CLOSED: Thread Dedicated to the Upcoming/Anticipated Integration of Vistana & Marriott Ownerships (Marriott Link + Vistana Discussion)

[jabberwocky]

It is called mandatory for a reason. Doing as this suggests would mean it is voluntary. For mandatory Vistana properties, membership in VSN is written into the governing condominium CC&R documents. It isn't something that the owner can opt out of nor opt out of passing on. You hold a deed bound by the CC&R, you have mandatory membership in VSN. The only way to change this is to get a vote from the BOD willing to get a vote from owners. Likely requires a supermajority to pass.

+1 on this.

I’ll just add that even those units owned by Vistana, the Flex trust (and even the DC trust if they decide to add) would all still be mandatory deeds and could conceivably convert to SO at 8 months. I’m sure DP inventory will be managed well, so they don’t have anything go into the SO period, but it still doesn’t change the underlying nature of the deed.

 

[sharr7]

I've seen a lot of discussion about the MVC 13/12 month booking window and I agree it's not that big of a deal for Home resort reservations in the 12-8 month window. Someone likened it to depositing in interval and I think that was a good comparison - some will remove their week from the VSN that way but it's not "lost" and they're also not competing for VSN reservations.

My question is - at the 8-month mark, when everything converts to SO reservations, what prevents MVC from just pulling all those weeks (or most weeks or most desirable weeks) into the DC exchange for their "original" members? Or overlaying the functionality so that those weeks can be booked through VSN with SO or through MVC with DP?

 

[DanCali]

I've seen a lot of discussion about the MVC 13/12 month booking window and I agree it's not that big of a deal for Home resort reservations in the 12-8 month window. Someone likened it to depositing in interval and I think that was a good comparison - some will remove their week from the VSN that way but it's not "lost" and they're also not competing for VSN reservations.

My question is - at the 8-month mark, when everything converts to SO reservations, what prevents MVC from just pulling all those weeks (or most weeks or most desirable weeks) into the DC exchange for their "original" members? Or overlaying the functionality so that those weeks can be booked through VSN with SO or through MVC with DP?

Regarding your second point - I don't think something can be in the DC exchange unless it is part of the DC Trust or is an owner actually elects for DC points. With Vistana it was and will likely continue to be automatic - anything not booked at 8 months was in SVN. This seems more like Interval where an owner actively needs to deposit a week. Moreover, with the DC they need to elect point by September or October in the prior year. If I want to use points in 2023, I need to elect by October this year.

Regarding your first point I generally agree but am not clear about the mechanics. Here is a thought experiment....
(1) Suppose a resort has a Platinum season 1-52 Float (say WKORV as an example)
(2) Electing for points doesn't require you to actually reserve a week, you just a elect points and the week goes to the DC exchange
(3) You have 520 Owners elect to convert to DC in a given year

So now we have 520 WKORV weeks in the DC and other owners using DC Points can reserve those at 13 months out. But what weeks can they reserve at 13 months out? Can they all book 4th of July at 13 months out? Can they all reserve New Year's at 13 months out? Or can they just reserve 10 weeks of every week in the year? If there is no pro-rata allocation, I can see a potential problem for home resort reservations if all those 520 deposits allow booking the highest demand weeks (e.g., 4th of July, President's Day, Spring Break) at 13 months out.

 

[5finny]

It is called mandatory for a reason. Doing as this suggests would mean it is voluntary. For mandatory Vistana properties, membership in VSN is written into the governing condominium CC&R documents. It isn't something that the owner can opt out of nor opt out of passing on. You hold a deed bound by the CC&R, you have mandatory membership in VSN. The only way to change this is to get a vote from the BOD willing to get a vote from owners. Likely requires a supermajority to pass.

I will concede the point to anyone who has taken the time to delve into those documents-an undertaking I am too lazy to undertake

 

[DanCali]

I will concede the point to anyone who has taken the time to delve into those documents-an undertaking I am too lazy to undertake

Unless they kill the membership in SVN for everyone at a given resort, then mandatory is mandatory...

2.1 Membership. Membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of each Club Resort VOI pursuant to the terms of a Club Resort Affiliation Agreement, and is required of all purchasers of Club Resort VOIs. On recording of a deed or a memorandum of contract for deed to a Club Resort VOI, the Club Member is entitled to enjoy the benefits of membership in the Club. Pursuant to a Network Affiliation Agreement between Club Operator and Network Operator, a Club Member also is entitled to enjoy the benefits of membership in the Network. Membership in the Network is not an appurtenance to VOIs, and automatically terminates if such Club Member’s Home Resort ceases to be a Network Resort.

