time and effort on SVO's part (they need to decide what statement to write and how it is written, get necessary approvals, put necessary logic into system to print out on any trades/guest certificates, migrate to test, test logic, migrate to production, etc.).  I see very little incentive for them to do this unless there is a risk of brand/PR damage.

Let's be honest -- they can't even get an online reservations system up and running.  There's probably bigger fish to fry on their to-do list.

-ryan


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 12, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I appreciate you views - but bottom-line - apparently renting SOs is going on.
> I was not speaking to owning HRA and renting SOs to your resort - this is not prohibited.
> Back in the day - people were getting to 5* (and PFL) for ~$60K before SVO wised up to certain practices.  It used to be only 551K SOs for 5*/PFL - I think it is 651K SOs now (?).  Regardless - there are 5* elites (I was just using that as an additional benefit who is using their 5* status to rent SOs for brag/justification rights) - and this is an additional benefit.
> 
> ...



might be bad math - but approximately (if you can find the SDO Plat VOIs, and get a salesperson to retro with the EOY WLR purchases) = $75K all said and done

the MFs are ~$4800 per year

~666K SOs for 5* Elite (SVO) and PFL (SPG) and associated benefits and upgrades.

666K will get you 8 weeks for a 1Bd at 81K SOs - that lets estimate to be worth $2200 per rental (and some SO/SP left over) times 8 rentals = $17600 minus $4800 in MFs and that profits about $13,000 - so about 6 years to break even - and still own these VOIs.
And still engourged with the 5* for fee waivers, and PFL benefits for 1st class travel (including the incentive SPs when buying WLR, and buying SPs from SVO to maximize the PFL benefits)

Damn - why didn't I do this when it was just a mere 551K to be 5*/PFL???  
{caveat - likely bad math here... and certainly fuzzy}


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 12, 2013)

PamMo said:


> SMHarman, winter/spring training weeks are less than a year out, and could be booked and listed for rent by owners now. But, see below for resorts in season.
> 
> Current rentals listed on RedWeek:
> 
> ...


Agreed but while TSers think 12 months out the average cubs fan is looking to make that booking in the fall and is currently planning their summer vacation so even if I have made a reservation at WKV or SDO I would not necessarily think about listing it for rent today.


DavidnRobin said:


> might be bad math - but approximately (if you can find the SDO Plat VOIs, and get a salesperson to retro with the EOY WLR purchases) = $75K all said and done
> 
> the MFs are ~$4800 per year
> 
> ...


The math seems about right to me.  That profit includes the work on whoevers part of actually getting those rentals put to bed each year.  It does seem an interesting proposition, especially if you put a WKORV, WSJ or HRA in there with an SDO retro and a using another unit as trade to reduce the capital cost of that transaction.  Especially with the WKORV you also accelerate the breakeven point as you have some residual value in the TS you own.

I also need to add that with $75k of hard cash into this deal, they are not cheap star options


----------



## Mauiwmn (Apr 12, 2013)

*You have cost of 5* too low*

I understand that it can be obtained for $75k but most 5 Star Elites spent much more.  I unfortunately, spent double that 7 years ago to become 5 *. I did not know about TUG, retro or buying resale back then.  Shame on me.  

I know many other 5 Stars that spent full retail as well.  I personally know someone that spent over $200k in 2007.  I do not believe there is a large number of 5 Stars that got in via retro when compared to the entire group.  I believe 5 Stars make up less than 1% of owners and there are around 2000-2500 of us.

I just wanted to get the math back on track.  I own at top tier resorts and I have rented a few weeks via Star Options.  I could rent every week I own via star options every year and I would never break even when you consider upfront costs & MF.

There are no "Retail 5 Stars" in it for the money that is for sure!  You have to love to vacation with your family, love your resorts and require maximum flexibility to invest that much money in Starwood.

I was not aware that renting star options was illegal until I read it is this thread.  
I do not think most owners (5 Star or not) try to abuse or misuse the star options system.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 13, 2013)

Mauiwmn said:


> There are no retail 5 Stars in it for the money that is for sure!



...Except this dude.  It's part of his retirement strategy.  

http://wkorv.com/index.html


----------



## PamMo (Apr 13, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> ...Except this dude.  It's part of his retirement strategy.
> 
> http://wkorv.com/index.html



He definitely owns units in Maui, but in his FAQ's, he says he's interested in buying mandatory SVO units with StarOptions. I'm sure he's figured out that it's more cost effective to use cheaper per point StarOptions to book his rentals in Hawaii and Cancun.


----------



## Mauiwmn (Apr 13, 2013)

I think he is the exception on steroids.  He also appears to be buying resale and not from Starwood directly.  And he does not appear to be a 5 Star.  He does not reference it anywhere in his information.  Thus, to my point he is not a "Retail 5 Star".  

He appears to just be a mega resale buyer with a "retirement strategy".


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 13, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> ...Except this dude.  It's part of his retirement strategy.
> 
> http://wkorv.com/index.html


and if this is his retirement strategy and he has been buying resale over the last decade he is still way down on capital invested.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 13, 2013)

Mauiwmn said:


> Thus, to my point he is not a "Retail 5 Star".



