# Starwood units now selling for nothing



## gmarine (Oct 28, 2009)

Today a small one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO sold for $1 on EBAY. It isnt even a situation where usage starts in 2009 and m-fees are due. Usage starts in 2010. ONE DOLLAR. This is how bad things are getting for Starwood owners. Its pretty sad.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 28, 2009)

WMH sold for $1 earlier this week - at least a Tugger got it!


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

I think I just ate some of those.  McDonald's Dollar Menu, right?

This is a sad situation indeed.  Starwood took away our 'request first' trade rights with II.  MF far exceed rental prices during the off season.  Why buy now?


----------



## yumdrey (Oct 29, 2009)

l2trade said:


> This is a sad situation indeed.  Starwood took away our 'request first' trade rights with II.  MF far exceed rental prices during the off season.  Why buy now?



Actually, rental prices during peak season is also lower than MF now. I checked redweek.com and saw four Thanksgiving weeks in WMH rentals are lower than MF (including taxes).


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

Thanksgiving is not peak season for SDO - peak season is March and Easter.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Today a small one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO sold for $1 on EBAY. It isnt even a situation where usage starts in 2009 and m-fees are due. Usage starts in 2010. ONE DOLLAR. This is how bad things are getting for Starwood owners. Its pretty sad.



"Starwood is hired to administer reservations, clean the toilets, and take out the trash. They are not paid to interfere with owners' usage. They're acting as if they own the place." - Pit

Gmarine, can the above tag line be used at the bottom of all emails that you send to senior leadership at SVO?


----------



## Fredm (Oct 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Today a small one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO sold for $1 on EBAY. It isnt even a situation where usage starts in 2009 and m-fees are due. Usage starts in 2010. ONE DOLLAR. This is how bad things are getting for Starwood owners. Its pretty sad.



It is sad. But, I wouldn't read too much into that auction. 

It is more a sign of the times, and timing. Few want to sign on to a maintenance fee immediately coming due. Meanwhile, the seller wants nothing more to do with it.

What we don't hear much about at all is the situation where an owner signs on with a PCC, and forks over 3k+ to take the share off their hands. The PCC is the likely seller at a $1 auction. The smart ones have learned to not get too greedy. Better to sell for a buck, than have the poor owner get another HOA bill and cry bloody murder. Or, be on the hook for the fees themselves. 

I had a situation occur that makes my point. 
Some months ago a WMH Silver owner called me. They were referred to me by the BBB. 
The prior evening the owner attended a PCC presentation and signed up, but had not yet paid the $3400. For whatever reason it was not working for them. They wanted O-U-T. And believed what the PCC was telling them.
It took a fairly long discussion to convince them that there was a better way. Finally, I simply said that they could just sign the deed over to me, and save $3,400.  That did it.
I didn't want the timeshare or the fee obligation. So, offered to sell it and split the sale price with them 50-50. 
Bottom line, it sold for $2,200. Gave them $1100. They were ahead of the game by $4500. 

Point is that for every story similar to this one (and there are a number), hundreds (thousands?) simply fork over the timeshare . 

Most bargains on ebay are not a true reflection of the "market". They are the result of a scam perpetrated on an owner who swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. The slimy sales job got it there. 

The difference these days is potential buyers are more reluctant than ever to assume the fees.  So, it's not that a $1 sale is remarkable, but that some piece of dirt actually made over $3000 net from the sale. Was not too long ago that they may have made $5-6000.

I just wish that those owners who continue to be conned would themselves auction it off for a buck. They would be way ahead, and we would see many more $1 auctions than exist now. 
The difference is that we don't see the owners who are actually paying to be done with it.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

yumdrey said:


> Actually, rental prices during peak season is also lower than MF now. I checked redweek.com and saw four Thanksgiving weeks in WMH rentals are lower than MF (including taxes).



That's not surprising and probably not related to recent changes. If you had 100 Thanksgiving week rentals at the beginning of the year and 90 of them rented by now, the remaining ones (probably the ones with the highest initial rental prices) have to lower their price as the date approaches. Otherwise, the only things they can do are (i) change the reservation to December and be in the same position in 4 weeks or (ii) trade to II.

My conjecture is that the rental prices are coming down not because II is now a bad option, but because the reservation date (and end of the year) are approaching. For the same reason you could pick a Christmas week WKORV OV studio rental for 1000 or less at this time of the year, while early 2010 studio rentals are double... Wait longer and you could probably pick up a 2BR for $1500.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 29, 2009)

The SDO that sold for $1 came with $515 closing costs plus $25 transfer fee.  Still dirt cheap, but not that much less than I paid for mine two years ago when you add in all the extra costs.


----------



## krj9999 (Oct 29, 2009)

I bought a small 1BR SDO (which turned out to be a true platinum week) on Ebay back in July for $97, plus $399 for closing and $25 for the transfer fee (plus 2009 MFs and the 2009 week).

So I guess you could say prices are no worse now than they have been.



Stefa said:


> The SDO that sold for $1 came with $515 closing costs plus $25 transfer fee.  Still dirt cheap, but not that much less than I paid for mine two years ago when you add in all the extra costs.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Oct 29, 2009)

*What's So Bad About It ?*




gmarine said:


> Today a small one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO sold for $1 on EBAY. It isnt even a situation where usage starts in 2009 and m-fees are due. Usage starts in 2010. ONE DOLLAR. This is how bad things are getting for Starwood owners. Its pretty sad.


Shux, unless the owners were counting on selling for big bux, the current prices other people are paying should be _mox nix_, no ? 

I mean, if you like timeshare vacationing at your StarWood timeshare, then nothing about higher or lower StarWood resale prices should have any effect on that. 

Right? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 29, 2009)

Fredm said:


> It is sad. But, I wouldn't read too much into that auction.
> 
> It is more a sign of the times, and timing. Few want to sign on to a maintenance fee immediately coming due. Meanwhile, the seller wants nothing more to do with it.
> 
> ...



Similarly obtained units by PCCs at HGVC are selling for thousands of dollars on ebay!

There is some merit in your analysis, but ebay prices do indicate the relative "worthiness" of a timeshare property.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, unless the owners were counting on selling for big bux, the current prices other people are paying should be _mox nix_, no ?
> 
> I mean, if you like timeshare vacationing at your StarWood timeshare, then nothing about higher or lower StarWood resale prices should have any effect on that.
> 
> ...



Alan - Resales at SDO used to be very popular to buy to exchange in II, for the Starwood preference.  5 years ago I paid $2K for a 1 bdm.  Recently, Starwood and II have lowered the exchange value of Starwood resorts, so we have seen a recent drop in resale values as a result.  Yes, it's also the economy, but it's not just the economy.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

I strongly agree with FredM here - that eBay auctions are not necessarily representive of the market, and are not necessarily auctions that complete in a sale.  This should be stated repeatly in the eBay sales thread...


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, unless the owners were counting on selling for big bux, the current prices other people are paying should be _mox nix_, no ?
> 
> I mean, if you like timeshare vacationing at your StarWood timeshare, then nothing about higher or lower StarWood resale prices should have any effect on that.
> 
> ...




If you like vacationing at the property you own and do not plan to sell anytime soon, then you probably don't care too much in the short run.

In the long run though I think everyone should care about resale values. It's pretty clear resale values are impacted by the option to have SVN exchanges (mandatory/voluntary resorts), by increasing maintenance fees, and by the ability to have good exchanges via II. In particular, if resale values hit zero because II exchanges are now worse and maintenance fees are no longer worth it, then what will happen when your kids inherit the place? By then maintenance fees will be much higher and resale values will be negative (i.e., people will pay big $$$ for someone to get it off their hands - see post #7 by FredM). Do you really want to leave them that liability?


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

Fredm said:


> What we don't hear much about at all is the situation where an owner signs on with a PCC, and forks over 3k+ to take the share off their hands. The PCC is the likely seller at a $1 auction. The smart ones have learned to not get too greedy. Better to sell for a buck, than have the poor owner get another HOA bill and cry bloody murder. Or, be on the hook for the fees themselves.



But doesn't this mean that the average resale price is currently negative?

If x% of sellers *pay* $3000+ to get rid of it and the remaining sellers get $1-$100 when they sell that sounds like a negative average selling price...


----------



## Nickfromct (Oct 29, 2009)

I was in the market for an SDO unit over the summer when all this stuff hit the fan. I bid on a few, but was unsucessful. I've backed off until the dust settles a bit. I'd probably only be interested in a platinum week at this point based on what I've read here on TUG.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 29, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> I strongly agree with FredM here - that eBay auctions are not necessarily representive of the market, and are not necessarily auctions that complete in a sale.  This should be stated repeatly in the eBay sales thread...



I agree that one EBAY auction isnt necessarily representaive of the market. However it does show that there was NOBODY willing to pay $2 for a one bedroom annual SDO unit. Thats not good.

And add to that there were two other similar auctions that recently sold for $95 and $100 respectively.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 29, 2009)

DannyM said:


> But doesn't this mean that the average resale price is currently negative?
> 
> If x% of sellers *pay* $3000+ to get rid of it and the remaining sellers get $1-$100 when they sell that sounds like a negative average selling price...



No, it does not mean the average price is negative.
It means that a number of uninformed owners are conned into paying someone to take the timeshare from them. 
If they knew better, they would sell it.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 29, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, unless the owners were counting on selling for big bux, the current prices other people are paying should be _mox nix_, no ?
> 
> I mean, if you like timeshare vacationing at your StarWood timeshare, then nothing about higher or lower StarWood resale prices should have any effect on that.
> 
> ...




Wrong. Just as you should care about home values in the area in which you live, you should care about the resale values of timeshares in which you own. You may not have plans to ever sell your home yet you should still care about resale value.
A timeshare has a value attached to it and even though an owner may not have plans to sell there may come of time when an owner needs to sell.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

Fredm said:


> No, it does not mean the average price is negative.
> It means that a number of uninformed owners are conned into paying someone to take the timeshare from them.
> If they knew better, they would sell it.





gmarine said:


> I agree that one EBAY auction isnt necessarily representaive of the market. However it does show that there was NOBODY willing to pay $2 for a one bedroom annual SDO unit. Thats not good.



Putting these two posts together - selling at a positive price is not always feasible... Maybe they tried to sell it and had no luck - leading to the option to pay someone to take it (i.e. negative selling price)?

One could also argue that anyone buying at a positive price is uninformed...


----------



## gmarine (Oct 29, 2009)

krj9999 said:


> I bought a small 1BR SDO (which turned out to be a true platinum week) on Ebay back in July for $97, plus $399 for closing and $25 for the transfer fee (plus 2009 MFs and the 2009 week).
> 
> So I guess you could say prices are no worse now than they have been.



I disagree. Many people dont want to buy units that include the current years usage when the purchase wont close until after the prime season of that resort ends. You paid 2009 m-fees for 2009 usage and had to either use a 2009 week or deposit a 2009 week with Interval with less than ideal time before check in date. 

Sales late in the year which include usage that year almost always sell for less than typical prices.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> I agree that one EBAY auction isnt necessarily representaive of the market. However it does show that there was NOBODY willing to pay $2 for a one bedroom annual SDO unit. Thats not good.
> 
> And add to that there were two other similar auctions that recently sold for $95 and $100 respectively.



I am very glad I stopped 2 people from buying SDO resale cheaply before this all happened with SVO/II.  They were never that expensive in the 1st place especially considering those poor people who bought form Starwood (like buying a dot.bomb stock) In the current SVO world - I think that the 'Buy where you want to go' mantra is more important than ever.

While the fight with II/SVO is important - like many things here on TUG - they caught on to the bargains and loopholes out there - and put an end to it.  In my view - more important is how deliquent/default VOIs that result in non-payment of MFs affects all Owners - and is a much bigger issue than the changes in II, but maybe that is because I have no horse in this race.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 29, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Similarly obtained units by PCCs at HGVC are selling for thousands of dollars on ebay!
> 
> There is some merit in your analysis, but ebay prices do indicate the relative "worthiness" of a timeshare property.



Sure. If by "worthiness", you mean demand.


----------



## Snorkey (Oct 29, 2009)

I have returned my purchase of SDO 1 br.
I lost my deposit so if someone is willing to pay back my lost deposit , I will take it.

You pay me $300 and I will pay $1 for it.  

Maybe I will be waiting long time for this....or maybe not.

So sad to see *wood go down so much in such a short period of time.


----------



## BLUE AYES (Oct 29, 2009)

Is it only SDO (where I bought last year on EBAY) or others as well ?  Are the 2BD Vistana Villages Bella section with 67K-81K Staroptions worth the $3000 - $5000 they are selling for ?


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

BLUE AYES said:


> Is it only SDO (where I bought last year on EBAY) or others as well ?  Are the 2BD Vistana Villages Bella section with 67K-81K Staroptions worth the $3000 - $5000 they are selling for ?



Those are mandatory so buyers can exchange within Starwood. The "market" assigns substantial value to that option... that is why WKORV, SVV, HRA, WSJ, WKV resell for higher prices than comparable Starwood resorts.

But other voluntary resorts like SVR, WMH and SMV (off season) are also selling for symbolic values.

I suppose if internal exchanges become worthless, due to lack of availability or other reasons Starwood is concocting, the resale prices at mandatory resorts will adjust accordingly...


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

Something that has been interesting to watch over the last year is how WKORV prices have dropped to be about the same price as WKV (similiar SOs) - this says to me that MFs are really starting to play a role on the value of these mandatory VOIs.  It is much easier to swallow an increase of ~$100 than an increase of ~$400.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> I am very glad I stopped 2 people from buying SDO resale cheaply before this all happened with SVO/II.  They were never that expensive in the 1st place especially considering those poor people who bought form Starwood (like buying a dot.bomb stock) In the current SVO world - I think that the 'Buy where you want to go' mantra is more important than ever.
> 
> While the fight with II/SVO is important - like many things here on TUG - they caught on to the bargains and loopholes out there - and put an end to it.  In my view - more important is how deliquent/default VOIs that result in non-payment of MFs affects all Owners - and is a much bigger issue than the changes in II, but maybe that is because I have no horse in this race.