A purchaser at a non-Club Resort is not automatically a member of the Network. To use and enjoy benefits of membership in the Network, a VOI purchaser must be enrolled by Network Operator, which will require the execution of an Owner Membership Agreement and the payment of any applicable fee, as determined by Network Operator. Only Owners who acquire their Vacation Ownership Interest directly from the Seller of a Network Resort or from resales brokered by an authorized resale company of Seller, a subsidiary or affiliated company of such Seller, or transferees of such Owners by will or intestate succession, or present or future children of such Owners who have otherwise succeeded to their parents’ interest are eligible to become members of Network...


Definitions:

Club Resort means a resort that has become affiliated with the Club from time to time pursuant to a Club Resort Affiliation Agreement, and in which membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of a VOI. For a resort in which membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of some but not all VOIs, the term “Club Resort” refers only to Club Resort VOIs in such resort.

Club Resort Affiliation Agreement means a Vistana Signature Club Resort Affiliation Agreement between Club Operator and the developer or association for a resort under which the accommodations and facilities of that resort are included in the Club, such resort becomes a Club Resort and some or all owners of vacation ownership interests in the resort become Club Members as a condition of ownership.

Club Member means an Owner in a Club Resort.

Club Operator means the entity, as named in the Club Documents, which provides certain services for the Club,
including the operation of a reservation system for the Club.

Network Operator means Vistana Signature Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, its successors and permitted assigns. Note that Vistana Signature Network, Inc. was formerly known as Starwood Vacation Exchange Company, Inc. and may be referred to by such former name in various documents and agreements.

Network means the Vistana Signature Network , the service name given to the variety of exchange and reservation services and vacation and travel benefits currently offered and the restrictions currently imposed by Network Operator for Network Resorts. The Network is an exchange program offered by Network Operator, an exchange company. Network Members reserve the use of the Units through the Network, which may or may not include access to an External Exchange Program, as set forth in the applicable Network Documents.

Network Affiliation Agreement means an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions that Network Operator establishes from time to time, to make membership in the Network available to owners in Network Resorts.

Network Resort means a resort that is affiliated with the Network. Unless the context provides otherwise, Network Resort shall mean both a Network Points Resort and a Network Weeks Resort.

 

[sharr7]

Regarding your second point - I don't think something can be in the DC exchange unless it is part of the DC Trust or is an owner actually elects for DC points. With Vistana it was and will likely continue to be automatic - anything not booked at 8 months was in SVN. This seems more like Interval where an owner actively needs to deposit a week. Moreover, with the DC they need to elect point by September or October in the prior year. If I want to use points in 2023, I need to elect by October this year.

Regarding your first point I generally agree but am not clear about the mechanics. Here is a thought experiment....
(1) Suppose a resort has a Platinum season 1-52 Float (say WKORV as an example)
(2) Electing for points doesn't require you to actually reserve a week, you just a elect points and the week goes to the DC exchange
(3) You have 520 Owners elect to convert to DC in a given year

So now we have 520 WKORV weeks in the DC and other owners using DC Points can reserve those at 13 months out. But what weeks can they reserve at 13 months out? Can they all book 4th of July at 13 months out? Can they all reserve New Year's at 13 months out? Or can they just reserve 10 weeks of every week in the year? If there is no pro-rata allocation, I can see a potential problem for home resort reservations if all those 520 deposits allow booking the highest demand weeks (e.g., 4th of July, President's Day, Spring Break) at 13 months out.

Good point. The week assignment mechanics are important. Do we know how it works for II deposits?

I'd guess they'd go by your underlying week (even floats have some week/unit assigned for recordkeeping right?). But maybe not.

 

[Ken555]

First, I don't get all the doom and gloom. For every owner that opts not to use SOs, there is one less owner competing for whatever weeks are available via SOs. This concern only holds water if you believe somehow that some weeks are more valuable than others and there's a devaluation because the more valuable weeks are more likely to opt out of SOs. Otherwise, as regards the SO program, it's a one for one exchange - for every week that is not traded via SOs, there's a week that is not competing for SO reservations. In addition, unless you bought in the last 24-36 months, there's been a measurable increase in the overall inventory in the SO world via additions of the Cabo/Kauai/Westin Cancun properties.