Reading the "About," he bought his first villa pre-construction.  That means he bought from Starwood.  He bought his 2nd in 2004, before resales were even on the market.  He also says he's been a platinum Starwood member since 1991. In the Q&A section, he says, "I can guarantee you an ocean view room if the reservation is made 8 months or more in advance....Since I own so many units, they do a pretty good job of giving me a good room even if I reserve less than 8 months in advance but any request for a better view or certain location, is just that, a request."

That's enough evidence for me.  If it's not for you, then c'est la vie.  The link was actually meant to be tongue-in-cheek because his "investment strategy" always cracked me up.


----------



## Mauiwmn (Apr 13, 2013)

Lisa, I did take your comment about his "investment strategy" as tongue in cheek. 

I was only commenting that he does not state he is 5 Star in his info.  I think he would include this if he were, but maybe not.

He can get better views for his renters simply because he owns so many units in Maui, not necessarily because he is 5 Star.

He also obviously owns a combination of developer (retail) and resale weeks which would be necessary to be a retro 5 Star.


----------



## Mauiwmn (Apr 13, 2013)

*Tom's Reply*

Lisa, you peaked my interest so I emailed Tom & here is his reply:

"Three star actually.  I only bought enough through the developer to get that
status.  The rest was purchased from other owners directly.
Why do you ask?
Tom"


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 13, 2013)

Mauiwmn said:


> "Three star actually."



Well, there you have it.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 13, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> Well, there you have it.


and you would think that it would enhance his retirement strategy to have 5* so he could roll star options at the end of the year etc.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 13, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> and you would think that it would enhance his retirement strategy to have 5* so he could roll star options at the end of the year etc.



I was thinking the exact same thing - it would also help his views.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 13, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing - it would also help his views.



And with a buy one retro one and trade one. He could get there for another $40 Hawaii dollars or with Arizona or Florida dollars do it for $20k and end up with more points.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 14, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing - it would also help his views.



...and the ability to wait list prime weeks.  I mean, I'm not a huge proponent of pursuing elite status for the average TS owner, but in limited circumstances, it makes sense.  

Oh well.  It's not the first time I've been confused by what someone does.  He also said on his Q&A tab that he said he'd buy certain TSs if owners provide financing, so he must not have a lot of liquidity.  Not surprising since he bought the bulk of his first timeshares at the top of the market.

One of the many lessons I've learned here on Tug is to NEVER buy pre- construction, or even within the first 5 years, because inflated developer prices are still influencing resale prices.  No, I'd wait til the dust settles and prices level off.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 14, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> One of the many lessons I've learned here on Tug is to NEVER buy pre- construction, or even within the first 5 years, because inflated developer prices are still influencing resale prices.  No, I'd wait til the dust settles and prices level off.



The more I read, the more buying timeshare is like buying a new or used car. Just with a car it is 20% off the lot. Timeshare is over 50% for quality units.  Even DVC is 120/pt new and 60 or so used.
When the latest revision of a popular car comes out there is often a period of elevated prices on the new model compared to the old.


----------



## Mauiwmn (Apr 14, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> ...and the ability to wait list prime weeks.  I mean, I'm not a huge proponent of pursuing elite status for the average TS owner, but in limited circumstances, it makes sense.
> 
> One of the many lessons I've learned here on Tug is to NEVER buy pre- construction, or even within the first 5 years, because inflated developer prices are still influencing resale prices.  No, I'd wait til the dust settles and prices level off.



Amen to both points.

I agree that 5 Star status for Tom would be very helpful.  Wait listing can be very helpful.  And with the large number of units he owns & 5 Star status he would be king of the pecking order of unit assignments at WKORV/N.

Per-construction is a real problem.  We got suckered in for pre-construction at WPORV TWICE!!!!  What a mistake to buy until you actually see the resort and until developer sales are done.  Reading owners comments of the resort after its open is important as well.  

We bought at WPORV thinking it would be as nice as WKORV/N.  We love Princeville and the villas & resort are nice.  The St Regis beach is fabulous.  We enjoy staying there. But not being on the beach directly is an issue for some people.  I believe this factor has driven the value of WPORV down so dramatically.  And the fact that it is not a mandatory resort.   These are things we did not discover until after we had bought and the resort was up & running.  I think WPORV is a wonderful resort but it was priced too high by the developer.
And this is something you wouldn't know until the resort had been open for awhile.

We pursued 5 Star because my husband travels so much for business & the lifetime Platinum SPG benefits were important to him. He was also able to obtain 2 Million Mile lifetime Platinum status on American with the developer incentive Starpoints we transferred to American. Again, a benefit very important to him. We also must travel at peak times and being 5 Star & able to waitlist is very helpful. Our plan was to use all our villa weeks in retirement as our second home.  We could travel to AZ and Hawaii for 12 weeks a year to escape the cold winters here.