The II/SVO fight is very, very important.  It is further lowering resale demand in an already bad market, hence lower resale prices.  

1) Lower resale prices reduce exit options for unhappy and/or struggling owners.
2) Inability to sell increases delinquencies, which leads to foreclosure.
3) Delinquencies and foreclosures cost the HOA $$$.  If resale value approach free, the HOA cannot recover all those losses.  MF increase and budgets are slashed to offset this loss.
4) The HOA must get foreclosures back into the hands of dues paying owners ASAP. 
5) Large supply of foreclosures crowds out the next round of would be sellers.  Many potential buyers are scared away by higher MF, angry resellers and complaining owners.  

This is a downward spiral folks.  Starwood should listen to and resolve our complaints about the new system.  Another thread here suggests a compromise to offer non-SVN members the ability to opt-out of the changes.  Then, we can return to being happy customers.  Happy customers = more resale buyers.  More demand = higher resale value.  Higher resale = better retail.  It is that simple.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

Potential buyers are being scared away from Starwood entirely.  Check out this post on the Marriott forum:
http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109227


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

l2trade said:


> The II/SVO fight is very, very important.  It is further lowering resale demand in an already bad market, hence lower resale prices.



I agree that if it was important enough for Starwood to make this change and upset so many people despite whatever contractual obligations they had - then it is probably an important enough to fight them on it, even though i also don't have a stake here. 



l2trade said:


> Another thread here suggests a compromise to offer non-SVN members the ability to opt-out of the changes.  Then, we can return to being happy customers.



Is this a really "compromise" or just allowing people to revert to the previous setting


----------



## fasha39 (Oct 29, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> I think that the 'Buy where you want to go' mantra is more important than ever.
> 
> While the fight with II/SVO is important - like many things here on TUG - they caught on to the bargains and loopholes out there - and put an end to it.  In my view - more important is how deliquent/default VOIs that result in non-payment of MFs affects all Owners - and is a much bigger issue than the changes in II.



I completely agree with the comment that the fact loopholes have been closed is a secondary issue.  In my view those who bought using a different strategy than “buy where you want to go” were taking a risk and the pillorying against Starwood is sour grapes.

I also agree that the big issue is the finances of HOA’s considering the delinquent/defaults that could be adding up to a much larger issue than arguing about if there is a conspiracy against current SVO members.

In my view this would be a much better issue to focus TUG’s resources on.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

DannyM said:


> I agree that if it was important enough for Starwood to make this change and upset so many people despite whatever contractual obligations they had - then it is probably an important enough to fight them on it, even though i also don't have a stake here.
> 
> Is this a really "compromise" or just allowing people to revert to the previous setting



It is a 'compromise' in the sense that we are complaining the most vocally about non-SVN owners at certain non-seasonal or old-seasonal pre-Starwood deeded voluntary resorts, such as SDO and SBP.  This is where we have the greatest legal justifications to fight and complain.  I haven't seen the same level of anger regarding mandatory resorts such as WKV because Starwood designed those real estate deeds and legal contracts with SVN in mind.  WKV is only a short drive from SDO in AZ.  The weather is the same, but the deed and agreements are totally different for resale buyers.  If Starwood agrees to exempt just SDO & SBP resorts from the new system, then I am Ok with that and will return to being a happy owner with them.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> I completely agree with the comment that the fact loopholes have been closed is a secondary issue.  In my view those who bought using a different strategy than “buy where you want to go” were taking a risk and the pillorying against Starwood is sour grapes.
> 
> I also agree that the big issue is the finances of HOA’s considering the delinquent/defaults that could be adding up to a much larger issue than arguing about if there is a conspiracy against current SVO members.
> 
> In my view this would be a much better issue to focus TUG’s resources on.



Referring to my legitimate complaints as 'sour grapes' over 'closed loopholes' further strengthens my resolve here.  I will not allow Starwood to bully owners into believing that lie.  Our complaints are valid.  I would be the first to 'shut up and sell' if it were proven otherwise.  All of these issues are directly related and inseparable to each other in my mind.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> In my view those who bought using a different strategy than “buy where you want to go” were taking a risk and the pillorying against Starwood is sour grapes.



Then I think that you don't really understand the issues...or what we have lost...

The changes are not just "loopholes closed" - there has been a wholesale rewriting of the rules and it affects all Starwood owners, not just resale owners.


----------



## fasha39 (Oct 29, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Then I think that you don't really understand the issues...or what we have lost...
> 
> The changes are not just "loopholes closed" - there has been a wholesale rewriting of the rules and it affects all Starwood owners, not just resale owners.



Thanks to TUG we bought resale AND thanks to TUG we bought where we want to go.  So, now that you know a little more, what don't I understand?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> Thanks to TUG we bought resale AND thanks to TUG we bought where we want to go.  So, now that you know a little more, what don't I understand?




Sure - I'll play:  Without looking back at the old posts, please list the changes that have been made in the II exchange rules for Starwood owners.

BTW - do you play golf?


----------



## gmarine (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> I completely agree with the comment that the fact loopholes have been closed is a secondary issue.  In my view those who bought using a different strategy than “buy where you want to go” were taking a risk and the pillorying against Starwood is sour grapes.
> 
> I also agree that the big issue is the finances of HOA’s considering the delinquent/defaults that could be adding up to a much larger issue than arguing about if there is a conspiracy against current SVO members.
> 
> In my view this would be a much better issue to focus TUG’s resources on.



There are no so called "loopholes". Saying that just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

An owner who makes a reservation at his home resort has a right to do as he wishes with that reservation. End of story.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 29, 2009)

The ability to do a request first is not a loophole.   Although the loss of that option does not effect me personally, I can see where it would be a huge problem for some people.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

Sorry if my post was misinterpreted - perhaps it is better to say (per CCRs and II agreement) that they are allowed to change the 'rules' at anytime... which they will do once they find a way to increase their bottom-line (which they have).  To depend that anything to do with rules that SVO/SVN/II can change is extremely misguided - as we continue to learn about every few months.

Even SVN is not protected - and this can also be changed or go away at anytime based on SVO/SVN decisions - and is stated in the CCRs - that is why a back-up program is discussed in the CCRs (at least for WKORV S/N, WKV, WSJ, and WPORV).

I do not agree that II/SVO changes is a more important issue than the global deliquent MF or default by Owners as this directly and severly impacts us all.  I am not saying that the II changes therefore is unimportant (please understand the difference) - it is just Tuggers are well-educated about the system and are aware how these changes impact them directly and indirectly. Unfortunately, Tuggers represent <1% (if not <0.01%) of Owners - and are probaly unaware or do not care since it does not impact them directly as they do not plan to use II (and do not plan to sale in their V resort in near future - so they are blissfully unaware that it has zero value).

If increase in MFs are a result of non-payment of MFs - and the monies do not come back to the managment Association for a specific result (due to a carefully crafted mechanism hidden in the CCRs) - then it becomes a very slippery slope that lead to even more non-payment (and non-reimbursment) that in turn lead to higher MFs (and so on and so forth).

THIS is a serious issue that outweighs what II/SVO has done with their changes - I am sorry - it just is...


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

We all have our own priorities, and not everyone does II exchanges, but this isn't an either/or question - both issues are serious issues that owners should be concerned about.  

*United we stand, divided we fall....*


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 29, 2009)

Denise, do you think SVO employees are posting in this thread?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Denise, do you think SVO employees are posting in this thread?



Hmmmmm.....I may have to investigate!


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> We all have our own priorities, and not everyone does II exchanges, but this isn't an either/or question - both issues are serious issues that owners should be concerned about.
> 
> *United we stand, divided we fall....*



I agree completely - again I am not saying that it is unimportant - and I am also not saying it is either/or - but I am surprise of the momentum for II changes (which per agreement can be altered by them) and not for what is happening to MFs based on deliquences and defaults.  If I was Starwood - I would be very happy that Tuggers are focusing on II changes, and not on how MFs are being diverted from management associations - which I believe opens them up to a potential lawsuit that in turn will force transparency of the HOAs.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

I think it's just momentum - we have been talking about II changes since about Aug. 18th - we just started talking about the 2010 MF about a week - 10 days ago.  As far as I am concerned, both issues illustrate how far Starwood has fallen in the customer service arena.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> We all have our own priorities, and not everyone does II exchanges, but this isn't an either/or question - both issues are serious issues that owners should be concerned about.  United we stand, divided we fall....



Exactly!  Denise, I will stand by you, George, JerseyGirl and many others who speak knowledgeably on all these issues.  I trust we will unite and work together for to find a reasonable resolutions.

These issues are both very important to me.  And, as I made the case earlier in this thread, I think they are very dependent on each other.  Agreeing to stay silent about one issue isn't going to help the other problem go away.  I agree this isn't an either / or.  I will speak based on principles to all issues simultaneously, even if they appear to conflict with each other short term.  Personally, I think we must resolve the II exchange issue first, right now.  Then, more HOA dues paying owners will want to buy and keep the thousands of distressed and foreclosed properties which will be coming in 2010.  Unfortunately, telling the truth scares away many would-be buyers and hurts resale prices short term.  It is what it is.  Sorry about that.

Absolutely, as an owner I am most frustrated by the level of delinquent accounts and the resulting impact on MF.  However, why bother with that if Starwood is taking away my desire to remain an owner in the first place?


----------



## DanCali (Oct 29, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> I agree completely - again I am not saying that it is unimportant - and I am also not saying it is either/or - but I am surprise of the momentum for II changes (which per agreement can be altered by them) and not for what is happening to MFs based on deliquences and defaults.  If I was Starwood - I would be very happy that Tuggers are focusing on II changes, and not on how MFs are being diverted from management associations - which I believe opens them up to a potential lawsuit that in turn will force transparency of the HOAs.



Just wait a few more days/weeks weeks until the WKORV S/N bills show up - those are big resorts, with many owners who are in for a huge sticker shock. You'll get the momentum then...


----------



## Transit (Oct 29, 2009)

The culmination of events that have recently been brought to light is disturbing. Any fee increase ,service loss,benefit loss and threat of those is disturbing. Having *all of these *things surface together is inflammatory. It will be a long time before the general (Starwood) population discovers what's going on.By the time they do everything will (is) be a mess. United we stand divided we fall? IMO The entire Starwood timeshare structure is collapsing and each resort will soon have to stand on it's own two feet. Some may not survive.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> I disagree. Many people dont want to buy units that include the current years usage when the purchase wont close until after the prime season of that resort ends. You paid 2009 m-fees for 2009 usage and had to either use a 2009 week or deposit a 2009 week with Interval with less than ideal time before check in date.
> 
> Sales late in the year which include usage that year almost always sell for less than typical prices.



There may be some light to this statement. I have found that Buyer's are offering less because they know the maintenance fees are coming out again (if not already) and feel as though Sellers are more a little more motivated when that "reminder" comes in the mail.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

I just saw this free timeshare on Craigslist:
http://phoenix.craigslist.org/nph/vac/1442406480.html

Text from the Ad I saw: 
MY EX AND I BOUGHT THIS IN 2000 (COULD OF BEEN 2001) IT IS A PROPERTY LOCATED AT SHERATON DESERT OASIS RESORT IN SCOTTSDALE AZ. WHEN WE DIVORCED WE DECIDED TO SHARE THE TIMESHARE. HOWEVER, NEITHER OF US HAVE USED IT SINCE 2004. HE DOESNT WANT IT, I DONT WANT IT SO WE ARE OFFERING IT FREE TO YOU!!! YEARLY FEES ARE 725.25 FOR MAINT, HOA, ETC... YOU WONT HAVE TO PAY THOSE FEES TIL JAN 2011. DONT PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR A TIMESHARE WHEN WE ARE OFFERING OURS FREE, WE JUST DONT WANT TO BE BOTHERED WITH STILL OWNING A PROPERTY TOGETHER. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF TIMESHARES OUT THERE FOR SALE. WE PAID CASH FOR THIS (17,000) SO OUR LOSS IS YOUR GAIN. A FREE TIME SHARE....WHERE CAN YOU GET A DEAL LIKE THAT ?????? I KNOW OF NONE! DEAL WILL GO THROUGH TITLE CO. SO YOU KNOW YOU ARE GETTING TITLE TO THIS TIMESHARE. IT IS WEEK (8) WHICH IS AT A HIGHER EXCHANGE. 

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH WEBSITES THAT SELL TIMESHARES...NOT..NOT..NOT I REPEAT, NOT INTRESTED. IF THOSE REALLY WORKED, THERE WOULDNT BE SO MANY TIMESHARES FOR SELL.... ​


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

With fewer buyers and free timeshares, we may see more rental businesses like this crop up for SDO:  http://aztimesharerentals.com/springtraining.htm

I bought my SDO units only for personal use.  The new rules are keeping me from trading with II.  My 2010 reservation is worth far more $$$ than giving it up for a generic week that yields a lackluster II trade.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 29, 2009)

Transit said:


> The culmination of events that have recently been brought to light is disturbing. Any fee increase ,service loss,benefit loss and threat of those is disturbing. Having *all of these *things surface together is inflammatory. It will be a long time before the general (Starwood) population discovers what's going on.By the time they do everything will (is) be a mess. United we stand divided we fall? IMO The entire Starwood timeshare structure is collapsing and each resort will soon have to stand on it's own two feet. Some may not survive.



Frank, I do not understand what gloom and doom hyperbole you are talking about (I understand Halloween is approaching, but....)

Despite some of the recent problems, starwood vacation ownership is a great product with great resorts. The problems with exchanging does not take away the quality of the resorts. Starwood is still very good at cleaning the toilets, just they are charging a bit too much for that and acting like they own the property.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

The resorts are great, but the escalating maintenance fees, special assessments, and constant rule changes that decrease the value of owning a Starwood TS, are making ownership less attractive all the time.


----------



## Transit (Oct 29, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Frank, I do not understand what gloom and doom hyperbole you are talking about (I understand Halloween is approaching, but....)
> 
> Despite some of the recent problems, starwood vacation ownership is a great product with great resorts. The problems with exchanging does not take away the quality of the resorts. Starwood is still very good at cleaning the toilets, just they are charging a bit too much for that and acting like they own the property.