Second, your whole premise is based on the assumption that we all had/have some "right" to what weeks stayed within the SO system and which didn't. If Interval came along and said they'd offer triple deposit credit for Westin Hawaii weeks and only single for Kierland weeks...thereby enticing Westin Hawaii owners not to elect SOs, would there be all this doom and gloom about how the program we bought into was changing? MVC is not FORCING anyone to participate in the DP program - if some choose to, there clearly is value to some there.

Finally, the statement that this is "anything but a devaluation" comes only from the perspective of someone who has been able to "maximize" value of SO trades. For every Platinum SDO owner (eligible to participate in the SO program) that was able to trade their week for a week at WKORV, there was a WKORV owner not using their week or trading for something else. That WKORV owner may see more value in trading via the DP program. Hell, if I was a WKORV owner that liked to travel in what the DP program has defined as the shoulder or off seasons, I could elect points for my week and trade back in for 8 or 9 nights at my home resort. Point is, the statement only holds water for those for whom the SO system held good value - just because the SO system was simple, straightforward and assigned the same number of points to a Platinum SDO week as deeded week 52 WKORV week, doesn't mean it was better or more valuable overall.

Haha! Whatever gave you the impression I was ever discussing the perspective of someone whom was not trying to maximize use of the program? My examples earlier of my successes over many years should illustrate the reason I am an owner and how I derive value from it.

Obviously circumstances may change, and I have posted along with many of you about this possibility for well over a decade. I’ve also suggested many times that if the program becomes unviable then I will simply find something else. Nevertheless, I think my points are valid… if weeks leave the program for whatever reason, then the possibility of worthwhile trades (from my perspective) may diminish. Not sure why you think my points are somehow invalid or inaccurate, though you may not agree with them…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Venter]

I think people who make claim to mandatory rights are doolally. The documents are written ambiguously and not in such a way that it can be interpreted in perpetuaty. There's mention of agreements etc. We do not have access to those written agreements between clubs, network operators, management company etc. It may all just say that the agreement can be cancelled by either party for no reason. I am no lawyer but cynical enough to know that holes can be shot in most contracts. I also do not think Starwood would have bound themselves to terms that they cannot get out of at all

Sorry, I do not really think people are crazy.

 

[dioxide45]

I think people who make claim to mandatory rights are doolally. The documents are written ambiguously and not in such a way that it can be interpreted in perpetuaty. There's mention of agreements etc. We do not have access to those written agreements between clubs, network operators, management company etc. It may all just say that the agreement can be cancelled by either party for no reason. I am no lawyer but cynical enough to know that holes can be shot in most contracts. I also do not think Starwood would have bound themselves to terms that they cannot get out of at all

Sorry, I do not really think people are crazy.

I don't think there is any argument that they can or can't abolish VSN completely. Just that they can't abolish mandatory VSN at those mandatory resorts. If they could have done it, they would have done it long ago. Vistana (then Starwood) realized fairly early that writing VSN membership into the condo documents was a mistake. Thus why they stopped doing it. Resort CC&R document changes require a vote by the owners.

 

[Eric B]

Unless they kill the membership in SVN for everyone at a given resort, then mandatory is mandatory...

2.1 Membership. Membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of each Club Resort VOI pursuant to the terms of a Club Resort Affiliation Agreement, and is required of all purchasers of Club Resort VOIs. On recording of a deed or a memorandum of contract for deed to a Club Resort VOI, the Club Member is entitled to enjoy the benefits of membership in the Club. Pursuant to a Network Affiliation Agreement between Club Operator and Network Operator, a Club Member also is entitled to enjoy the benefits of membership in the Network. Membership in the Network is not an appurtenance to VOIs, and automatically terminates if such Club Member’s Home Resort ceases to be a Network Resort.

A purchaser at a non-Club Resort is not automatically a member of the Network. To use and enjoy benefits of membership in the Network, a VOI purchaser must be enrolled by Network Operator, which will require the execution of an Owner Membership Agreement and the payment of any applicable fee, as determined by Network Operator. Only Owners who acquire their Vacation Ownership Interest directly from the Seller of a Network Resort or from resales brokered by an authorized resale company of Seller, a subsidiary or affiliated company of such Seller, or transferees of such Owners by will or intestate succession, or present or future children of such Owners who have otherwise succeeded to their parents’ interest are eligible to become members of Network...