If we'd known about TUG, resale & retro in 2006 we would have not purchased from the developer.  Even though we enjoy the 5 Star benefits and have gotten real value from them, they are not worth the price we paid with the developer pricing.    We paid thousands of dollars extra for the 5 Star benefits.  That said, we can't turn back the clock.  We are making the best of our situation.  Enjoying our resorts and the 5 Star Benefits.  We bought where we want to stay which is one of the only smart things we did.


----------



## VegasBella (Apr 14, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> The more I read, the more buying timeshare is like buying a new or used car. Just with a car it is 20% off the lot. Timeshare is over 50% for quality units.  Even DVC is 120/pt new and 60 or so used.
> When the latest revision of a popular car comes out there is often a period of elevated prices on the new model compared to the old.



And every now and then a certain car or type of cars sell for more used than new. Our first new car was bought because the same car used sold for more than the new one! I have faith there will be a few timeshares like that. They will be few and far between but I think there will be some.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 14, 2013)

VegasBella said:


> And every now and then a certain car or type of cars sell for more used than new. Our first new car was bought because the same car used sold for more than the new one! I have faith there will be a few timeshares like that. They will be few and far between but I think there will be some.



And generally only for a short while. As someone above said you can't get a good feel for resale pricing in the first 5 years. Same with certain cars in the first 12 months.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Apr 14, 2013)

*Starwood Doesn't limit Rentals to Home week Reservations?*



DeniseM said:


> I was talking about renting out WPORV.  Unfortunately, demand and rental rates are low at WPORV, so it's more profitable for WPORV owners to use their Staroptions, make a Resv. at WKORV or HRA, and rent it - rather than trying to rent a Resv. at WPORV.



Starwood Doesn't limit rentals of reservations to ones Home Week Reservations?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 14, 2013)

Tamaradarann said:


> Starwood Doesn't limit rentals of reservations to ones Home Week Reservations?



Apparently not - even though it is supposedly prohibited buy SVO/SVNs own rules - this is what part of this thread was discussing.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 14, 2013)

Mauiwmn said:


> I understand that it can be obtained for $75k but most 5 Star Elites spent much more.



I never said that it doesn't cost much more - I was using this example as the cheapest (nowadays) way to get to 5*/PFL.

Also, did not state that most 5* (or others) were doing this (obviously most are unlikely aware), but some people apparently are renting SOs.

SVO Tuggers represent a very small percentage of SVO TS Owners.

There are 3 points being made (beyond the distractions).
1) That this was being openly recommended on TUG to the point that most here were not aware that this it is prohibited by SVO/SVN. (as there is no policy on TUG against this as TUG only enforces its own rules, and not rules of organizations outside of TUG)
2) This is prohibited by SVEC Disclosure Doc Sec 8.2 - yet, apparently not being enforced by SVO/SVN (whether knowingly or not...).
3) This does have impact on some Owners of the resorts affected by this prohibited practice, perhaps negliable or perhaps not (depending on amount of allowed rentals and prohibited rentals).


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 14, 2013)

Tamaradarann said:


> Starwood Doesn't limit rentals of reservations to ones Home Week Reservations?



Many SVO don't have a home week as the entitlement in SVO is float. The week on the deed is for recording purposes only. 

Apparently SVO rules say you can only rent your home resort as David mentions below.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 17, 2013)

As a follow-up - being a proactive kind of guy (or jerk) depending on your vested interest or viewpoint:
{I may not be an attorney - or watch law shows on TV - but as I am often reminded in my field of expertise - versus in the field of Law it seems - logic usually prevails... }

I had the chance to discuss with a SVO/SVN representative the issues regarding renting SOs and enforcement.  They appeared to be quite interested in these topics, and it was a cordial conversation...

It was strongly stated to me that renting non-Home Resort SOs is indeed prohibited, and SVO/SVN would naturally be expected to enforce this provision (SVEC Sec 8.2), as it does for all parts of the contract between SVO/SVN and Owners, if they are *aware * of a prohibited activity is taking place by an Owner(s).

In addition, at no time would a SVN Associate from Owner Services state otherwise - meaning... in this case - they would not state that it is okay to transfer the reservation name with the intent of renting SOs that are prohibited from being rented. {of course, it may come down to how this question is phrased by the person renting the SOs and the Associate's awareness of the situation since they do not directly inquire}

SVO/SVN expects Owners to adhere to the contract as well (obviously), and there is no instance where SVN/SVO 'looks the other way' {my words} in regards to upholding and abiding to the conditions of the contract.  In this respect, they expect the Owners to follow the contract when it comes to SO usage (e.g. renting), and will enforce the rules (disallow the reservation) if they are aware (and offering the villa for rent via standard SVO/SVN processes).  However, as with all aspects of the contract, they expect the Owners to adhere to this provision as it would be a violation of the contract to do otherwise. {essentially - Owner's policing themselves as to stay within the terms of the contract}

So... as discussed in this thread - naturally the topic went to issues with enforcement of those individuals that rent prohibited SOs by SVN.  Obviously, this is where the challenge arises since Home Resort Owners are allowed to rent SOs at their Home Reort, and people using SOs from another resort (via SVN exchange) are allowed to transfer the SOs to family/friends as long as they are not rented.