Starwood has some of the best resorts and it's killing me that they are dropping the ball............The trading issue is a small part of the negative scenario for me. Have you checked your 2010 maintenance fees? All of my units have increased and the amount of people faltering on their maintenance fees is rising "stated in the Starwood service cuts letter".The economy and bad Starwood decisions creating a condition where  owners are just abandoning maintenance fees and leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.
​ This creates an snowball effect .Once the fees become too high more people do not pay. No new growth kills SVN because without new resorts there is no movement within SVN. I did not buy to go to the same location every year I bought the "idea" of SVN where all the resorts are supposed to be attainable. 
​Everyone has issues that bug them. The no more waitlisting in SVN issue really bugs me alot.The non-SVN units I bought were for trading and using myself but if the fees get out of control I won't keep them.You simply do not see Marriotts, Hyatts,Hiltons and DVC being givin away or dumped on ebay for a dollar.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 29, 2009)

Transit said:


> Starwood has some of the best resorts and it's killing me that they are dropping the ball............The trading issue is a small part of the negative scenario for me. Have you checked your 2010 maintenance fees? All of my units have increased and the amount of people faltering on their maintenance fees is rising "stated in the Starwood service cuts letter".The economy and bad Starwood decisions creating a condition where  owners are just abandoning maintenance fees and leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab.
> ​ This creates an snowball effect .Once the fees become too high more people do not pay. No new growth kills SVN because without new resorts there is no movement within SVN. I did not buy to go to the same location every year I bought the "idea" of SVN where all the resorts are supposed to be attainable.
> ​Everyone has issues that bug them. The no more waitlisting in SVN issue really bugs me alot.The non-SVN units I bought were for trading and using myself but if the fees get out of control I won't keep them.You simply do not see Marriotts, Hyatts,Hiltons and DVC being givin away or dumped on ebay for a dollar.



Exactly - Owners need to get REAL answers from the Association Managment on how the HOA gets reimbursment for unused VOIs (due to deliquency and defaults) that end up the SVO system (per CCRs). It appears as if SVO/SVN gets the benefit (e.g renting, SVN exchanges, SP exchanges, etc.) without having to pay the MFs back to the HOA (except where the deliquent MFs are eventually paid by the Owner - as per CCRs).

This is serious stuff folks... it could cause a snowball effect that essentially causes the HOA to crumble as more and more Owners default due to rapidly escalating MFs.

*Again - How does the HOA get reimbursed for the lost MFs?*  {beyond passing the cost onto the Owners in increased MFs}  Everyone impacted should start asking this question of their Association Management and demand answers and action before it is too late.


----------



## fasha39 (Oct 29, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Sure - I'll play:  Without looking back at the old posts, please list the changes that have been made in the II exchange rules for Starwood owners.
> 
> BTW - do you play golf?



Denise - Wow!  Really?  Come on!  I'm not here to play games, I'm stating IN MY OPINION that the changes made to II are closing a loophole and if you bought with the intent of using that "method", buyer beware.  Looking at our 2010 operating plan and budget for WKV there is an increase of $92.63 vs. 2009 and guess what the biggest variable is?  Uncollectable Accounts - to the tune of $69.98 and in my neophyte way of thinking that accounts for approximately 75% of the increase.   

I’m sure that when the WKORV operating plan and budget come in the two biggest drivers will be taxes and Uncollectable Accounts.  I stand by my argument that this is a far bigger issue than the changes to II or any conspiracy theory.

Yes, I do play golf.  No I don’t work for Starwood and no I’m not Jarta using an alias.  

But I am disillusioned that anytime someone says anything remotely positive or comes close to defending Starwood they are lambasted by some and at times it seems you lead the charge.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Fasha -- the "loophole" theory is a myth.  

Owners who purchased deeds pre-Starwood's involvement bought the right to book and CONTROL any available week within their season.  Some choose to book and use ... some choose to book and rent ... some choose to book and exchange.  II gives some of these weeks superior trading power because they command it -- they're nice resorts in great locations -- people want to trade into them.

Starwood has decided to apply rules permitted by SVN documentation to deeds not covered by that SVN documentation. 

That is not closing a loophole.  It's interfering with owners' deeded rights.  And, the fact that Starwood refuses, thus far, to provide documentation to the contrary speaks volumes.

Don't drink the koolaid.  Starwood wants you to believe the loophole story because it legitimizes their actions.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

Starwood prioritizes the rental inventory.  SVN conversions likely top that list.  Starwood gets all the rent in exchange for providing the conversion.  Renting unused VOIs on behalf of the HOA is the lowest priority.  There are many other types of rental categories that fall in between.  Timing can greatly impact what inventory is left over and what nights of the week can actually be rented out on behalf of the HOA.  This is bottom of the barrel stuff.  When it is successful, Starwood pockets I think ~50% of the rent as a management fee.  Just do the math.  Consider occupancy and half the nightly rates during the least desired seasonal weeks.  It is unlikely for HOA proceeds to exceed what is owed.  If they do, I believe any extra would go as a credit to the lucky delinquent owners account.

The HOA can recover some money post foreclosure.  That assumes the unit sells for more than the foreclosure costs, past due fees and any other liens.

In this market, I think it is safe to say that most HOA's will never see much recovery from uncollectible accounts.  It will probably cost the HOA more money just to foreclose those ownerships and get them back into the hands of dues paying members.


----------



## El Codo (Oct 29, 2009)

*Really an issue?*

Is this really an issue?  I didn't read all of the threads, but it seems the discussion about the resale value is based on one sale on e-bay.

Without seeing the ad, there are several reasons it could have gone for $1.  I won't go into scenarios.

If repeatedly units are going for a low price then it seems to be more of an issue.  To react as though one sale represents resale is similar to saying my house is now worth what a foreclosed house sold for.  That isn't what it means. 
Could it hurt resale value?  Sure.  Do we know that at this point?  No.  One sale does not make a trend.  I would even dare to say two or three don't either.

Funny that before reading these posts I was thinking about the uncollectable account portion of the maintenance fees. I have to admit that is a concern.

My two cents as an SDO owner is to sit tight and see what happens.  It doesn't seem as though we have enough data yet to conclude what the severity of impact is due to the II changes and we definitely don't have enough data based on one sale on e-bay.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the II changes and don't support them. I just don't know the extent of the impact to me at this point.

No disrespect meant to those that have expressed opnions to the contrary


----------



## l2trade (Oct 29, 2009)

By settling with II after the fact, Starwood can dump the least desired seasonal weeks on them.  I don't know what the details of the new affiliation agreement are.  I speculate that Starwood is settling up with II based on the 'average' of what is leftover, not every week in the season owned.

I anticipate that II knows what is going on, that is why they've lowered the trading value for all generic weeks accordingly.


----------



## El Codo (Oct 29, 2009)

*Follow up*

I forgot to mention that based on what I was reading I expected to find several units for sale on e-bay.  There were three one bedrooms for sale, one of which is a bankruptcy by BKASSETS.  Hardly the dumping of units on e-bay for cheap that I was expecting.

On a side note,  last spring I researched bkassets and found them to be reputable. I did not purchase from them because I lost the auction, but did talk to them and found additional information about them.  They even gave me help understanding how to research bankruptcy sales.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> I'm stating IN MY OPINION that *the changes made to II* are closing a loophole and if you bought with the intent of using that "method", buyer beware.



And what would those changes be???

Isn't is kind of hard to defend them, when you don't know what they are?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 29, 2009)

El Codo said:


> It doesn't seem as though we have enough data yet to conclude what the severity of impact is due to the II changes



I think it's too soon to burn our deeds, but we already know enough to clearly see that the the changes are not positive for owners.  I don't think we can sit around and wait until these changes are entrenched - the squeaky wheel gets greased!

RE: Data - Did you see the trade test we did comparing the old trade value of SDO and the new trade value?  Under the new rules, the BEST deposit from SDO sees 50% fewer units than the best deposit under the old rules.  That's some scary data!


----------



## Transit (Oct 29, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> I completely agree with the comment that the fact loopholes have been closed is a secondary issue.  In my view those who bought using a different strategy than “buy where you want to go” were taking a risk and the pillorying against Starwood is sour grapes.
> 
> I also agree that the big issue is the finances of HOA’s considering the delinquent/defaults that could be adding up to a much larger issue than arguing about if there is a conspiracy against current SVO members.
> 
> In my view this would be a much better issue to focus TUG’s resources on.



*Any* negative issue affects the collection.Starwood units still trade well. There is no good reason why they shouldn't trade the best except for behind the scenes manipulation by Starwood/II.There is a fine line between closing a loophole and deleting a benefit.Example: If Starwood starts charging to have names other than an owner on a reservation. Will that be closing a loop hole,deleting a benefit or adding an unfair fee? To people who never rent their units it may be perceived as closing a loophole,To owners who rent their units it may be perceived as adding an unfair fee.To others it may be perceived as losing a benefit.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Oct 30, 2009)

Transit said:


> *Any* negative issue affects the collection.Starwood units still trade well. There is no good reason why they shouldn't trade the best except for behind the scenes manipulation by Starwood/II.There is a fine line between closing a loophole and deleting a benefit.Example: If Starwood starts charging to have names other than an owner on a reservation. Will that be closing a loop hole,deleting a benefit or adding an unfair fee? To people who never rent their units it may be perceived as closing a loophole,To owners who rent their units it may be perceived as adding an unfair fee.To others it may be perceived as losing a benefit.



Wyndham charges $100 guest certificate fee
RCI charges it, II charges it
Raintree vacation club charges $50 guest certificate fee

Do we know the average total cost per call taken by a rep in a call center?

Do we know by what percentage the heath care premiums have gone up for starwood this last year alone for the employees taking our phone calls?

I am not a fan of starwood after these changes, but the money to manage costly operations has to come from somewhere. A 3 bedroom unit at WSJ just sold on ebay for over $21K, a 2 bedroom at Atlantis just sold for over $12K (So not all starwood units are being given away). I do mind the hyperbole of "starwood system crashing under its own weight."


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 30, 2009)

Transit said:


> *Any* negative issue affects the collection.Starwood units still trade well. There is no good reason why they shouldn't trade the best except for behind the scenes manipulation by Starwood/II.There is a fine line between closing a loophole and deleting a benefit.Example: If Starwood starts charging to have names other than an owner on a reservation. Will that be closing a loop hole,deleting a benefit or adding an unfair fee? To people who never rent their units it may be perceived as closing a loophole,To owners who rent their units it may be perceived as adding an unfair fee.To others it may be perceived as losing a benefit.



hey frank - don't give them any ideas... lol
battle them on all fronts
take it easy
d

SVO could save $$$ by changing thier entire reservation system and database processes - but that was last year's issue... still no change.  MSC is a joke and dealing with the call center is also (but that is so 'last year')


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 30, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> hey frank - don't give them any ideas... lol
> battle them on all fronts
> take it easy
> d
> ...



David - that fee to put a guest's name on your reservations is one of the things that gmarine was told on his under cover mission - that may be coming....


----------



## DanCali (Oct 30, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Do we know the average total cost per call taken by a rep in a call center?
> 
> Do we know by what percentage the heath care premiums have gone up for starwood this last year alone for the employees taking our phone calls?
> 
> I am not a fan of starwood after these changes, but the money to manage costly operations has to come from somewhere.



But do you get any transparency as to what you are paying for? What if I told you that you are also funding the 800-WESTIN1 call center cost increases (Starwood hotels), and the increase in health care premiums across the entire Starwood organization (clearly the hotels haven't been able to adjust their prices to take that into account). Does this seem fair now?

By the way, I have no idea if this is true or not, but it might as well be since there is no transparency...



sjuhawk_jd said:


> Wyndham charges $100 guest certificate fee



I am far from an expert on Wyndham/Worldmark, but since you brought them up... don't they cap annual MF increases by a max of 5% contractually? They seem to manage their resorts under that restriction which implies to me that on average MFs across their resorts don't go up by more than 5% each year... Doesn't it bother you that MFs at *every* Starwood resort go up by more than 7% *each* year, and some 15% *each* year? They too must be affected by energy prices, healthcare costs, delinquencies and every other excuse that comes along each year...



sjuhawk_jd said:


> A 3 bedroom unit at WSJ just sold on ebay for over $21K, a 2 bedroom at Atlantis just sold for over $12K (So not all starwood units are being given away). I do mind the hyperbole of "starwood system crashing under its own weight."



Voluntary resorts are more valuable because of the StarOptions you buy with the property. But even the resale prices of the "flagship" resorts are down 20%-40% over the past 6 months. WKORVN 2BR LO IV auction ended today below reserve at $11,600. Two months ago those were selling well over $15K! Do we actally need to get to $1 before we admit that we have a problem?

I believe people were referring to voluntary resorts when they said they were practically given away... Take a look at WMH, SVR, SMV non ski weeks, SDO, and SBP and you will see that those are selling for symbolic prices $1-$1000. As others pointed out,some owners even find it necessary to pay someone just to take the timeshare from them. In my opinion, with current MFs of about $2500 and no StarOptions transferrability on resale, it won't take too long even for one of Starwood's newest and most luxurious resorts (WPORV) to reach that resale level - 1 or 2 MF cycles at most...


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 30, 2009)

how about a fee to call the call center? lol


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 30, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> Starwoold save $$$ by changing thier entire reservation system and database processes - but that was last year's issue... still no change.  MSC is a joke and dealing with the call center is also (but that is so 'last year')



David -- don't you mean, "Starwood could save the *owners* money by automating the reservation system?"  Those costs are passed on to us (I'm not home right now, but I believe that "reservation costs" are a separate line item on our HOA budgets.)

They have no incentive to do so while we're paying for it.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 30, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> David -- don't you mean, "Starwood could save the *owners* money by automating the reservation system?"  Those costs are passed on to us (I'm not home right now, but I believe that "reservation costs" are a separate line item on our HOA budgets.)
> 
> They have no incentive to do so while we're paying for it.



jerseygirl,

Starwood will not change the manual reservation system.  Not because costs are allocated to the owners. Automation takes away control of the inventory.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 30, 2009)

Very true Fred.  But, I'm starting a list of all the ways that I believe owners are taken advantage of ... and this is one of them.