Definitions:

Club Resort means a resort that has become affiliated with the Club from time to time pursuant to a Club Resort Affiliation Agreement, and in which membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of a VOI. For a resort in which membership in the Club is a condition of ownership of some but not all VOIs, the term “Club Resort” refers only to Club Resort VOIs in such resort.

Club Member means an Owner in a Club Resort.

Club Operator means the entity, as named in the Club Documents, which provides certain services for the Club,
including the operation of a reservation system for the Club.

Network Operator means Vistana Signature Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, its successors and permitted assigns. Note that Vistana Signature Network, Inc. was formerly known as Starwood Vacation Exchange Company, Inc. and may be referred to by such former name in various documents and agreements.

Network means the Vistana Signature Network , the service name given to the variety of exchange and reservation services and vacation and travel benefits currently offered and the restrictions currently imposed by Network Operator for Network Resorts. The Network is an exchange program offered by Network Operator, an exchange company. Network Members reserve the use of the Units through the Network, which may or may not include access to an External Exchange Program, as set forth in the applicable Network Documents.

Network Affiliation Agreement means an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions that Network Operator establishes from time to time, to make membership in the Network available to owners in Network Resorts.

If it's helpful, here are the provisions from the 2015 VSN Guide that I think would be pertinent to the DC combination issue:

Definitions:

External Exchange Company means any company that provides services to the Network or to Network Members
under an External Exchange Program.

External Exchange Program means the contractual arrangement pursuant to which a Network Member may
exchange the use of a Vacation Period, under certain conditions, for the use of accommodations in resorts other than
Network Resorts.

Network means the Vistana Signature Network , the service name given to the variety of exchange and reservation
services and vacation and travel benefits currently offered and the restrictions currently imposed by Network
Operator for Network Resorts. The Network is an exchange program offered by Network Operator, an exchange
company. Network Members reserve the use of the Units through the Network, which may or may not include
access to an External Exchange Program, as set forth in the applicable Network Documents. The Network is not a
legal entity or association of any kind. Note that the Network was formerly known as Starwood Vacation Network
and may be referred to by such former name in various documents and agreements. Also note that the Network
was formerly known by the acronym SVN and may be referred to by such former acronym in various documents
and agreements. (Emphasis added.)

[Provisions]

[4.2.]c. Bulk Banking for Anticipated External and Starwood Preferred Guest Program Exchanges. Network
Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at
any time after the beginning of the Home Resort Reservation Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the
Home Resort Reservation Period, for the purpose of depositing the reserved Vacation Periods with an External
Exchange Program on behalf of Network Members based on Network Operator's determination, in its sole discretion,
of anticipated Network Member demand to access an External Exchange Program or the Starwood Preferred Guest
Program. Network Members may request an external exchange company assignment based upon the resort, unit
and season being assigned by the Network Member for an external exchange request. (Emphasis added.)

[4.2.]d. Network Float Period. The Network Float Period begins eight (8) months prior to the Check-in Day for a
given Vacation Period and ends sixty (60) days prior to the Check-in Day. It follows the Home Resort Reservation
Period for a given Vacation Period and precedes the Network Priority Period. During the Network Float Period, all
Network Members must compete with other Network Members for reservations on a first-come, first-served basis for
a reservation for any available Vacation Period that the Network Member has sufficient StarOptions to reserve. Due
to the automatic reservation of Reserved Periods as described in Section 4.2.a (2), the availability of such Vacation
Periods may be limited.

Network Members also will compete with Network Operator for reservations during the Network Float Period
with respect to Network Operator's rights to make reservations for bulk banking for external exchange and
anticipating Network Member demand to access the Starwood Preferred Guest Program as discussed above. (Emphasis added.)

There are other provisions that are unique to the External Exchange Program as it is implemented with Interval, but my take away is that Marriott as the Network Operator will have the discretion to determine what availability is reserved and allocated to the External Exchange Program, which could be Interval and the DC, but that determination is supposed to be based on anticipated Network Member demand for access to the External Exchange Program. Since this will just be enrolled weeks owned by Network Members, the choice of what to deposit would probably be made to get the proper number of points from available weeks to satisfy the deposit choices made by the enrolled folks as that should probably be a zero sum game. If they were to deposit all of the high demand weeks in a season at a resort, there would be too many points allocated for Vistana owners and the books wouldn't balance. The skim could make up for some of an off balance condition but they'll have to have some guidelines for the combined system and we'll be able to see what they say they will base those deposits on - the only unknown would be what they do with developer-owned VOIs.