As expected - there was no resolve on this matter of enforcement, but now there is certainly awareness by SVO/SVN of the issue.  As well as understanding that most Owners renting prohibited SOs are likely unaware that this practice is against the contract terms.  I did offer my suggestions (mentioned in other posts) for enforcement and messaging to Owners, but as with all things corporate any path forward will need to be discussed with management.  Perhaps it will be decided that the effort to persue this is not worth it to SVO/SVN (as no one knows how common this practice is), or perhaps something will come of it in the long-run (?).

So - now Owners paying attention to this thread at least know where SVO/SVN stands on these issues (whether weakly or not) versus speculation.  I suspect this practice will no longer be encouraged openly on this forum or practiced by some, but also suspect that there is a 'stick-it-to-them' attitude as well and it will be business as usual (just more cautious). However, at least now we are aware, and on the same page.


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 17, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> As expected - there was no resolve on this matter of enforcement, but now there is certainly awareness by SVO/SVN of the issue.  As well as understanding that most Owners renting prohibited SOs are likely unaware that this practice is against the contract terms.  I did offer my suggestions (mentioned in other posts) for enforcement and messaging to Owners, but as with all things corporate any path forward will need to be discussed with management.  Perhaps it will be decided that the effort to persue this is not worth it to SVO/SVN (as no one knows how common this practice is), or perhaps something will come of it in the long-run (?).



David--

As always, I do value your opinion and appreciate you sharing your discussion here.

IMO, they can say they will enforce it, but as you mention, the level of enforcement is dubious.  How do you prove that a guest is a renter things unless the information is gift wrapped and handed to you?

Since I don't own SOs, I am in the "no enforcement" camp (I guess you could say selfishly).  My feeling is that SVO has a lot more pressing issues they need to spend their resources and time on than this one.  And if they choose to start pursuing enforcement, my feeling is that this cost will be in some way passed down to the owners.

-ryan


----------



## grgs (Apr 17, 2013)

Thanks, David, for the follow up report.  It will be interesting to see what does (or doesn't) happen in the future.  At least people know what the official policy is and can make their own decisions accordingly.

Glorian


----------



## ferndale (Apr 17, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> As a follow-up - being a proactive kind of guy (or jerk) depending on your vested interest or viewpoint:
> {I may not be an attorney - or watch law shows on TV - but as I am often reminded in my field of expertise - versus in the field of Law it seems - logic usually prevails... }
> 
> I had the chance to discuss with a SVO/SVN representative the issues regarding renting SOs and enforcement.  They appeared to be quite interested in these topics, and it was a cordial conversation...
> ...



David,
  I understand this probably did not come up in your conversation, but wondering what your feeling is on this after you talked with svo.
We give one or 2 weeks a year to Make a Wish for wish kids.  90% of the time, they want Maui, and we reserve them a week there (our home resort).  But last year, I did have one family who wanted Bahamas, and I reserved at Harborside for them.  I always inform SVO that of the families name, and who exactly the wish kid is, and  that it is a donation to Make A Wish.  This has not been a problem in the past, and in fact in Maui, they leave the wish child a present in the condo and give them a special greeting, etc.  However, I am wondering in light of this conversation if I need to limit the choice to Maui.  If there is no money transacted, is it still okay to gift a week at another resort to MAW, or is that technically against the rules?


----------



## grgs (Apr 17, 2013)

ferndale said:


> If there is no money transacted, is it still okay to gift a week at another resort to MAW, or is that technically against the rules?



The only prohibition specified relates to _rentals_.  As far as I can tell, donated or gifted SO reservations are fine.

Glorian


----------



## PamMo (Apr 17, 2013)

David, thank you for looking into this. I appreciate the effort and time you spent to clarify SVN's policy on renting StarOption exchanges. It is so often recommended on TUG, that it was surprising to read it's prohibited. Now I wonder if Starwood will do anything to enforce the rules? I like your idea of putting it in writing on the reservation/confirmation.

Hilton (HGVC) and several other timeshare systems have the same policy limiting rentals to your home resort, so I'm sure there are ways to discourage people from gaming/abusing the system.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 17, 2013)

Glorian and Pam - not a problem.  My intent was clarity.

I don't think it would be that expensive or hard to enforce as long as the actions are not draconian (I think that is correct usage) - similar to what was mentioned previously.  If people want to then break the rules - it is on them.

