History of Mandatory vs Voluntary

[Saaz124]

I have been here a while and learned early the Mandatory vs Voluntary rules early thanks to Tugg. I was curious about the history of it though. Why are resorts what they are? Will SVN or II now ever change which resort is and is not Mandatory? I own several a WKV and if they ever changed it, it would cost many people a lot of money in loss of resale value.

I also own at DVC and they just added new restriction to resale contracts which ultimately has the same devaluing effect.

If the question has already been answered, please point me in the right direction. I couldn't find anything.

 

[SMHarman]

I don't think there is a history.

Unpicking SVN the Vistana purchased resorts (Florida and SDO) are voluntary which makes some sense as the original agreements predate starwood.

All mandatory are earlier phases of Westin and the westin level MFs of HRA.

Then later phases and developments went voluntary I guess when they figured out you did not need to deed SVN.

Someone involved in SVN longer than me may know the resort development timeline which could support my hypothesis.

 

[Helios]

All mandatory are earlier phases of Westin and the westin level MFs of HRA.

WSJ was a Hyatt Regency which was converted to Westin after it closed in 1995 due to hurricane damage. Wondering how VGV became mandatory? The 3 new phases were developed (retrofitted) by Westin so they are Voluntary.

The Vistanas (which were also converted into SVN) are not in the same league so I guess it made sense to make them Voluntary.

 

[DeniseM]

My understanding (from a Tugger who used to work for Starwood) is that each resort was created mandatory or voluntary at it's inception, and that the designation is in the original resort Docs (whether purchased after construction, or built by Starwood.) So I think that is unlikely to change.

My guess is that Starwood regrets creating the mandatory resorts, because that encourages resales, and hurts developer sales, so after WKORVN, they didn't create any more mandatory resorts.

That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together. I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.

 

[SMHarman]

My understanding (from a Tugger who used to work for Starwood) is that each resort was created mandatory or voluntary at it's inception, and that the designation is in the original resort Docs (whether purchased after construction, or built by Starwood.) So I think that is unlikely to change.

My guess is that Starwood regrets creating the mandatory resorts, because that encourages resales, and hurts developer sales, so after WKORVN, they didn't create any more mandatory resorts.

That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together. I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.

Buy starwood did not create the docs for the acquired properties. In the absence of mandatory wording the arrangement is voluntary.

I agree with why discontinued though

As said. A timeline of when each phase of each properly came on line would likely give some great breadcrumbs.

It's also like rofr. Why some not others.

 

[DeniseM]

But starwood did not create the docs for the acquired properties. In the absence of mandatory wording the arrangement is voluntary.

Yes - that's what I tried to say (not very well) - thank you for clarifying it.

 

[Saaz124]

That being said, they don't have to change mandatory/voluntary, they could just eliminate SVN trading all together. I don't think that's going to happen either, but it could.

This would be a hard pill for me to swallow. My first endeavor into timeshares was DVC, and I like that system. The mandatory system is essentially the same thing.

I have never had a deed at only one place where trading through II or RCI was the only option to go somewhere else, in fact I have never done it. I would probably find it works very well, but it's an unknown to me.

 

[tschwa2]

Starwood had no reason to disband SVN. ILG has no reason either unless they wanted to either integrate the properties into the Hyatt Vacation Club or to disband that as well and create a new combined club.

 

[DeniseM]

Starwood is going to be out of the picture very soon - they aren't going to make any changes on their way out.

It is really hard to say what ILG will do. Maybe they will keep the current resort systems separate - maybe they will combine them and create a new system. I don't think anything will happen right away.

 

[Sicnarf]

Starwood is going to be out of the picture very soon - they aren't going to make any changes on their way out.

It is really hard to say what ILG will do. Maybe they will keep the current resort systems separate - maybe they will combine them and create a new system. I don't think anything will happen right away.

SO exchange is the primary selling point for VSE / SVN ownership and eliminating it is not in the best interest of ILG considering the premium buyer's pay for the privilege.