If we could ever get organized ...........


----------



## Transit (Oct 30, 2009)

sjuhawk_jd said:


> Wyndham charges $100 guest certificate fee
> RCI charges it, II charges it
> Raintree vacation club charges $50 guest certificate fee
> Thats not the the product we bought /it can change though.
> ...


A wake up call is neccessary.If things don't change that is certainly the direction were headed to.
When our 5* elite friends were losing the the benefit to upgrade the same "pillorying against Starwood" sour grape letter writers fired off.When ever SPG increases points needed to use hotels without increasing the unit/SPG points value. The same "pillorying against Starwood" letter writers fired off.When ever there is a issue wth Starwood those damn letter writers fire off.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 30, 2009)

I would like to add the words "Princeville Ocean Resort Villas" (thank you Google!) to this thread - so the Starwood employees who lurk on TUG know that there is a chance potential buyers who do research in the recission period stumble on this thread and rescind. Hopefully I saved some nice couples $55K...

If they don't care that their owners/customers bleed cash via ridiculous MFs and the resulting inevitable lower resale values, maybe they will start caring about that when it starts hurting their pockets too?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 30, 2009)

Reservation automation does not take away from inventory control (Starwood {and others} do it on a massive scale with their hotels), and yes of course it would save us money - I was being sarcastic about the reservation system - it is a joke as well as their database control - feels like the 1990s when it comes to SVO/SVN and technology

but that issue has been discussed since I came on this board - and it continues to flounder even with the 'promises' from SVO

this issue (MF deliquences/defaults) is huge in comparison - I personally am following up on this issue with SVO (both in writing and trying to understand the CCRs).  I believe SVO is vunerable here in regards to transparency as we as owners have a right to know how the lack of MF payment affects our MFs.

I strongly suggest that everyone else does as well - because if you do not respond - you may never get a chance - and the revolt will come too late


----------



## thinze3 (Oct 30, 2009)

*Are most Sheraton units valueless?*

I am looking for a very inexpensive way to enter the Starwood system and have considered SDO in the past. There is a 1BR deluxe SDO 1-52 listed on eBay for half of nothing. MF is listed at $612/yr.

ALL the Sheraton timeshares appear to be just about valueless on eBay, even the platinum units. Why?


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 30, 2009)

*The game has changed and its not good*



thinze3 said:


> I am looking for a very inexpensive way to enter the Starwood system and have considered SDO in the past. There is a 1BR deluxe SDO 1-52 listed on eBay for half of nothing. MF is listed at $612/yr.
> 
> ALL the Sheraton timeshares appear to be just about valueless on eBay, even the platinum units. Why?



It's not just Sheraton. People are coming to realize that the true cost of timeshare are the annual fees not the purchase price. The only thing they are willing to take on are those fees IF they feel they can use and/or rent it for a greater value than they pay. As they see deeply discounted rentals EVERYWHERE (and I don't mean just RCI/II as they are small players overall) and look at the annual fees they wisely ask why commit to a risky place unless I absolutely plan to use it or know I can rent it for the money paid? Few can say that for more than a week or two per year and, as always, sellers out number buyers thousands to one. It is a rare timeshare that has real value and far too many that are no longer worth what they cost each year. 

It's a little better in the nearly year round areas and for the best timeshares - especially those in a large club system or with a base group of owners that tend to USE their time - but none have much resale value. Purchased cheap and for direct use a timeshare can still be a great way to go, and save you money, but owning many and/or planning on rentals or exchanges to make them of value is no longer a winners game. The cost to exchange is approaching the annual fees of 15 years ago meanwhile annual fees are continuously on the rise. Buy to use. Buy in a system you know will provide you with places you want to see in the coming years and you can do OK.  Otherwise timeshare has unfortunately become far more hassle and more costly than what you will get back out.


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 30, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> I am looking for a very inexpensive way to enter the Starwood system and have considered SDO in the past. There is a 1BR deluxe SDO 1-52 listed on eBay for half of nothing. MF is listed at $612/yr.
> 
> ALL the Sheraton timeshares appear to be just about valueless on eBay, even the platinum units. Why?



The Starwood properties that will command more money are the properties that are mandatory and will provide use of StarOptions.


----------



## SDKath (Oct 30, 2009)

It's hard for me to believe that these lovely units are all of a sudden "useless."  Just buy where you want to go!  It will give you years of enjoyment.  If you buy to use the system (for resale that would be only II since you can't use SVN with SDO), I would stay far away from Starwood now.  Thanks to their revised II trade rules as of a month or two ago, no one is getting any trades anywhere and Starwood is no longer depositing any units into II that are larger than a 1Br.  You are far better of buying a Marriott and using their "internal" trading window to take advantage of II.

Katherine


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 30, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Just buy where you want to go!  It will give you years of enjoyment.
> Katherine



Good advice - except with the rocketing MFs - one may be paying more than it would cost to rent.  Right now - the base MF for a 2Bd in WSJ is $2000, with a SA of $850 - that is $2850 total for 1 week... super ouch...

I realize that a part of this is the SA for a massive refurbish - but the base MFs increase 25% from 2009-2010 and there has been a 50% increase in 5 years.  Oh yeah - USVI taxes on TSs is about to double...

Once these MFs go up - do you ever expect them to go down? The Association Management has no plan on how to recapture these losses - only to buffer the effect. (discussed with me today by a SVN Rep)

MFs for WKORV Dlx - $2400 in 2009 - how much will they be in 2010? When I stated staying at WKORV in 2006 the MFs were $1800 - so that is 33% increase in 3 years - add in the increase in Maui taxes and... well where the fck does it end?

A very large part of the MF increase is coming from deliquent/default Owners (of which will only be reimburse if paid - per CCRs).  SVO had no contingency plan for this situation (again, admitted to me today) based on the economic downturn - but will be glad to get value for themselves w/o passing it on to the HOA.

Folks - contact your association management - associationmgmt@starwoodvo.com

or

'Resort_name' BOD
9002 San Marco Ct.
Orlando, FA 30819

Ask the direct questions - and demand real answers...  I am doing this - but it will fall on deaf ears without others contacting them also to force them to address this problem and not just give lip service.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 30, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> It's not just Sheraton. People are coming to realize that the true cost of timeshare are the annual fees not the purchase price. The only thing they are willing to take on are those fees IF they feel they can use and/or rent it for a greater value than they pay. As they see deeply discounted rentals EVERYWHERE (and I don't mean just RCI/II as they are small players overall) and look at the annual fees they wisely ask why commit to a risky place unless I absolutely plan to use it or know I can rent it for the money paid? Few can say that for more than a week or two per year and, as always, sellers out number buyers thousands to one. It is a rare timeshare that has real value and far too many that are no longer worth what they cost each year.
> 
> It's a little better in the nearly year round areas and for the best timeshares - especially those in a large club system or with a base group of owners that tend to USE their time - but none have much resale value. Purchased cheap and for direct use a timeshare can still be a great way to go, and save you money, but owning many and/or planning on rentals or exchanges to make them of value is no longer a winners game. The cost to exchange is approaching the annual fees of 15 years ago meanwhile annual fees are continuously on the rise. Buy to use. Buy in a system you know will provide you with places you want to see in the coming years and you can do OK.  Otherwise timeshare has unfortunately become far more hassle and more costly than what you will get back out.



Well stated!


----------



## Fredm (Oct 30, 2009)

DannyM said:


> I would like to add the words "Princeville Ocean Resort Villas" (thank you Google!) to this thread - so the Starwood employees who lurk on TUG know that there is a chance potential buyers who do research in the recission period stumble on this thread and rescind. Hopefully I saved some nice couples $55K...
> 
> If they don't care that their owners/customers bleed cash via ridiculous MFs and the resulting inevitable lower resale values, maybe they will start caring about that when it starts hurting their pockets too?



Danny,

Not nice. Everyone has a right to an honest living.
All buyers should exercise due diligence.
If they do, they will find the secondary marketplace. It's not hard. They can make their own decisions from there.
But, it's not a sales persons fault that fees are where they are. 
And buying a resale does not change that.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 30, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Danny,
> 
> Not nice. Everyone has a right to an honest living.
> All buyers should exercise due diligence.
> ...




I've been on a lot of timeshare presentations and never once has a salesman been completely honest. That being said, I'm not sure honest living and timeshare salesperson belong together.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Oct 30, 2009)

*Due Diligence, Shmoo Jilladence.*




Fredm said:


> All buyers should exercise due diligence.


Of course they should. 

There is not much opportunity for due diligence, however, amid all the high-energy razzle-dazzle & ballyhoo going on in those full-freight timeshare sales rooms, where the unrelenting pressure is _on_ to _buy-buy-buy !_

_Now, now, now ! _

_Hurry - Hurry - Hurry !_ 

_This offer good today only ! _

Not much chance for price shopping or reality checking or secondary market exploration under those conditions. 

Just saying. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## fasha39 (Oct 30, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> A very large part of the MF increase is coming from deliquent/default Owners (of which will only be reimburse if paid - per CCRs).  SVO had no contingency plan for this situation (again, admitted to me today) based on the economic downturn - but will be glad to get value for themselves w/o passing it on to the HOA.
> 
> Folks - contact your association management - associationmgmt@starwoodvo.com
> 
> ...



I sent an email to the WKV and WKORV HOA regarding what happens to the income generated from rentals or exchanges - in summary the response from WKV was;

"We will also continue to send delinquent notifications, followed by property liens, and foreclosure as a last resort. The units may be placed in lockout rental however rental of the weeks is not guaranteed. If the week is rented a percentage of the rental proceeds will go the delinquent fees. The owners will be responsible to pay the difference."

A generic response, so I'm going to press the case with a phone call for more details - What is the %?  Will there be a reconciliation showing all transactions at year end? Etc.


----------



## DanCali (Oct 30, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Danny,
> 
> Not nice. Everyone has a right to an honest living.
> All buyers should exercise due diligence.
> ...



Fred,

I am not making decisions for anyone. I do hope that I am increasing the chances that the buyers who do exercise due diligence find this thread and make a decision for themselves.

Of course everyone has the right to an honest living - even someone on the street trying to get you to play Three Card Monte... However, you also admit in a different thread that Starwood salespeople are not always honest.

If forced to take the side of Starwood salespeople or a newlywed couple about to spend $55K on semi-bogus vacation dreams and take on a 15% interest loan on a product that depreciates 80%-90% 7 days after they buy it - I'll go with the newlyweds.... Starwood is selling borderline "toxic" assets (in the financial asset sense) so my sympanthy to their salespeople is limited. I should point out that these assets are toxic (e.g. SVR), or slowly becoming that way (e.g. WMH, WPORV, and even WKORV and HRA imo), mostly because Starwood makes them so via the ever increasing MFs and constant rule changes the are unfavorable to owners.

This trend hurt not just uninformed developer buyers but also informed resale buyers. Some people (not me) on this board own multiple timeshares in prime locations and bought them mostly or all on resale... but with current valuations they lost tens of thousands of dollars or even six figures in equity value. Starwood is very much to blame for this value destruction by their reckless increase of MFs over the years. More recently, the economy also plays a part but TS valuations were going down even when house prices were soaring.

I applaud DavidnRobin's efforts to rally owners to write to their HOAs. That is a civilized way to tackle things... However, owners are hard to organize - and this is by design because Starwood controls the owners list - so this is an uphill battle. I've also seen the generic responses people got so far from Starwood and I think we are all going to get stonewalled further... That said - I fully support this effort and will write a letter myself. But unfortunately, I think the shenanigans (MFs, II, new rules, new fees, renting prime weeks etc...) will stop only when the costs - financial or brand damage - to Starwood outweigh the financial benefits to Starwood.

By the way - I truly believe WPORV Annual 2BR resale values will be $3000 or less in the not so distant future (that number may even be generous). Give it 2-3 years and we'll get there... Do you disagree with that assessment? I am not in a position like you to help people after they make the mistake and buy from the developer - but I hope this thread prevents them from making that mistake in the first place!


----------



## ondeadlin (Oct 30, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> Once these MFs go up - do you ever expect them to go down? The Association Management has no plan on how to recapture these losses - only to buffer the effect. (discussed with me today by a SVN Rep)
> 
> MFs for WKORV Dlx - $2400 in 2009 - how much will they be in 2010? When I stated staying at WKORV in 2006 the MFs were $1800 - so that is 33% increase in 3 years - add in the increase in Maui taxes and... well where the fck does it end?
> 
> A very large part of the MF increase is coming from deliquent/default Owners (of which will only be reimburse if paid - per CCRs).  SVO had no contingency plan for this situation (again, admitted to me today) based on the economic downturn - but will be glad to get value for themselves w/o passing it on to the HOA.



I've been predicting this for more than a year.

When MFs break $2,000, even the best weeks will rapidly lose almost all value.

And it's a self-perpetuating cycle - as MFs rise, more weeks go into default, as more weeks go into default, MFs rise more, until weeks are going for $1 on eBay. 

It's happening, and it's going to get worse.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=665335&postcount=11


----------



## m61376 (Oct 31, 2009)

I am not a Starwood owner and, admittedly, have a limited understanding of the system. But what I find very surprising is the huge MF increases that Starwood has imposed in this economy. I understand the issue of defaults and delinquencies, but double digit increases in this economy seems to me like a death knell.

When Starwood MF's first started coming out I wondered what I would see in the ensuing weeks when Marriott's started coming out. However, presumably the economy has affected Marriott owners the same as Starwood and I would assume both are experiencing similar delinquencies. Yet, Marriott seems to have contained all their fees this year, with those being posted so far all either a few percentage points up or down, with many reporting slight decreases even over last year (reflecting lower energy costs most likely).

It makes me wonder what Marriott is doing right and Starwood wrong, at least wrt MF's.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 31, 2009)

DannyM said:


> Fred,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thinze3 (Oct 31, 2009)

Denise, thanks for merging my new thread with this one started by gmarine. I hadn't noticed it.

I see all the advice about about "buying where you want to go." 
BUT, I want to basically trade throughout the Starwood system including places like Hawaii and Bahamas. I DO NOT want  to buy at WKORV and pay those high fess, however.