As mentioned - Non-Home Resort StarOptions can be transferred as long as not rented.

sharkie - I would assume every non-Owner would have the opinion that SVO/SVN should not enforce this as it only negatively impacts Owners of the resort in demand - the minority (the one that paid the premium to own and pays very high MFs annually), and not others looking to rent, or renting SOs that aren't suppose to be.  However, it is within Owners rights to request enforcement, and perhaps more than request if an Owner(s) with legal power decides to take up the cause. {unlikely}


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> sharkie - I would assume every non-Owner would have the opinion that SVO/SVN should not enforce this as it only negatively impacts Owners of the resort in demand - the minority (the one that paid the premium to own and pays very high MFs annually), and not others looking to rent, or renting SOs that aren't suppose to be.  However, it is within Owners rights to request enforcement, and perhaps more than request if an Owner(s) with legal power decides to take up the cause. {unlikely}



As I mentioned, I see where you are coming from -- I would be annoyed as well if I were in your shoes.  However, since how to enforce is not outlined in the contract, I see it as a very far fetched idea that SVO would take any type of meaningful enforcement action unless a large group of owners at high MF resorts complained and this started to impact sales.  I am pretty sure if an Owner went the legal route, they would lose -- the agreement is too ambiguous as far as who is required to enforce and how to enforce.

-ryan


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> As I mentioned, I see where you are coming from -- I would be annoyed as well if I were in your shoes.  However, since how to enforce is not outlined in the contract, I see it as a very far fetched idea that SVO would take any type of meaningful enforcement action unless a large group of owners at high MF resorts complained and this started to impact sales.  I am pretty sure if an Owner went the legal route, they would lose -- the agreement is too ambiguous as far as who is required to enforce and how to enforce.
> 
> -ryan



Perhaps... However, to my understanding, every aspect of the contact is enforced (they mentioned this specifically to me).  As mentioned previously, I put this out as a question (find one other thing in the contract that is not enforced...?).  SVO/SVN enforces the contract as long as they are aware of it being broken, or attempted at being broken.

SVO/SVN told me specifically that if they indeed have knowledge of a villa rented using prohibited SOs that the reservation would be disallowed. btw - disallowing reservations - for a multitude of reasons (e.g. non-payment of MFs, illegal use, etc) - is in the contract.  They also stated that they would make villas available via standard rental process (if desired) for people that had a reservation cancelled under the circumstances of a reservation made using prohibited SOs.

So... I agree in part - will it be worth it to either party? Hard to know...  But, clearly knowledge by SVO/SVN of this situation would be enforced, and is allowed to be enforced.  I would imagine if their Legal dept would find out that OS Associates were allowing this usage - that a crackdown on this would come quickly.  Actually, I would bet that this going to happen - as SVO/SVN Rep was very clear (repeatedly) that their Associates were well trained in all aspects of the reservation process, and they would never knowingly allow prohibited SOs from being rented.

Of course, they do not state this in their standard response when making a reservation (e.g. 60-day rule, yada-yada-yada) but they easily could.  They could also re-inforce to Owners via a statement on the reservation confirmation.  Both inexpensive methods could be attempted to halt this practice.  In doing this - they would be showing due diligence, and then it would be on the Owner to abide by the contract - similar to other situations stated in contract.


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 18, 2013)

David, 

Thanks for the follow-up.  I guess we shall see how it goes.


----------



## Henry M. (Apr 18, 2013)

I think a simple and clear statement about reservations being subject to cancellation if not made at the owner's home resort would greatly curtail misuse of StarOptions. Most renters just aren't aware of the restriction and would likely not rent if the confirmation stated the requirements. Honest owners would also not abuse the system if they were aware of the issue. 

There might be a small number of unscrupulous people that might go on disregarding the rules, but the majority would probably abide by them. There is no need for a complicated enforcement system.

Starwood knows when a reservation is an exchange and could thus only include the statement in StarOption reservations, so as not to impair proper rentals by owners of a particular resort.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2013)

emuyshondt said:


> I think a simple and clear statement about reservations being subject to cancellation if not made at the owner's home resort would greatly curtail misuse of StarOptions. Most renters just aren't aware of the restriction and would likely not rent if the confirmation stated the requirements. Honest owners would also not abuse the system if they were aware of the issue.
> 
> There might be a small number of unscrupulous people that might go on disregarding the rules, but the majority would probably abide by them. There is no need for a complicated enforcement system.
> 
> Starwood knows when a reservation is an exchange and could thus only include the statement in StarOption reservations, so as not to impair proper rentals by owners of a particular resort.



Yes, my point exactly! Thanks.
Not draconian enforcement - just a simple reminder.  Those that then decide to game the system - do so at their own risk (as well as the risk to the renter).


----------



## grgs (Apr 18, 2013)

It should be an easy thing to do if Starwood wants to.  The following info appears on an SO reservation:

_Confirmation Number	XXXXXX
Guest Name	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Confirmation Date	XX/XX/XXXX
Arrival Date	XXXXXday, XX/XX/XXXX at 4:00 p.m., local time
Departure Date	XXXXXday, XX/XX/XXXX at 10:00 a.m., local time
Housekeeping Fees	Does Not Apply
ADA Guaranteed Features	Does Not Apply

StarOptions® used for this reservation: XX,XXX

All association assessments and dues must be current to ensure reservations are not cancelled. 

The resort is unable to check in anyone other than the guest name listed. Please contact Owner Services should you need to provide your guest's name to authorize their check-in._​
Right after the assessment and dues statement, something along these lines could be added:

StarOptions reservations are for Starwood owners and their guests use; commercial rental is prohibited.