There's also this additional provision in the Miscellaneous section:

8.4 Special Exchange Programs. Network Operator reserves the right, from time to time, to enter into special
exchange relationships with any entity other than an External Exchange Company pursuant to which Network
Members will have access to selected non-Network resorts and non-Network owners will have access to Network
accommodations after the Home Resort Reservation Period. Any special exchange programs will be governed by
reservation rules and regulations similar to those governing an External Exchange Program.

If that's what they're basing the DC enrollment eligibility on, it's worded in such a way that Network Members all get access and mandator resale owners (i.e., owners at a Club Resort that didn't purchase from the Network Operator) as well as voluntary owners that purchased a non-Club Resort from the Network Operator are all Network Members. I'm hoping that's how it works out, but we'll see since they have the power to change the rules.

 

[remowidget]

While I am sure that salespeople hate mandatory resorts, I don't understand why anyone else in Vistana or Marriott would really care. It's a business situation that exists. It is what it is. They only care about selling new products. That is how they make money.

I own no resale and purchased my time about 12 years ago, but from my perspective the only two Mandatory resorts worth purchasing, for the staroptions, are in Orlando and Kierland. The others have maintenance fees that are too high unless you primarily want to go there. Staroptions for 2/3 of the mandatory resorts are really just a minor added feature, IMHO.

All of this integration(it isn't a merger) talk has me considering buying some resale. While I am not the expert many of you are, I do feel pretty well informed. That said, if I were to buy today it wouldn't be a mandatory resort.

 

[ocdb8r]

Nevertheless, I think my points are valid… if weeks leave the program for whatever reason, then the possibility of worthwhile trades (from my perspective) may diminish. Not sure why you think my points are somehow invalid or inaccurate, though you may not agree with them…

My intention wasn't to invalidate your points, but rather to put them in perspective (and I meant no offense). In fact, I was more responding to your assertion:

It is quite interesting that some people are advocating the belief that this is anything but a devaluation, even if it will not impact us immediately. The program we bought into is changing for the worse, and the only way it will remain similar (or improve) for individuals is if you cough up another significant investment.

...it felt like you were invalidating thoughts that anyone else had that the option to trade into DPs could be a good thing.

 

[Kildahl]

While I am sure that salespeople hate mandatory resorts, I don't understand why anyone else in Vistana or Marriott would really care. It's a business situation that exists. It is what it is. They only care about selling new products. That is how they make money.

I own no resale and purchased my time about 12 years ago, but from my perspective the only two Mandatory resorts worth purchasing, for the staroptions, are in Orlando and Kierland. The others have maintenance fees that are too high unless you primarily want to go there. Staroptions for 2/3 of the mandatory resorts are really just a minor added feature, IMHO.

All of this integration(it isn't a merger) talk has me considering buying some resale. While I am not the expert many of you are, I do feel pretty well informed. That said, if I were to buy today it wouldn't be a mandatory resort.

Did you mean to say you wouldn't buy a unit at a voluntary resort?

 

[DanCali]

I own no resale and purchased my time about 12 years ago, but from my perspective the only two Mandatory resorts worth purchasing, for the staroptions, are in Orlando and Kierland. The others have maintenance fees that are too high unless you primarily want to go there. Staroptions for 2/3 of the mandatory resorts are really just a minor added feature, IMHO.

There are other factors to consider, IMO

Are maintenance fees of $2500 on Maui "too high" if the rental value of a week is $4500-$5000? Would you buy such a week if it was $10K? Would you still buy it if it was $30K?

And if the rental value math for Princeville were similar, would you pay more for a week with or without Staroptions?

There are multiple factors that go into the decision to buy a week. Not everyone cares about the same things but to me rental values matter a lot, because it's an alternative to using it. When considering conversion to things like cruises and such, I don't look at maintenance fees vs cruise value, I look at rental value vs cruise value. Maintenance fees are already paid and don't really matter.

I would be much more likely to buy a Maui week over an Orlando week because of rental value (relative to MF), despite perhaps an inferior SO/MF ratio. I can't rent Staroptions (at least not directly), but I can rent the timeshare.

 

[Ken555]

...it felt like you were invalidating thoughts that anyone else had that the option to trade into DPs could be a good thing.

Not at all. Others had already stated how they thought trading via DPs would be beneficial to them. I saw no need to repeat what had already been posted in that regard, especially since I had little interest in that option given the fact that I would not be able to use DPs to trade to the resorts I have already been trading to successfully for 15+ years via SOs (once again, the devaluation).