Does anyone know if the Sheraton Mountain Vista winter ski weeks trade platinum under the knew system? These 1BR weeks have also dropped in value and have become affordable it appears.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 31, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Denise, thanks for merging my new thread with this one started by gmarine. I hadn't noticed it.
> 
> I see all the advice about about "buying where you want to go."
> BUT, I want to basically trade throughout the Starwood system including places like Hawaii and Bahamas. I DO NOT want  to buy at WKORV and pay those high fess, however.
> ...



SMV ski weeks trade Platinum with I.I.  But, SMV is a voluntary resort. No StarOptions, no internal trading within the Starwood network.
Don't confuse the two. 

There are no "buts". Buy where you would most often go. If there is no such place, don't buy at all.  Starwood is not like the Marriott system.  With your Marriott shares you have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 31, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Denise, thanks for merging my new thread with this one started by gmarine. I hadn't noticed it.
> 
> I see all the advice about about "buying where you want to go."
> BUT, I want to basically trade throughout the Starwood system including places like Hawaii and Bahamas. I DO NOT want  to buy at WKORV and pay those high fess, however.
> ...



Terry

It is my opinion that SDO will still be a decent trader for the price under the new rules.  The Hawaii weeks are still showing up in II when searching with SDO under the new system.    Starwood normally doesn't deposit high-demand weeks, so you don't need super trading power to get the weeks they put into Interval.

However, I would not buy anything with the intention of trading into Harborside.  Starwood is changing the way they do business with II and we don't really know how many HRA weeks will be available to exchangers.


----------



## sml2181 (Oct 31, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Denise, thanks for merging my new thread with this one started by gmarine. I hadn't noticed it.
> 
> I see all the advice about about "buying where you want to go."
> BUT, I want to basically trade throughout the Starwood system including places like Hawaii and Bahamas. I DO NOT want  to buy at WKORV and pay those high fess, however.
> ...



My fixed event weeks are Platinum Plus in II now, and according to II, my winter float week would be a Platinum week. Same with my fixed even Lakeside Terrace and float Lakeside week. 
I think I would look into a Lakeside ski week which is a dedicated 2 bedroom sleeps 8, or try for a 2 bedroom winter-these are 2 1-bedroom units in II.
Lakeside units are cheaper (I think, mine were-) and mf's are lower. But you can't lock them off.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 31, 2009)

sml2181 said:


> My fixed event weeks are Platinum Plus in II now, and according to II, my winter float week would be a Platinum week. Same with my fixed even Lakeside Terrace and float Lakeside week.
> I think I would look into a Lakeside ski week which is a dedicated 2 bedroom sleeps 8, or try for a 2 bedroom winter-these are 2 1-bedroom units in II.
> Lakeside units are cheaper (I think, mine were-) and mf's are lower. But you can't lock them off.



If you own a true fixed week, they should not be designated with the Avg. valuation that floating weeks get - you still have the right to deposit the fixed week.  I just confirmed this with II, who confirmed it with Starwood, and corrected my Acct.

See this thread - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109234


----------



## thinze3 (Oct 31, 2009)

sml2181 said:


> My fixed event weeks are Platinum Plus in II now, and according to II, my winter float week would be a Platinum week. Same with my fixed even Lakeside Terrace and float Lakeside week.
> I think I would look into a Lakeside ski week which is a dedicated 2 bedroom sleeps 8, or try for a 2 bedroom winter-these are 2 1-bedroom units in II.
> Lakeside units are cheaper (I think, mine were-) and mf's are lower. But you can't lock them off.



Well, the SMV on eBay is EOY and the seller just confirmed that the fees are $509 every year. I am not going down that road with those fees for a 1BR when a 2BR is only a little more annually.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Nov 1, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Well, the SMV on eBay is EOY and the seller just confirmed that the fees are $509 every year. I am not going down that road with those fees for a 1BR when a 2BR is only a little more annually.



Just got the bill for LT this week. $894.61. This is an EY 2br.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 1, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Well, the SMV on eBay is EOY and the seller just confirmed that the fees are $509 every year. I am not going down that road with those fees for a 1BR when a 2BR is only a little more annually.



A lot of sellers include the $109 SVN fee when listing maintenance fees.  Since SVN membership won't transfer, the new owner won't have to pay this fee.


----------



## sml2181 (Nov 1, 2009)

Forgot to mention that the SMV 2br unit will let you request for a 3 bedroom unit in II.


----------



## RLG (Nov 1, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> Well, the SMV on eBay is EOY and the seller just confirmed that the fees are $509 every year. I am not going down that road with those fees for a 1BR when a 2BR is only a little more annually.



The maintenance is definitely incorrect.  I own a bunch of units at SMV.  The maintenance on every year units is 651.11 for the small 1br and 810.01 for the large.  The annual fee on all SVO EOY units is 50% of the annual plus $20.  So the unit you're looking at would have fees of 345.56 or 425.01 depending on whether it's a large or small 1br.  (I suspect the seller included the SVN fee of 109 which won't apply to you.)

One reason I own a bunch of these is that they trade incredibly well.  I've done several trades of my small 1br with 651 maintenance for 2brs at Westin Kaanapali or Westin Princeville.

I probably own too many of these now, so I'm not thrilled to see the low valuations since I may be selling a few in the future.


----------



## gregb (Nov 2, 2009)

thinze3 said:


> I see all the advice about about "buying where you want to go."
> BUT, I want to basically trade throughout the Starwood system including places like Hawaii and Bahamas. I DO NOT want  to buy at WKORV and pay those high fess, however.



The way I read this is that you want to "game" the system.  That is you want to pay low initial costs and low MF but trade into high cost resorts where someone else pays the high MF and purchase price.  If effect you are counting on others to pay the purchase prices and MF at the high priced resorts so they will be available for you to trade into.  As long as the owners at the high priced resorts agree (by trading their units for StarOptions, StarPoints or through II), you may be successful.  But if the owners at the high priced resorts start using their units, rather than trading them, you will get locked out.  That may be what is happening at WSJ as I am seeing folks remark that they cannot trade into that resort.  

When/If you start getting locked out of some resorts, you don't really have anything to complain about.  Remember you decided you wanted to pay the low costs.  So you get what the low costs can buy.  

Greg


----------



## thinze3 (Nov 2, 2009)

gregb said:


> The way I read this is that you want to "game" the system.  That is you want to pay low initial costs and low MF but trade into high cost resorts where someone else pays the high MF and purchase price.  If effect you are counting on others to pay the purchase prices and MF at the high priced resorts so they will be available for you to trade into. ...




Exactly right! I did it this past year when I traded my Legends Edge 2BR for a 2BR at KoOlina through II. Eventually even WKORV owners will get to where they want to go to other destinations, and quite possibly grow tired of the hassle associated with renting. At that point I would like to trade into their unit using SDO or the like.  

I learned all about it on Tug.


----------



## l2trade (Nov 2, 2009)

gregb said:


> The way I read this is that you want to "game" the system.  That is you want to pay low initial costs and low MF but trade into high cost resorts where someone else pays the high MF and purchase price.  If effect you are counting on others to pay the purchase prices and MF at the high priced resorts so they will be available for you to trade into.  As long as the owners at the high priced resorts agree (by trading their units for StarOptions, StarPoints or through II), you may be successful.  But if the owners at the high priced resorts start using their units, rather than trading them, you will get locked out.  That may be what is happening at WSJ as I am seeing folks remark that they cannot trade into that resort.
> 
> When/If you start getting locked out of some resorts, you don't really have anything to complain about.  Remember you decided you wanted to pay the low costs.  So you get what the low costs can buy.
> 
> Greg



The way I read this is you want to "pay more" for less.  I'm not about to get on that bandwagon.  Many of the high priced resorts are not worth the annual "high priced" MF.  That is why the resale purchase prices are imploding for resorts with out of control MF.  It is a great time to buy resale for "high priced" Hawaii, assuming you think the ridiculously high MF are worth more than their weight in rent.  Remember, we are supposed to actually OWN these places.  Have you ever heard the Motel 6 analogy they use all the time to sell these places?  C'mon, our dues are rising while hotel rents are falling.  Even the "low cost" Starwood resorts are climbing during this recession.  Let's consider these 'low costs' at one of the "cheap" Starwood resorts.  Sheraton Desert Oasis 2 bedroom annual week will run almost $900 in 2010 MF.  That same week can be rented many weeks of the year for significantly less money.  If II ends up with only the least desirable weeks, your trade value will be worth even less than your "low costs" to buy.  Why should my trade value be worth less than my reservation?  Why should my trade value be worth less than what I can rent the unit for?  I say 'No deal'.  Maybe, I will rent out to the public instead.  Many other owners at high priced resorts are reaching the same conclusion under much more compelling numbers.  I say 'Good for them' if they don't sacrifice the best weeks to points conversions.  We are not trying to 'game' the system.  That is a lie the developers want you to believe.  We owners are all getting 'gamed'.  As a non-SVN owner, my relationship with Starwood should be separate and distinct from my relationship with II.  II should only give me what they feel my reservation is worth.  I understand that.  It is a two-way street.  However, Starwood should not interfere at all in the legitimacy of that private transaction.  

I never signed a ROFR for exchanging.  Did you?


----------



## DanCali (Nov 2, 2009)

gregb said:


> The way I read this is that you want to "game" the system.  That is you want to pay low initial costs and low MF but trade into high cost resorts where someone else pays the high MF and purchase price.  If effect you are counting on others to pay the purchase prices and MF at the high priced resorts so they will be available for you to trade into.  As long as the owners at the high priced resorts agree (by trading their units for StarOptions, StarPoints or through II), you may be successful.  But if the owners at the high priced resorts start using their units, rather than trading them, you will get locked out.  That may be what is happening at WSJ as I am seeing folks remark that they cannot trade into that resort.
> 
> When/If you start getting locked out of some resorts, you don't really have anything to complain about.  Remember you decided you wanted to pay the low costs.  So you get what the low costs can buy.
> 
> Greg




Greg - this is not about gaming the system. SVN exchanging is a benefit Starwood heavily relies on in selling - otherwise why would they switch to voluntary resorts? It is also something that has true value in the marketplace - otherwise why would SVV Bella with 81K SO sell for $4000 vs. a similar unit at SVR "selling" for free?

I don't think that any SVN exchanger would have a problem with lack of availability IF that lack of availability was caused by owners using or renting their own units at the higher priced resorts. However, when you have tens of thousands of owners, it is inevitable that quite a few will want to exchange - especially after the resort is somewhat mature. In fact, in the TSing industry in general only 20% of owners return to their home resorts every year (that is why II and RCI exist...). Even if that number is 60% or 80% at the more luxurious resorts, and I doubt it is actually that high at WKORV anymore, that still leaves plenty of units for exchangers. This argument becomes even stronger when you consider that most ordinary people (and non-TUGGERS) do not necessarily book at their reservation more than 8 months in advance. Another thing to make the argument even stronger is that 20%-30% of reservations industrywide get cancelled because plans tend to change. I don't have reason to believe that this number at Starwood is much lower, even if they charge some cancellation fee.

What makes things difficult to exchange within SVN is not necessarily owners who want to go to the same place (and in the same week in some cases) year after year. It is more related to the fact that Starwood has the ability to take advantage of the system to enhance its own bottom line. This actually affects both exchangers and owners at their home resorts. To sum this obscure issue up, the way I understand it:

o Starwood can rent units converted to Starpoints (I agree that's fair)
o Starwood does not have to rent the unit that was converted to Starpoints - it can rent other units in the SVN system. 
o It has access to those units based on anticipated Starpoint conversions
o It has access to those units 11 months out for floating weeks and 10 months out for fixed weeks

How does all this affect an owner at WKORVN (like you)?

If you call at 10.5 months to reserve a summer week you may get the answer that there is "no availability". Now you don't know if that's because many other owners wanted that week and bothered to call a year in advance OR Starwood grabbed 20 units for that particular week two weeks ahead of you based on anticipated Starpoint conversions in Orlando or Myrtle Beach... In addition, if an owner at WKORVN subsequently cancels a reservation, Starwood might grab that week ahead of an exchanger.

Here is a link to where that topic was discussed a few days ago in the context of why owners at HRA find it almost impossible to book other weeks in their season at 10 months out...

I have no idea if or how much Starwood is doing this but that lack of availability at some resorts, in my opinion, speaks for itself. If you were Starwood and you could do this - would you rent out SVV units for $150/night or WSJ for $1000/night? It's a tradeoff between cash and owner backlash, but it's easy for them to tell owners to blame other owners for the lack of availability - it's not like you can audit them...

Other than this issue buried deep in documents almost nobody reads, the SVN exchange idea is nice, is designed to work, and while it may not be an ideal system it should actually work and keep many owners happy.


----------



## JeffW (Nov 2, 2009)

fasha39 said:


> ...If the week is rented a percentage of the rental proceeds will go the delinquent fees. The owners will be responsible to pay the difference."
> 
> A generic response, so I'm going to press the case with a phone call for more details - What is the %?  Will there be a reconciliation showing all transactions at year end? Etc.



For resorts that do owner rentals, they typically take about a 40% cut for "administrative fees".   That's not necessarily a bad thing.  I checked the Westin Princeville (Kauai) resort, a 2br unit for Su-Su Dec 6-13 (trying to avoid obvious holiday or high season time) goes for between $590 to $640 a night (for easy math, let's say $600).  Times 7 nights, that's $4200.  Even less 40% booking fees, that's still over $2500, which I believe clears the supposed ~$2400 annual fees.  

Now, that's obviously a best case scenario.  Unless it's a resort in huge demand, it's probably doubful you'd get a full week's rental out of your unit (many resorts that rent split the proceeds among the 'pool' of all owners who list their unit for rental), and even then, you might get someone just renting the lockout portion.  3 days rental in a lockout, less 40% cut, won't leave much money left towards a week's maintence fee on a 2br unit.

Jeff


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 2, 2009)

Starwood does not do Owner Rentals at the Hawaii resorts.

They take 50% of the rent, and any expenses (TA commission) come out of the owner's half.

Also - there is no guarantee that they will rent ANY of your days, so you could give up your week and end up with nothing...