Glorian


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2013)

grgs said:


> StarOptions reservations are for Starwood owners and their guests use; commercial rental is prohibited.



What a great idea - let's come up with text that SVO/SVN could use.

The above text doesn't quite work because all reservations are made with StarOptions (even Home-Resort SOs), and it is not against the contract to rent Home Resort SOs.

Commercial use of villas is already prohibited - has wording in this regard in the contract, but think it is meant for any commercial activity.

However... I love the idea of coming up with the best text in the reservation confirmation to get the message across in a simple straight-forward manner.

I will give it some thought myself.


----------



## grgs (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> The above text doesn't quite work because all reservations are made with StarOptions (even Home-Resort SOs), and it is not against the contract to rent Home Resort SOs.



Home Resort Reservations have this info (I added the bolding):

_Confirmation Number XXXXXX
Guest Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Confirmation Date XX/XX/XXXX
Arrival Date XXXXXday, XX/XX/XXXX at 4:00 p.m., local time
Departure Date XXXXXday, XX/XX/XXXX at 10:00 a.m., local time
Housekeeping Fees Does Not Apply
ADA Guaranteed Features Does Not Apply

*Home Resort Reservation
*
All association assessments and dues must be current to ensure reservations are not cancelled.

The resort is unable to check in anyone other than the guest name listed. Please contact Owner Services should you need to provide your guest's name to authorize their check-in.​_I don't believe SOs come into play unless you're reserving outside of your property and/or season.  The one gray area I see is if you make an reservation at your home resort outside of your season.  That would be an SO reservation, but I'm not sure that is prohibited by 8.2:

_8.2 Club Member Rentals. A Club Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the Club Member’s Home
Resort and rent it on the Club Member's own account. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of
the Resort Documents affecting occupancy, and the renting Club Member will be responsible for the acts or
omissions of the Club Member's renters or any other person or persons permitted by the Club Member to use the
Unit. Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved
at the SVN Member’s Home Resort) is prohibited.​_
If the intent is also to prohibit Home Resort, non-Home Season rentals, the last sentence in 8.2 should be:

Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved
at the SVN Member’s Home Resort *and/or Home Season*) is prohibited.

Glorian


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 18, 2013)

And herein lies my confusion at the complexity of this.

e.g.  I own points at WKV 148 and SBP 81

So clearly, if I reserve anything at WKV that is OK.  
If I reserve SBP Plantation that is OK.  

What if I reserve and rent for $ a 3Br in SBP Palmetto?  That would be 81k points from SBP 44k from WKV.  I'm still reserving at my home resort though.

And what if I spent a peak week 2br at WKV 148k points and then rented a peak 1Br for 81k at WKV.  That could be disallowed if you said that the points used were the 81k from SBP but allowed if my personal use was 81k of SBP and 67K of my WKV points and the paid booking was the other 81k WKV points.

Now this is only an example with someone with points at two resorts in the network.  This could easily get ^n more complex.


----------



## sjsharkie (Apr 18, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> And herein lies my confusion at the complexity of this.
> 
> e.g.  I own points at WKV 148 and SBP 81
> 
> ...



Good point.  And then banked points come into play -- possibly for resorts that are no longer owned by the owner.  Is it current ownership or origination of the points that come into play?

-ryan


----------



## PamMo (Apr 18, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> And herein lies my confusion at the complexity of this.
> 
> e.g.  I own points at WKV 148 and SBP 81
> 
> ...



I think you're making it harder than it is. Simply put, anything you rent should be a unit that you own. Period. If you are using StarOptions from another resort to book a unit to rent out at a resort you do not own, it is not allowed.

Hilton (HGVC) allows owners to rent a "home week reservation" only. That means it has to be at the resort, in the season, and the size unit you own.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 18, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> Good point.  And then banked points come into play -- possibly for resorts that are no longer owned by the owner.  Is it current ownership or origination of the points that come into play?
> 
> -ryan


But in SVO we are regularly told a point is a point is a point so my WKV point has the same value as your WKORV point and his WLM point. 
From a coding point of view (once they have finished on line reservations) if the reservation is made in a resort that you don't own any points (or have not owned in the last 3 years) in then grgs clause (or something like it) 'this SVO reservation cannot be resold, if it is discovered it is resold then the you will forfeit both the StarOptions and the reservation' could be added to the reservation comments.


PamMo said:


> I think you're making it harder than it is. Simply put, anything you rent should be a unit that you own. Period. If you are using StarOptions from another resort to book a unit to rent out at a resort you do not own, it is not allowed.
> 
> Hilton (HGVC) allows owners to rent a "home week reservation" only. That means it has to be at the resort, in the season, and the size unit you own.


No I'm bringing real life into play.
If you go to the HGVC approach what happens when you have a 2Br OFD and rent the Studio to cover the MF for the unit.  Now you are at the resort, in the season but not the unit size you own, but if you have fixed the unit and week then it could be your specific studio week.  Many split their LO into two sides to rent (being easier / more profitable to rent the smaller than the whole).  SVO allows such reservations.