I'm adding HRC to my portfolio and I'm hoping it provides the same ease of exchange like SVN despite it is only allowed 6 months instead of 8 months ahead compared to SVN.

An insight from a current owner of both SVN and HRC would be most welcomed.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Starwood had no reason to disband SVN. ILG has no reason either unless they wanted to either integrate the properties into the Hyatt Vacation Club or to disband that as well and create a new combined club.

At least for the short-medium term - this is what I was told by OS Rep who seemed to be well informed.
But, more fun to speculate on neferious actions by ILG/SVN.

 

[Helios]

I've heard multiple times/different sources the intention is to continue status quo for 70 years (or something close to 70 years). However, that was SVN talking, not II. I would assume this arrangement is only valid if SVN (or Vistana) is in charge. Having II in the mix as the owner probably voids any previous agreements.

 

[Scott&Laura]

I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.

As to ILG buying Vistana--ILG stated they had 15 years dealing with Vistana---hardly--Vistana was newly created to sell off Starwood properties--having said that Starwood will own 55% percent of the company and ILK 45% In essence ILG paid Starwood Vacation Network to have rights to use Starwoods upscale name to enhance their inventory and reputation---Starwood Vacation Ownership has majority voting rights---Starwood will dominate decisions at this time on board--I am looking to who comprises board--Starwood or ILG for an insight into future.

Vistana I still think means a cheap Orlando property.


Scott & Laura

 

[YYJMSP]

I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.

SVN isn't part of your deeded VOI rights, it's an add on and I'm sure that the docs have verbiage to deal with changing or terminating it.

 

[DavidnRobin]

They can eliminate SVN - CCRs have a contingency exchange system. At least they do for WKORV/N, WPORV, and WKV. Check out the CCRs - very clearly stated. Now... whether they would? Likely not - at least in near- mid-term.

 

[Helios]

I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.

Vistana I still think means a cheap Orlando property.


Scott & Laura

Of course they can.

Legal ramifications, none...Angry customers, yes...

That's my take...

 

[YYJMSP]

Of course they can.

Legal ramifications, none...Angry customers, yes...

That's my take...

My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.

 

[lizap]

Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt.

My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name :smile so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.

 

[Helios]

Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt.

Agree about Hyatt. What other TSs do they own? I could probably google it myself but you seem to know.

 

[Helios]

My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.

I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.

 

[dioxide45]

My bet is still that there will be the introduction of another overlay that will let you convert StarOptions to IntervalOptions (I should trademark the name ) so that Interval can let you trade in a non-week way against other Interval-owned properties.

I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.

Yeah, it will be called Club Interval Gold...

I do wonder if they will do away with Starwood assigning the deposit and only getting blended trade power instead of being able to deposit the week you actually reserve?

 

[DeniseM]

Yeah, it will be called Club Interval Gold...

I do wonder if they will do away with Starwood assigning the deposit and only getting blended trade power instead of being able to deposit the week you actually reserve?

I wouldn't think so - the current systems benefits the mgmt. Co. far more, because it allows them to manipulate the inventory behind the scenes, to their advantage.

 

[YYJMSP]

I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.

I don't really like the idea of a week-for-week trade like what we have with II now, so I'd be in favour of something that gives us some kind of points, based on what we own (property, season, unit type, etc), that we can use against other suitable properties which would be given their own relative point values.

That would effectively just be SVN under another name but with more options to trade in to...

 

[lizap]

When II acquired Hyatt, I looked these up, but wasn't impressed with any of them, so I didn't make a note of them.

Agree about Hyatt. What other TSs do they own? I could probably google it myself but you seem to know.

 

[lizap]

I definitely hope this is not the case because all owners of the 'other' TSs will be competing with us for resorts like WSJ or WKORV. So far with Hyatt, it has not been the case.

I hope this is the case, other options may not be on par, but having options is always good, YMMV.