----------



## El Codo (Nov 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I think it's too soon to burn our deeds, but we already know enough to clearly see that the the changes are not positive for owners.  I don't think we can sit around and wait until these changes are entrenched - the squeaky wheel gets greased!
> 
> RE: Data - Did you see the trade test we did comparing the old trade value of SDO and the new trade value?  Under the new rules, the BEST deposit from SDO sees 50% fewer units than the best deposit under the old rules.  That's some scary data!



Being so new to TS's I don't have the benefit of what was vs what is. I bought in the summer and deposited my one and only unit before the changes happened (thankfully).  After posting I had heard about tests and absolutely believe it and trust the results.

As a new owner I would be lying if I didn't say I'm concerned.  Thankfully I bought resale on e-bay but even with that it sounds as though I may take a loss now if I sell.

On principal alone I don't think what is being done is right.  As long as I'm not one of the 1,000 or so not paying my MF, I reserve a week, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.  According to my understanding of the deed I have weeks 1-52 and they are mine to do with what I please.  If I choose not to use, fine. If I choose to use, fine. If I choose to trade, fine.  What has been done seems to violate my rights as an owner.  Had I known this I would not have bought SDO, what with the nearly $900 MF and now having less benefit of ownership.

It's as though the people that are educated about TS, responsible (paying MF's) are not penalized enough by the increasing fees and helping to pick up the slack of those that don't pay but now must be penalized illegally by not getting to use ownership as they should be able to according to the deed and CC&R's.  From my perspective it does seem a bit like bate and switch.  Maybe that should be illegal. Oh, wait, it is.

Thanks for the additional info, Denise.  I haven't had time to fully catch up on the issue and posted without consideration of the rest of the context.  I'll need to follow up on the complaint info and see what else I can do to get the ownership benefits back that I paid for.

A thought occurred. Since Sheraton is basically taking weeks that are ours for themselves, shouldn't they be paying MF's?  I think we would all agree that the $100+ in our MF's isn't something we should be covering if Sheraton is getting the benefit of the weeks on those units PLUS the benefits of us not getting the weeks we deserve for trading.  Just a thought.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 2, 2009)

El Codo said:


> Being so new to TS's I don't have the benefit of what was vs what is. I bought in the summer and deposited my one and only unit before the changes happened (thankfully).  After posting I had heard about tests and absolutely believe it and trust the results.



Pacman (Gary) and I are doing another trade test at 8 pm tonight, if you want to join in.

We are going to compare his deposited (new rules) SDO Plat week 

to my deposited (old rules) week 10 SDO floating week and

my undeposited 2009 (new rules) SDO floating week.

We are searching for all Hawaii deposits from now to the Nov. 2011 and listing resort names, & weeks, but not dates, because that makes it a "Sighting" which doesn't belong on the TUG board.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Nov 3, 2009)

maybe you can scrap the 'rules' for an hour...


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 3, 2009)

DavidnRobin said:


> maybe you can scrap the 'rules' for an hour...



David - If I do, someone else will just report it, and for the purposes of a trade test, you don't need dates anyway.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Nov 3, 2009)

lol dm... kidding... i do not really even know what you are testing or what sightings are...


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 3, 2009)

Sightings are when owners copy and paste the exchanges they can see on the exchange company websites - we have a forum for that.

A trade test is when you compare the trading power between two different deposits by doing a search on II, at exactly the same time, for the same area, and then compare the results.


----------



## Fredm (Nov 3, 2009)

gregb said:


> > As long as the owners at the high priced resorts agree (by trading their units for StarOptions, StarPoints or through II), you may be successful.  But if the owners at the high priced resorts start using their units, rather than trading them, you will get locked out.  That may be what is happening at WSJ as I am seeing folks remark that they cannot trade into that resort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mscarboroughusa (Nov 3, 2009)

Hi -  could you point me in the direction of the thread which discusses the Starwood / II changes you have been mentioning.   I own (1) WMH 2-BR unit (148k staroptions) that I purchased from the developer approx 7+ yrs ago, and (2) SVV 2-BR units (67k staroptions each) I bought re-sale about 1 1/2 ago.   I have NEVER used II but wanted to for 2010 -  I have always been hesitant to use II b/c I never think I will get what I want so have just been using the internal SVN system.   Is one of my units more advantageous to deposit than another ?   Also, there was some discussion re: priority exchange for Starwood owners through II ?? Is that what has been taken away ?  Thanks for your help and insight.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 3, 2009)

Here you go - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109418

If you can tell us very specifically when and where you want to exchange, we can probably advise you.


----------



## gregb (Nov 3, 2009)

Originally posted by FredM


> Further, as it relates to SVN, the price of the share and its maintenance fees has no bearing whatsoever. StarOptions are a currency to be spent for what they will buy.
> An owner has every right to convert a 2 bedroom unit valued at 81k Options into a request for a 1 bedroom valued at 81k Options in Hawaii. That they paid less, and have lower fees does not diminish the value of the Options within the system.



Fred,  Thanks for the comment.  I understand and agree that StarOptions are StarOptions, independent of what you pay for your unit or MF.  That is the way the system works, and it was explained to us when we purchased our unit.

I also understand the issue of whether lack of availability is due to owner's occupying their units, or Starwood pulling them out of circulation.  I have heard a lot of speculation about how Starwood is pulling prime units out of circulation, but so far there has been no proof, just speculation.

What sort of irks me is the sense of entitlement that I read in some posters comments complaining about not being able to use their inexpensive SDO/SVV 1 bedroom units to exchange into a 2/3 bedroom at Harborside, WSJ or the Hawaii resorts.  I bought where I want to go.  I view the StarOptions as something I may use once in awhile to go somewhere else.  But I also understand how a limited resource (units) with a high demand can prevent me from doing that.  Some others don't seem to appreciate that.

Greg


----------



## gregb (Nov 3, 2009)

Quote from DannyM


> I don't think that any SVN exchanger would have a problem with lack of availability IF that lack of availability was caused by owners using or renting their own units at the higher priced resorts. However, when you have tens of thousands of owners, it is inevitable that quite a few will want to exchange - especially after the resort is somewhat mature. In fact, in the TSing industry in general only 20% of owners return to their home resorts every year (that is why II and RCI exist...). Even if that number is 60% or 80% at the more luxurious resorts, and I doubt it is actually that high at WKORV anymore, that still leaves plenty of units for exchangers. This argument becomes even stronger when you consider that most ordinary people (and non-TUGGERS) do not necessarily book at their reservation more than 8 months in advance. Another thing to make the argument even stronger is that 20%-30% of reservations industrywide get cancelled because plans tend to change. I don't have reason to believe that this number at Starwood is much lower, even if they charge some cancellation fee.



Danny, you use a lot of statistics in your posts.  Can you share with us the source of these numbers?  

Greg

(80% of all statistics are made up on the spot  )


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 3, 2009)

gregb said:


> What sort of irks me is the sense of entitlement that I read in some posters comments complaining about not being able to use their inexpensive SDO/SVV 1 bedroom units to exchange into a 2/3 bedroom at Harborside, WSJ or the Hawaii resorts.  I bought where I want to go.  I view the StarOptions as something I may use once in awhile to go somewhere else.  But I also understand how a limited resource (units) with a high demand can prevent me from doing that.  Some others don't seem to appreciate that.
> 
> Greg



Greg - If Marriott, and other non-Starwood owners can exchange into Starwood resorts through II, shouldn't Starwood owners have the same right?  It's not a sense of entitlement - we just want II to treat us the same as other exchangers from similar resorts.  Right now, we have fewer exchanging rights than a Marriott owner does.... Is that fair?

BTW - I have never heard a knowledgeable owner propose that using II is an easy way to get into WSJ or Harborside.  In fact when a newbie wants to buy a trader for that reason, we are quick to tell them that they are going to be disappointed.  However, since there are 3 Hawaii SW resorts, it has been a fairly easy trade through II, and not just for Starwood owners.  

I bought preconstruction at WKORV and paid $45K for a unit that's now going for $15K on ebay.  Do I resent savvy timeshare owners who can trade in using II?  Heck no!  More power to them!  And believe me, I'm thrilled when I can use SVR or SDO to trade into Hawaii myself.


----------



## Fredm (Nov 3, 2009)

gregb said:


> Originally posted by FredM
> 
> 
> Fred,  Thanks for the comment.  I understand and agree that StarOptions are StarOptions, independent of what you pay for your unit or MF.  That is the way the system works, and it was explained to us when we purchased our unit.
> ...



Greg, anyone who bemoans lack of success in the circumstances you mention are doomed to a disappointing experience. The problem is entirely theirs.

That said, a wealth of timesharing experience exists here on TUG, and within this Starwood board.
Separating rants from insight can be a challenge at times. Such is the nature of community forums. However, at the bottom of it is a situation of Starwood's making, IMHO. It invites distrustful speculation. And, where there is smoke, there is usually a fire. The specifics claims may be one-off on a particular issue, but in the big picture something is at work against the interests of owners. Again, just my opinion.

The reason I hold this general view is a simple one. 
Timesharing is (or should be) a fairly straightforward concept. At least when owners are left to administer what they own.
Complexity is introduced to the system only when those who control the levers intend to siphon from it. It then is simply a matter of degree.
It is the reason I inherently distrust point based systems. Somehow, value which belongs to owners is drained away for the benefit of the administrator.

Starwood has not created the convoluted machinery that currently exists for the benefit of its owners. Owners of any timeshare system are always best served when the process and rules are straightforward and transparent. The simple, easy, and inexpensive thing to do is get out of the way. 

Unreasonable individual grumblings aside, there is a reason why Marriott owners do not engage in the level of discontent exhibited on this board. Marriott owners control their timeshare interest, absolutely. Marriott defines the reservation process, negotiates every advantage it can with I.I. on behalf of owners, and backs away.

Very refreshing in contrast.

Starwood has created a collection of outstanding resorts. No question. 
You enjoy a near-perfect ownership experience. Your expectations are being satisfied. 
Who can argue with that!


----------



## DanCali (Nov 3, 2009)

gregb said:


> Quote from DannyM
> 
> 
> Danny, you use a lot of statistics in your posts.  Can you share with us the source of these numbers?
> ...



I can assure you that every statistic I provided I read somewhere and was not made up onthe spot... You may have a problem with my sources - but I didn't make anything up.

For example, this guy mentions that reservation cancellation rates at Worldmark are 35%. That company provides much more transparency and I've seen similar numbers relating to Worldmark. I imagine Starwood cancellation rates are lower since there is a small cancellation penalty, the question is how much lower? How does it vary by resort? And, most importantly, why can't we see those numbers??? As an owner at a resort shouldn't I know cancellation rates?

I don't remember where I saw the number regarding owner occupancy levels, but I do recall reading that 75%-80% or TS owners don't go to their home resort. Mind you that is is an *industrywide average*... even on this board it looks like most SDO owners don't actually buy to go there while it's likely very different for WKORV owners. I have no idea about owner occupancy levels resort by resort. Logic dictates however that as a resort matures the excitement wanes and people want to experience other places so they exchange. 

Again - I have no problem with being unable to exchange due to high owner occupancy levels. If people own and want to go to HRA every year more power to them. I just don't buy into the fact that owner occupancy levels are THAT high, and those who claiming that they are also can't prove that argument... Given the incentives Starwood created for itself, which were mentioned in this thread earlier, I believe that they are at least partially responsible for the lack of availability.


----------



## gregb (Nov 3, 2009)

Fred,

It is my observation that on a resort with floating weeks, there exist opportunities for the management to siphon of (high value) weeks for rental.  If they don't siphon off too many, owners might not notice.  If they get greedy, then owners start to have trouble getting reservations.  Either we have to trust the management not to get too greedy, or we have to ask for an accounting.  

But who is to say that the weeks SVO rents out were not traded in for StarPoints?  How could one tell?  The only way I can think of is if Starwood would tell the owners annually exactly how many unit weeks the complex has, how many have been sold, how many were turned in for StarOptions, and how many were turned in for StarPoints and how many were rented.  But I expect they will never release that information because they consider it proprietary and that releasing it would give away Starwood secrets to the competition.  And of course, if they can start mixing units from different properties (as suggested by other posts) then all bets are off.

I wish I knew some way to bring some clarity to the issues, but I expect that Starwood feels it cannot provide the type of information requested without compromising their operations.

Greg


----------



## Fredm (Nov 3, 2009)

Greg,

I don't think it's a matter of management revealing trade secrets to the competition. There is nothing new under the sun. Especially in this industry.

If one examines the Starwood model, it borrows liberally from other models. Unfortunately, those that it borrows from suffer similar distinctions.

Floating use does present opportunities to abuse. However, it should not place obstacles in the way of owners once a reservation has been secured. THAT is an entirely different ball of wax Starwood has chosen to roll.


----------



## mlsmn (Nov 4, 2009)

my latest post on this problem

update - Starwood Screws Owners

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/pointswizard/2009/11/04/update-starwood-screws-timeshare-owners/


----------



## gregb (Nov 5, 2009)

mlsmn said:


> my latest post on this problem
> 
> update - Starwood Screws Owners
> 
> http://boardingarea.com/blogs/pointswizard/2009/11/04/update-starwood-screws-owners/



Link doesn't work.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 5, 2009)

*Who took the message away?*



mlsmn said:


> my latest post on this problem
> 
> update - Starwood Screws Owners
> 
> http://boardingarea.com/blogs/pointswizard/2009/11/04/update-starwood-screws-owners/



Says the topic has been deleted. Censorship?


----------



## Fredm (Nov 5, 2009)

It still works from this link


----------



## mlsmn (Nov 5, 2009)

sorry
The link "update - Starwood Screws Timeshare Owners" above is now working or use this one below

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/pointswizard/2009/11/04/update-starwood-screws-timeshare-owners/


----------



## Troopers (Nov 10, 2009)

Darn...I wish I was around during this thread...lots to comment on but odd 126 posts into the thread.


----------



## stevens397 (Nov 24, 2009)

What's even more upsetting to me is getting a letter that assumes I'm a complete idiot who will believe whatever spin they throw at me.  

Please - I'm 61 years old.  I grew up hearing how the communist countries tried to brainwash their citizens.  Not too much different from what Starwood is trying to do with its owners.