----------



## PamMo (Apr 18, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> But in SVO we are regularly told a point is a point is a point so my WKV point has the same value as your WKORV point and his WLM point.



Absolutely! StarOptions have the same value no matter what resort you own. You can make a reservation for personal use in any of the SVN resorts that have availability. You just can't rent out a non-home resort reservation.


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2013)

When Starwood decides to enforce the prohibition against rental of StarOption reservations, it will do so. And, Starwood will do it without consulting TUG posters about the way it should be done or the language which should be used.   Salty


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2013)

> But in SVO we are regularly told a point is a point is a point so my WKV point has the same value as your WKORV point and his WLM point.



You don't use points (StarOptions, really) when you make a home resort reservation.  You merely use your week.   Salty


----------



## Henry M. (Apr 18, 2013)

Just add what is already stated in the Starwood document:

Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved at the SVN Member’s Home Resort) is prohibited.

Maybe add:

Any reservations for rentals outside the owner's home resort are subject to cancellation.

But jarta is right. It doesn't matter what we say here, Starwood will do what it wants to do. It is up to the members to make them aware of any issues, if you want them resolved.


----------



## PamMo (Apr 18, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> No I'm bringing real life into play.
> If you go to the HGVC approach what happens when you have a 2Br OFD and rent the Studio to cover the MF for the unit.  Now you are at the resort, in the season but not the unit size you own, but if you have fixed the unit and week then it could be your specific studio week.  Many split their LO into two sides to rent (being easier / more profitable to rent the smaller than the whole).  SVO allows such reservations.



I was just stating what HGVC's policy on rentals is to put SVN's in perspective. You're correct that SVN has many resorts with lockoffs that owners can split and reserve separately. If it's a home resort reservation, I don't think there would be an issue with renting them out separately. I am renting what I own (a 1BR and studio).

HGVC will not let you rent a club reservation at your resort in a season you don't own, but I'm not sure about SVN? I only own at Maui (all weeks are platinum) and Harborside (fixed summer weeks that work for us), so have never booked in a season I don't own. Are out of owner's season reservations still considered home weeks?


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 18, 2013)

jarta said:


> You don't use points (StarOptions, really) when you make a home resort reservation.  You merely use your week.   Salty


Even when you only rent half (or choose to LO and make two rentals) of your unit?  They account for all these bookings using SO's it's just the timing of when you make these bookings (12-9M) that changes at home.


			
				grgs said:
			
		

> Confirmation Number	XXXXXX
> Guest Name	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Confirmation Date	XX/XX/XXXX
> Arrival Date	XXXXXday, XX/XX/XXXX at 4:00 p.m., local time
> ...


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2013)

emuyshondt said:


> But jarta is right. It doesn't matter what we say here, Starwood will do what it wants to do. It is up to the members to make them aware of any issues, if you want them resolved.



NaCl-T is not paying attention (unless he has me on ignore as well) - discussions are already in progress.  Whether they decide to do anything depends on many factors - one of them being Home Resort Owners that are affected by this issue (mainly WKORV/N, HRA and WSJ - others?) speaking up - which I have done.

However, they are now acutely aware of the issue.  I spent about 30 mins on phone - as well as a well-crafted polite email describing the situation that prompted the phone call from them.

I expect it to be relatively slow process given normal corporate timelines and priorities, but asked for a follow-up.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 18, 2013)

PamMo said:


> HGVC will not let you rent a club reservation at your resort in a season you don't own, but I'm not sure about SVN? I only own at Maui (all weeks are platinum) and Harborside (fixed summer weeks that work for us), so have never booked in a season I don't own. Are out of owner's season reservations still considered home weeks?





> 8.2 Club Member Rentals. A Club Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the Club Member’s Home Resort and rent it on the Club Member's own account. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of the Resort Documents affecting occupancy, and the renting Club Member will be responsible for the acts or omissions of the Club Member's renters or any other person or persons permitted by the Club Member to use the Unit. Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved at the SVN Member’s Home Resort) is prohibited.


SVN does not have the concept of home 'weeks', just home 'resort' in this part of the handbook. 

Being as the out of season is usually a downward movement (Plat to Gold) I would think that this makes sense from a business and availability to other owners perspective (though TS groups like to make over complex rules for over complex rules sake).


----------



## AbelowDS (Apr 18, 2013)

WOW! In my original post all I was asking about was prepayment of maintenance fees in order to make a reservation at my home resort.  Glad I could help out on getting things going on the whole ethics and arbitrage and and and issues. :hysterical:

I could never have anticipated a 6 page thread from my initial question LOL


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 18, 2013)

AbelowDS said:


> WOW! In my original post all I was asking about was prepayment of maintenance fees in order to make a reservation at my home resort.  Glad I could help out on getting things going on the whole ethics and arbitrage and and and issues. :hysterical:
> 
> I could never have anticipated a 5 page thread from my initial question LOL



Funny how that turns out on TUG - thread took a twist around post #22 when the strategy of renting non-Home Resort SOs arose 

blame Glorian... :rofl:


----------



## Henry M. (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> However, they are now acutely aware of the issue.  I spent about 30 mins on phone - as well as a well-crafted polite email describing the situation that prompted the phone call from them.