Yeah - I'm buying that this was all done to benefit me.  Please.


----------



## l2trade (Nov 24, 2009)

I just checked eBay completed listings today for SDO.  With only 3 completed listing showing, only one of them shows sold.  That was for $177.50.  The other two got NO bids.  One of those two had a starting price of $1.  Still there were NO bids.

Right now, there are only 3 active SDO listing on eBAY.  None of those have any bids either.

I'd say we are in a worse situation today compared to when the OP started this thread less than one month ago.  Sheraton Desert Oasis is no longer selling for nothing.  It is just plain not selling.  This is a far cry from where we were just this past summer with buyers competing to win these on eBay.  Then, the new Starwood / II trading system comes along and splat, no more demand.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 24, 2009)

l2trade said:


> I just checked eBay completed listings today for SDO.  With only 3 completed listing showing, only one of them shows sold.  That was for $177.50.  The other two got NO bids.  One of those two had a starting price of $1.  Still there were NO bids.
> 
> Right now, there are only 3 active SDO listing on eBAY.  None of those have any bids either.
> 
> I'd say we are in a worse situation today compared to when the OP started this thread less than one month ago.  Sheraton Desert Oasis is no longer selling for nothing.  It is just plain not selling.  This is a far cry from where we were just this past summer with buyers competing to win these on eBay.  Then, the new Starwood / II trading system comes along and splat, no more demand.


It's not only Starwood.  I follow Vacation Internationale auctions and the same thing has happened there.  I've posted about one particular very nice (large number of points with two years of banked points) where the owner initially listed it for $15,000 several months ago when it would have fetched ~$2000 had it been priced realistically.  The owner relisted it several times, dropping the price each time as reality set in.  It finally sold about one week ago for aoubt $500.


----------



## l2trade (Nov 24, 2009)

There is a big difference between selling for nothing and NOT selling at all.

Just ask anyone who wants to vote with their feet against the new II trading system.  For many folks, the only choices right now are to continue to pay the ever rising MF or just stop paying (i.e. - screw up your credit).  

If you own a timeshare free & clear and you struggle and are unable to give it away, that is a BIG problem for all remaining owners.  Yes, I expect and know that is a problem with timeshare only companies, such as Westgate.  Starwood is supposed to be one of the good trusted hotel/resort brand names.  It should be worth something, even if that price is only $500.  It seems like it is worth less than zero.  I used to think of them in the same category as Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, etc...

The longer these legitimate owner complaints, concerns and issues remained unaddressed and unresolved by Starwood corporate, the greater the damage to mine and many folks perception of this company and it's brand.

Seriously, is Starwood becoming the new Westgate?


----------



## Stefa (Nov 24, 2009)

l2trade said:


> I just checked eBay completed listings today for SDO.  With only 3 completed listing showing, only one of them shows sold.  That was for $177.50.  The other two got NO bids.  One of those two had a starting price of $1.  Still there were NO bids.



The $1 listing was a biennial and required an additional $600 in closing/transfer costs.  I haven't followed SDO on ebay for over a year, but even before the changes you could get an annual for <$1k if you were patient.


----------



## l2trade (Nov 24, 2009)

i've followed SDO on ebay for years.  seller patience is the bigger issue here now.  i guess if there are some buyers who are patiently waiting for the right SDO ebay listing, they will have to patiently suffer and hide out a little longer. lol... after all, with 'no sale' auction completions like these, i don't expect as many sellers to risk the cost of the ebay listing fee.  if you are a buyer, probably best to wait for the impending HOA delinquency giveaways.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 24, 2009)

Or if you are a seller you could drop the high closing costs.


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

Stefa said:


> The $1 listing was a biennial and required an additional $600 in closing/transfer costs.  I haven't followed SDO on ebay for over a year, but even before the changes you could get an annual for <$1k if you were patient.



There have been SVO properties selling for $1 *WELL* before the changes with II.


----------



## grgs (Nov 25, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> There have been SVO properties selling for $1 *WELL* before the changes with II.



I think the big concern is that some are not selling even for $1.  That has always been the case with some SVR weeks, but I think we're seeing more now at SDO which always seemed to sell previously at least for something.  

I'm not sure it's a permanent situation yet for SDO & SVR, as we're in that time of year when mf are due soon and the special assessments for SVR will be ending soon.  We'll see what happens after the new year starts. 

I do think that the substantial increase in mf at WKORV/WKORVN/SVV has had a major impact on resale prices.     

Glorian


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

grgs said:


> I do think that the substantial increase in mf at WKORV/WKORVN/SVV has had a major impact on resale prices.
> 
> Glorian



The impact on WKORV resale prices seems rather limited (which is surprising to me...)

This IV unit just sold on eBay for over $17K. These used to sell for somewhat less until recently so maybe some bidders got carried away.

Would be very interesting to see where this WKORVN OV unit ends up this afternoon.


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

grgs said:


> I think the big concern is that some are not selling even for $1.  That has always been the case with some SVR weeks, but I think we're seeing more now at SDO which always seemed to sell previously at least for something.
> 
> I'm not sure it's a permanent situation yet for SDO & SVR, as we're in that time of year when mf are due soon and the special assessments for SVR will be ending soon.  We'll see what happens after the new year starts.
> 
> ...



We are experiencing a very slow period and I suspect it has more to do with the holidays and those that can spend are more conscious of where they are spending this time of year. I also feel as though Buyers expect them to be there tomorrow if they want it (no urgency).

The PCC's, lack of ROFR, Economy and Supply and Demand are doing more to the value of TS's than anything else. Maintenance fees are also paying a role as it relates to what one will offer to buy and what one will accept to sell their timeshare (especially if they are not using it or able to rent well).


----------



## gmarine (Nov 25, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> There have been SVO properties selling for $1 *WELL* before the changes with II.



I've followed EBAY sales for a long time. In the past I've seen off season units go for $1 but I've never before seen platinum season units go for $1. A few hundred, yes, but never for $1. And now they go unsold without even getting a bid.


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

gmarine said:


> I've followed EBAY sales for a long time. In the past I've seen off season units go for $1 but I've never before seen platinum season units go for $1. A few hundred, yes, but never for $1. And now they go unsold without even getting a bid.



The problem with e-bay is that you don't always get the best data. When an ad is pulled and not sold, we never know why. Or do we? What am I missing?

My point is...if no one here had purchased or attempted to purchase and had contact with the Seller, there is no understanding of why it was "not sold".


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> The problem with e-bay is that you don't always get the best data. When an ad is pulled and not sold, we never know why. Or do we? What am I missing?
> 
> My point is...if no one here had purchased or attempted to purchase and had contact with the Seller, there is no understanding of why it was "not sold".



Usually ads are not "pulled". Many of these auctions just end after 5-10 days with zero bids. Since an eBay auction is not really binding, the fact that no buyer is even bidding $1 to enter a negotiation to buy these units effectively means they are pretty worthless.

That said, to me there is not much difference between a $200 sale and a $1 sale (especially since the $200 sale can often cost less after closing costs). If someone buys something for $200 when annual MFs are $800+ then it's obvious the upfront purchase price is effectively "free". All it would take is a small shock to demand to make the unit wortheless.

Also, I noticed a seller that advertised a SDO unit on RedWeek for $250. That was much lower than all the asking prices there and the unit sold very fast. If someone wanted to sell one of these at this point in time, maybe eBay is not the best venue. Rather, maybe post it on a place where everyone is asking for unrealistically high prices... - some buyers are leery of doing real estate deals on eBay so a lower priced unit may seem very attractive to them.


----------



## gmarine (Nov 25, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> The problem with e-bay is that you don't always get the best data. When an ad is pulled and not sold, we never know why. Or do we? What am I missing?
> 
> My point is...if no one here had purchased or attempted to purchase and had contact with the Seller, there is no understanding of why it was "not sold".



If a unit is listed for sale, then ends without getting any bids, it will show up in completed listings as having gotten no bids.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 26, 2009)

DanCali said:


> The impact on WKORV resale prices seems rather limited (which is surprising to me...)
> 
> This IV unit just sold on eBay for over $17K. These used to sell for somewhat less until recently so maybe some bidders got carried away.
> 
> Would be very interesting to see where this WKORVN OV unit ends up this afternoon.



Update: above unit 2BR WKORVN OV sold for $11,100 so it seems the WKORV IV was more like a few people getting carried away... just as i feared, prices are not really holding up given that OV units were selling for $20K not too long ago. That's almost a 50% decline in 2 months - pretty much can be attributable to MFs...


----------



## jarta (Nov 26, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   "just as i feared, prices are not really holding up given that OV units were selling for $20K not too long ago."

You are correct, eBay sales have indicated a substantial drop in the value of all timeshare properties, especially Starwood properties.  And, I am sure that the drop is reflected in the sales that are non-eBay sales.

But, is eBay the true market for timeshare properties?  Or, is it only a phenomenon dealing in forced sales?

First, because of the time limitations and the decreased amount of bidders, auction sales are generally disregarded in determining the market value of a piece of property.  Market value is usually defined as the price a willing buyer and a willing seller freely arrive at when there are no time exigencies.  Even if auction sales are relevant (I think eBay sales are marginally relevant) in determining market value, are the sellers on eBay really willing sellers?  Or, are they forced sales or actually re-sales by bottom feeders who acquired the property or the right to sell from forced sellers?

I believe almost all sales of timeshares on eBay are forced sales or panicked sales.  (I have "profited" from buying 2 of my 3 non-developer timeshare properties on eBay at very discounted prices, so don't think I am knocking eBay as an institution.)  They are almost all bankruptcies, near or impending bankruptcies, sales by postcard companies from confused elderly persons or their estates who actually pay the postcard companies to dump the timeshares or, IMO, sales by shady "not-for-profit" companies who acquired the properties by donation (free), hired a closely-related "for profit" company to advertise and sell them for the lion's share of the amount of the bid while allowing the seller to take a (maybe) large charitable donation on the federal tax return.

One final note about eBay sales. Excepting Hawaii (which has unusual circumstances concerning travel to and from and taxes), you almost never see a Platinum 2-br for sale at a mandatory Starwood resort.  I think I bought the last Platinum Kierland 2-br advertised on eBay a little less than 2 years ago.  (And, yes, by today's eBay market prices I would have paid less.) Have you ever asked yourself why the most Staroption weeks at the mandatory resorts are generally not for sale?  

Ask yourself why the most fuel-efficient cars have the highest resale value?  As an analogy, perhaps buying a small one-bedroom (or even a 2-bedroom) at SBP in hurricane season or a similar week in the desert in summer or a ski location in "mud season" gets you where you want to go (an II trade).  But, those types of properties are now gas-guzzling SUVs and, when you go to sell, the dealer laughs at you and shakes his head.  The value is extinguished because the value of staying at the actual location has completely dissipated or was never actually there.  Actually, much of what has been posted here on TUG in the last three months, amounts to a campaign to have Starwood initiate a "cash for clunkers" program to bail out the Starwood gas guzzlers.

But, I digress.  Is it any wonder that in dire economic times selling prices in the the eBay bazaar drop so quickly?  I own 6 timeshares and, from ownership alone, I get calls and emails almost daily asking if I would like to sell.  I do not think I am unusual.

I want lower assessments at Starwood.  But, I also want the level of amenities and maintenance to continue at Starwood resorts.  I make no bones about wanting to stay at well-appointed and well-maintained resorts.  And, I stay at them whenever I travel (timeshare or not) and I am willing to pay to stay.

There are only 2 types of posts on the TUG Starwood threads these days.  One type are the posts by people who are visiting the resorts.  They are mostly positive.  The second is by people who are having trouble with the high assessments.  They are mostly negative.  It looks like this dichotomy will continue for a long, long time.

It is often said here that people should buy where they want to vacation.  Buying at a resort you will not visit, but merely to trade elsewhere, violates that maxim.  It is always a good maxim to follow since, in the end, timeshares are not an investment.  They are a way of pre-paying for a series of vacations at a particular resort.  If, because of unforeseen circumstances (like death, ill-health, changes in the external system of a trading company, changes in the tax policy of a distant government, loss of job, failure to maintain the resort or inflation in assessments), the desire or ability to use the full series of vacations is shortened and you sell, the pre-payment turns into an onerous over-payment.  Beware of the risks you assume when you invest in timeshares.  Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!      ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 26, 2009)

Long post with many things to think about...



jarta said:


> But, is eBay the true market for timeshare properties?  Or, is it only a phenomenon dealing in forced sales? First, because of the time limitations and the decreased amount of bidders, auction sales are generally disregarded in determining the market value of a piece of property....



You are comparing bidding on a timeshare like bidding on real estate. That comparison is incorrect in my opinion. For "true" real estate, like houses or condos, where each property is different (heterogeneous) I can see why auction sales would be disregarded. I cannot buy a property in Chicago on eBay when I live in CA because I would want to see it, have it inspected etc. If I were to bid on it I wouldn't necessarily bid full market value because of these issues. However, a timeshare is different because once you know the unit size, season and usage terms (e.g. fixed/float or EY/EOY) they are all the same, or homogeneous. It is no different than bidding on event tickets, just a higher price tag sometimes. That is why I do think auctions on eBay tend to reflect the true market values of timeshares, certainly more so than a case where a seller on RedWeek asks for $100,000 for a week 52 at WKORV in the hope of an uninformed buyer paying him $70,000...

The sellers on eBay are sometimes willing sellers and sometimes brokers who are flipping units for a profit and sometimes "distressed" sales. The Starwood timeshares at voluntary resorts with high MFs and off-peak seasons are probably the ones with the most distressed sellers, but for mandatory resorts and Marriotts for example eBay seems like a pretty competitive and efficient market. Just follow a few Marriotts for a few weeks and see how all the sales end at pretty much the same prices with numerious bidders participating. I'd certainly trust these prices more than asking prices for units which don't sell on RedWeek or other websites.



jarta said:


> One final note about eBay sales. Excepting Hawaii (which has unusual circumstances concerning travel to and from and taxes), you almost never see a Platinum 2-br for sale at a mandatory Starwood resort.  I think I bought the last Platinum Kierland 2-br advertised on eBay a little less than 2 years ago.  (And, yes, by today's eBay market prices I would have paid less.) Have you ever asked yourself why the most Staroption weeks at the mandatory resorts are generally not for sale?