Thanks for taking the time to research this and do something about it. 

I recently got some communication from Suzanne Clark, as well as a survey and also mentioned this issue.


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 18, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Now this is only an example with someone with points at two resorts in the network.  This could easily get ^n more complex.



Yeah, we're ~700K SO's across multiple properties, owning more than one at some.  Good luck  agreeing which SO's went to which reservation...


----------



## oneohana (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> *added - in looking at the WKORV OM (2010) I found the following in reference to renting:*
> 
> Unit. *Rental by a Club Member of Units reserved through the Club or SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved
> at the SVN Member’s Home Resort) is prohibited.*
> ...



WKV has wording to this effect.

What about the resorts that don't have this wording?

Just looking into clarification.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 18, 2013)

YYJMSP said:


> Yeah, we're ~700K SO's across multiple properties, owning more than one at some.  Good luck  agreeing which SO's went to which reservation...



Good point. I highly doubt SVN will ever enforce this restriction on renting SO resvervations at non-home resorts.


----------



## pointsjunkie (Apr 18, 2013)

i have been reading this thread and have been very quiet until now.

during a sales presentation through starwood the salesman states that a staroption is a staroption does not matter where you own. and you may rent out units to help pay your maintenance fees or for a profit.they never say it must be at your home resort.

i cannot tell you how many times the salespeople say that in a day.

i think starwood would be opening up an unfriendly can of worms, so they would have to grandfather in everyone that was told that.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 18, 2013)

pointsjunkie said:


> i think starwood would be opening up an unfriendly can of worms, so they would have to grandfather in everyone that was told that.



Oh, please. We all know not to believe A SINGLE WORD the sales reps say. If it's not in writing, it's meaningless.


----------



## YYJMSP (Apr 18, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Good point. I highly doubt SVN will ever enforce this restriction on renting SO resvervations at non-home resorts.



I know I've had the discussion with reservations a few times when they told me that I'd already used up a specific unit/week, and my response was, um, no, I still want that specific week (for converting to SPG points), so go take the SO's for one of the previous bookings from some other unit/week, etc.

Sounded like they have some massive spreadsheet trying to keep track of it all... 

Along the way, someone had suggested that I make sure I specify which unit/week I want to consume SOs from whenever I make a booking, so I do that every time now.


----------



## jarta (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> NaCl-T is not paying attention (unless he has me on ignore as well) - discussions are already in progress.  Whether they decide to do anything depends on many factors - one of them being Home Resort Owners that are affected by this issue (mainly WKORV/N, HRA and WSJ - others?) speaking up - which I have done.
> 
> However, they are now acutely aware of the issue.  I spent about 30 mins on phone - as well as a well-crafted polite email describing the situation that prompted the phone call from them.
> 
> I expect it to be relatively slow process given normal corporate timelines and priorities, but asked for a follow-up.



NaCl-T is paying close attention.  You emailed Starwood and had a polite conversation for 30 minutes when Starwood called you back.  Perhaps you even gave Starwood that specific information they said they needed about a StarOption reservation that was rented or a specific renter who advertises.

So????  I repeat:  "When Starwood decides to enforce the prohibition against rental of StarOption reservations, it will do so. And, Starwood will do it without consulting TUG posters about the way it should be done or the language which should be used."

Even if Starwood cancels one reservation, don't overestimate your influence over Starwood enforcing its own stated corporate policy.  

Finally, be careful about whose ox you are goring!  It's certainly not mine.  I am not in the business of renting or facilitating StarOption rentals.  I do not think everyone on TUG can say that.   Salty


----------



## oneohana (Apr 19, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Oh, please. We all know not to believe A SINGLE WORD the sales reps say. If it's not in writing, it's meaningless.



I have it in writing. The salesperson wrote down which actual weeks to reserve and rent on a worksheet.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 19, 2013)

oneohana said:


> I have it in writing. The salesperson wrote down which actual weeks to reserve and rent on a worksheet.



If its part of the contract, then it counts. If not, forget about it. Or, good luck!


----------



## LisaRex (Apr 19, 2013)

oneohana said:


> I have it in writing. The salesperson wrote down which actual weeks to reserve and rent on a worksheet.



I have a glossy brochure that says that I can exchange to Villas of Cave Creek for x StarOptions.  I guarantee you that I don't have a cause of action against Starwood, even though VCC opted out of SVN.   Remember, it is what is written in the CONTRACT that counts.  And the ONLY thing they guarantee is that they can never take away your right to use the week you bought in the season you bought.  Everything else, including exchanges and even StarOption assignment, is subject to be changed at Starwood's whim.


----------



## oneohana (Apr 19, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> If its part of the contract, then it counts. If not, forget about it. Or, good luck!



 Of course it's not in the contract. I just said that I had it in writing.

Even if it is in the contract, *wood doesn't have to honor it. It has happened to a tugger in the past.


----------