First, you did not buy the last 2BR Platinum WKV sold on eBay, but you are right that not many of them show up on there. In fact, you don't see many Platinum WKV units for sale anywhere. Of course I asked myself why that is and my answer is probably the same as yours - that those owners must be pretty happy...

But now let's take that discussion a step further. Maintenance fees at SVV Bella went up by 30% in 2010 from approx $1200 to approx $1600. The excuse du jour from Starwood is delinquencies. Have you asked yourself why if that is the case don't those owners just sell those units. SVV Bella units can be sold for more than maintenance fees (or close to MFs for Gold season) so if those owners are sick of paying MFs or can't afford them why don't they just dump their units? They could just be "distressed" sellers on eBay, get rid of this liability and save their credit histories. SVV Bella is a huge phase, yet relatively very few units (significantly fewer than WKORV/N, which is a lot smaller) show up on eBay, especially given the number of alleged delinquencies. It's even more striking on ReWeek which has over 100 WKORV/N units for sale yet only a handful of SVV units. 

We seem to agree above that lack of sales means happy owners. I know you tend to trust management at their word, event if it's a guy named stuey from Alberta, but the fact that "delinquent" owners at SVV are not dumping their units and the lack of any similar excuses about delinquencies at Marriotts, makes me question how truthful Starwood are about the level of delinquencies to begin with.


----------



## jarta (Nov 26, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   I always enjoy reading your posts.

First, a timeshare *is* an interest in real estate.  Bidding on a timeshare is exactly like bidding on any other parcel of real estate.  The only difference is the length of time (use) which may be made of the interest purchased.

This mis-conception about what a timeshare is and the rights and responsibilities that come with ownership is exactly what screws up people when they overbuy, buy to trade based upon any emphemeral current internal or external trading system or get "caught" by increasing yearly fees.  It is the reason for the maxim: buy where you want to vacation and in the season (or week, if the week is fixed) you want to be there.

As for eBay, I have admitted the prices are marginally indicative of market value.  And, you are right.  The Marriott timeshares seem to be selling for comparatively higher prices on eBay.  And, this is probably so because of lower maintenance fees.  And, this is so despite the lack of an internal trading system because of the long system-wide preference period that Marriott has negotiated for its owners trading back into their own resorts in a different season or to other Marriott resorts though II.  If there is angst in TUG's Marriott Paradise, it is over this potential change in Marriott.  It is part of the reason why I used the word "emphemeral" (here today; gone tomorrow) in describing trading systems.

But, there are strong rumors that Marriott is considering an internal trading system (like Starwood's ?) that will surely result in a reduced preference period in II for owners at Marriott managed resorts.  In the end, Marriott will, just like Starwood, do what is best for Marriott.  Whatever the result may be, the Marriott managed resorts will then have to decide: is the association with Marriott is worth (or not) continuing.  But, Marriott has a strong name and so does Starwood.  Pulling out of either would drastically affect the economics of the resorts that do it.  

(There are people here on TUG's Starwood threads that advocate pulling out of the SVO, but I seriously doubt that going it alone for a old, stand-alone (no hotel) or marginal resort like SDO, Mountain Vista or, even, Lakeview Terrace, Cave Creek and Vistana Beach would be good for the owners.  And, after pulling out of Starwood, association with a system with a good name, like Marriott, would be extremely difficult for those resorts.  There would be far more to fear from a decision by Starwood to drop any of those resorts from the SVO system.)

I got trapped myself on the Bella increase in fees.  I bought at Bella a few months ago to trade in the Starwood internal system until my grandkids get old enough to use at Bella.  And, there may be other sets of grandkids later when these first ones get to the teen years.  lol!  Overall, I wish the other people who own at Bella would help hold down the assessments by paying their's.  But, for now, they are not doing that.  So, I must pay for them.  I can accept this little inequity in life.  It's part of the risk I assumed when I bought a piece of *real estate* in a condominium .   ...   eom


----------



## Transit (Nov 26, 2009)

My post got broken ,,


----------



## gmarine (Nov 26, 2009)

jarta said:


> DanCali,   ...   I always enjoy reading your posts.
> 
> First, a timeshare *is* an interest in real estate.  Bidding on a timeshare is exactly like bidding on any other parcel of real estate.  The only difference is the length of time (use) which may be made of the interest purchased.
> 
> ...



Most timeshares are an interest in real estate, however bidding on a timeshare is very different than bidding on a piece of land or a home.  

When you speak of length of time(use), I assume you are referring to a Right to Use timeshare contract. A RTU isnt an interest in the underlying real estate, it is simply a lease agreement for a certain amount of time. You dont actually own anything as you do when you buy a home. Its very different than a deeded timeshare in which you do own a piece of the underlying real estate.

For many resorts pulling out of SVO could be very good for owners. It certainly cant get worse. Fees are skyrocketing and management is terrible. If a resort did dump SVO, you can be sure Marriott,Hyatt, Hilton etc would be knocking at the door ready to take over management.

And Jim, before attempting to use a word like ephemeral, check the spelling.   

Happy Turkey Day.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 26, 2009)

jarta said:


> First, a timeshare *is* an interest in real estate.  Bidding on a timeshare is exactly like bidding on any other parcel of real estate.  The only difference is the length of time (use) which may be made of the interest purchased.



I probably used a bad choice of words when I said "true" real estate but you failed to focus on my main point here... I do realize timeshares are real estate for all intents and purposes but they are NOT like bidding on a "regular" parcel of real estate. 

My distinction was that *"regular"* real estate is heterogeneous and timeshares (controlling for unit size, and usage terms) are completely homogeneous. I would not be worried about what I am getting if I bid on a 2BR WKORV on Maui, but I would certainly care about the quality of a condo in River North in downtown Chicago if I were to bid on it online. It's just not the same and therefore not the same bidding philosophy. People have fewer problems buying homogeneous goods online (there is a reason why Amazon started with books, CDs, and DVDs) and therefore eBay auctions on timeshares should be relatively efficient and not like the real estate auctions you previously described. I'm not saying there is no price dispersion, but it would certainly not be like buying a house or condo. Economists have studied these issues extensively both theoretically and empirically - here is just one relevant study.



jarta said:


> But, there are strong rumors that Marriott is considering an internal trading system (like Starwood's ?) that will surely result in a reduced preference period in II for owners at Marriott managed resorts.  In the end, Marriott will, just like Starwood, do what is best for Marriott.  Whatever the result may be, the Marriott managed resorts will then have to decide: is the association with Marriott is worth (or not) continuing.  But, Marriott has a strong name and so does Starwood.  Pulling out of either would drastically affect the economics of the resorts that do it.



I think most Marriott owners want to trade internally anyway, so depending how Marriott implements an internal trading system it may be more beneficial or economical to owners. At this point it's all pure speculation anyway.



jarta said:


> (There are people here on TUG's Starwood threads that advocate pulling out of the SVO, but I seriously doubt that going it alone for a old, stand-alone (no hotel) or marginal resort like SDO, Mountain Vista or, even, Lakeview Terrace, Cave Creek and Vistana Beach would be good for the owners.  And, after pulling out of Starwood, association with a system with a good name, like Marriott, would be extremely difficult for those resorts.  There would be far more to fear from a decision by Starwood to drop any of those resorts from the SVO system.)



These are all tradeoffs which are resort dependent. At WKORV, I personally would be ok with booting Starwood out if it means going back to 2006 MFs (that's still 50% more than the current Schooner MFs). At least owners would be able to rent for more than MFs and the units would trade very well in II.



jarta said:


> Overall, I wish the other people who own at Bella would help hold down the assessments by paying their's.  But, for now, they are not doing that.  So, I must pay for them.  I can accept this little inequity in life.  It's part of the risk I assumed when I bought a piece of *real estate* in a condominium .   ...   eom



Regarding SVV you again missed my main point... I can't find any reasonable explanation why delinquent owners don't get out, especially when they can sell the units for more than MFs. Just take a look the the number of resale postings on RedWeek for SVV units versus WKORV... And Marriott, or anyone else, doesn't say they have delinquencies andkept MFs pretty flat. It doesn't make any sense at all. Could this all be a figment of Starwood's greedy imagination? Are delinquencies way overstated?


----------



## jarta (Nov 26, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   "Could this all be a figment of Starwood's greedy imagination? Are delinquencies way overstated?"

Nice questions?  Do you have any information that Starwood is lying?  I have seen none posted.

When you get information that answers your question, I'm sure you will post it.  Then, we will know that the delinquencies exist and Starwood was not overstating them or that the delinquencies do not exist and Starwood was overstating them.

Or, we might get a clue to the answer later if Marriott announces to its owners that delinquencies are a problem - even if the assessments are lower than Starwood's.  

A lot of "if's" for both of us.  All we have now is a piece of paper from Starwood - who has a fiduciary duty to owners imposed by State statutes - that the delinquencies are there and the increases are necessary to balance the budgets.  Time to eat some turkey!

And, yes George, ephemeral was mis-spelled.  Embarassing for an attorney, but TUG has no spell check feature.  (Forgeddabout Starwood!  Where do our TUG fees go!  lol!)  I've guess I have gotten sloppy because I am used to having that feature other places I post.   ...   eom


----------



## RLG (Nov 26, 2009)

DanCali said:


> I can't find any reasonable explanation why delinquent owners don't get out, especially when they can sell the units for more than MFs. .. It doesn't make any sense at all. Could this all be a figment of Starwood's greedy imagination? Are delinquencies way overstated?




My guess would be that there are several factors:

1) a large percentage of timeshares are financed so the owner can't sell them for market value since that would be less than the balance on the loan;

2) many timeshare buyers simply have no business sense (that's how they got bamboozled in the first place) so even the ones without loans many not even think about the fact that they are better off selling for $1 than defaulting; 

3) many owners don't know how to sell for a nominal price (which explains the existence of PCC's.)


----------



## DanCali (Nov 26, 2009)

RLG said:


> My guess would be that there are several factors:
> 
> 1) a large percentage of timeshares are financed so the owner can't sell them for market value since that would be less than the balance on the loan;
> 
> ...



The Bella phase is the oldest so I don't know how many units still have mortgages. Many of those units were sold as $10K down + 12 (zero interest) payments of $900, which implies they should be paid off by now. Alse there are quite a few resale owners by now too who typically don't use financing.

This is a mandatory resort so owners should realize pretty fast these units have some value. There is no need to resort to PCCs here. I don't know and can't comment much on what the owners' business sense is, but I don't see why it would be that much different than owners at WKORV who seem to be fleeing in droves...

Maybe it is just one of these simple explanations, but to me the delinquencies story seems too convenient and fishy to be totally true, especially given lack of resales and lack of similar communication from other developers.


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 27, 2009)

gmarine said:


> If a unit is listed for sale, then ends without getting any bids, it will show up in completed listings as having gotten no bids.



What about the ads that are marked as sold that do not actually close?


----------



## DanCali (Nov 27, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> The problem with e-bay is that you don't always get the best data. When an ad is pulled and not sold, we never know why. Or do we? What am I missing?
> 
> My point is...if no one here had purchased or attempted to purchase and had contact with the Seller, there is no understanding of why it was "not sold".





			
				James1975NY said:
			
		

> What about the ads that are marked as sold that do not actually close?



Jim, I am not sure why you think that there should be something special about eBay "sales" that never close.

First, I am pretty sure this is something that happens offline quite a bit as well, both with developer sales and with broker assisted transactions. A buyer or seller can change their mind for whatever reason and walk away. If I had to make an educated guess, I would venture to say that it is more often a case of buyer's remorse when they feel they paid too much. On eBay seller's remorse is probably even less common than offline because the seller can always set a reserve or cancel an auction before it ends.

The way I see it there are two arguments to what you can infer about the closing prices of deals which never close on eBay (if you had the data).

If the auction is competitive enough and the deal never closes, then the seller can relist and the new sales price will be similar to the old one. In the case the fact that the original transaction didn't close doesn't affect what you infer about prices.

If the buyer believe they overpaid and walks away and they were right, a subsequent auction will result in a lower sales price. In this case, the original auction overstates true resale values.

Since eBay is actually a "second price auction" (i.e., the winner doesn't pay their highest private value but pays the second highest bid plus a small increment) I think it is more likely that a subsequent auction will result in a similar price, so deals that don't close probably don't matter much overall.

Just my conjectures...


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 27, 2009)

DanCali said:


> Jim, I am not sure why you think that there should be something special about eBay "sales" that never close.
> 
> First, I am pretty sure this is something that happens offline quite a bit as well, both with developer sales and with broker assisted transactions. A buyer or seller can change their mind for whatever reason and walk away. If I had to make an educated guess, I would venture to say that it is more often a case of buyer's remorse when they feel they paid too much. On eBay seller's remorse is probably even less common than offline because the seller can always set a reserve or cancel an auction before it ends.
> 
> ...



My comments are not argumentative. Just pointing out that there are'nt many (if any) conclusions that can be made.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 27, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> My comments are not argumentative. Just pointing out that there are'nt many (if any) conclusions that can be made.



As a broker, you may have access to sales data which is more informative than eBay. But until buyers and sellers have access to recent sales databases, like they can access on zillow.com for houses and condos, eBay is pretty much the only venue that has observable transaction data. Even if it has limitations, it's probably a much better proxy for true values than asking prices I can get from RedWeek or myresortnetwork.


----------



## ondeadlin (Nov 28, 2009)

A ski season EYO Sheraton Mountain Vista deluxe 1BR went for $112.50 on eBay earlier this week. That's an amazing fall in value from a few years ago, when they regularly went for $2,500 (and that seemed like a decent deal).

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...50286&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_3921wt_1009


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 28, 2009)

ondeadlin said:


> A ski season EYO Sheraton Mountain Vista deluxe 1BR went for $112.50 on eBay earlier this week. That's an amazing fall in value from a few years ago, when they regularly went for $2,500 (and that seemed like a decent deal).
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...50286&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_3921wt_1009



It seems the seller paid for the 2010 MFs as well, which makes it an even better deal.


----------