 

[ocdb8r]

My question is - at the 8-month mark, when everything converts to SO reservations, what prevents MVC from just pulling all those weeks (or most weeks or most desirable weeks) into the DC exchange for their "original" members? Or overlaying the functionality so that those weeks can be booked through VSN with SO or through MVC with DP?

I think Eric B's post is helpful - clearly there are SOME restrictions but there is also clearly plenty of latitude to "cherry pick". That said, again, I followed the MVC conversion to DPs very closely as I was considering picking up a week. All the concerns there made me hold off....and since I've gone back and read through some general threads (when Vistana was purchased by MVC), I've been pleasantly surprised that it doesn't appear MVC have used their "power" for much bad. In fact, I think "skim" is part of what makes the system work. It reduces some demand, such that MVC can massage availability a bit. Sure, not all owners are happy and there are clearly time when availability is an issue (holiday weeks...etc) BUT those issues exist now in SVN (and in every network) and I don't see too many MVC DP owners super unsatisfied.

All of that said, it still gives me pause it is a bit "opaque" and I have no idea if MVCs actions as regards how it moves weeks around the systems is "fair" or within the rules. It seems totally "un-auditable" and clearly too complex for any single or group of owners to "check" so it does leave a lot up for them to "self police".

 

[Ken555]

I would be much more likely to buy a Maui week over an Orlando week because of rental value (relative to MF), despite perhaps an inferior SO/MF ratio. I can't rent Staroptions (at least not directly), but I can rent the timeshare.

FWIW, I doubt I would ever own an Orlando week ever again for several reasons not least that Orlando is overbuilt and easy to rent via II or elsewhere, and super easy to trade into.

I would similarly not buy in Maui since I find the County actions against timeshares reprehensible. I'll trade into Maui, I'll visit Maui, and I will spend money in Maui...but I won't own a timeshare there. I would be much more inclined to buy a condo or house on Maui instead, if I was to buy there at all (and I doubt I would spend the months every year to justify such a purchase).

 

[TravelTime]

I would never agree to these terms because it would kill the resale value of the unit. Units that hold back and keep such benefits would become even more valuable than before.

The way Disney did it, no one had a choice so you could not “agree” to the terms. Disney dictated. Disney said if you sold your contract after the cut off date, the new owners could still trade in the old system but not in the new system for any future properties DVC built. MVC could do something based on the latest DVC iteration of the resale model. I am not speculating anymore as to what they could do since it just upsets people. At the moment, there is no reason to worry because MVC has said they are not taking SOs away.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The way Disney did it, no one had a choice so you could not “agree” to the terms. Disney dictated. Disney said if you sold your contract after the cut off date, the new owners could still trade in the old system but not in the new system for any future properties DVC built. MVC could do something based on the latest DVC iteration of the resale model. I am not speculating anymore as to what they could do since it just upsets people. At the moment, there is no reason to worry because MVC has said they are not taking SOs away.

Wow what Disney did was harsh. But these could do this because they are RTU.

I am not sure it would be as easy for mandatory SVN because resale terms are embedded into the deeds = lawsuits. This is why all the TS companies are pushing for points and land trusts because they can make rule changes like Disney's much more easily without the threat of lawsuits and without the oversight of state landholder protections.

 

[remowidget]

Did you mean to say you wouldn't buy a unit at a voluntary resort?

I would purchase a voluntary resort. Less money, less maintenance. However, I already have Staroptions. Just saying there are other points of view.

 

[Ken555]

I would purchase a voluntary resort. Less money, less maintenance. However, I already have Staroptions. Just saying there are other points of view.

This would be to use at that voluntary resort, or trade it via II, etc?

Certainly there are many ways to use your ownership, and no one "correct" method.

 

[TravelTime]

Wow what Disney did was harsh. But these could do this because they are RTU.

I am not sure it would be as easy for mandatory SVN because resale terms are embedded into the deeds = lawsuits. This is why all the TS companies are pushing for points and land trusts because they can make rule changes like Disney's much more easily without the threat of lawsuits and without the oversight of state landholder protections.

Disney has been tightening their resale rules for years. I think this latest change was to minimize the resale market value and encourage direct sales. I owned Disney at the time. I was a DVC owner when they changed their rules so my contracts were grandfathered in.

Marriott also tightened their resale rules in 2010. So who knows what is really going to happen or what is really the case legally. I do not know for sure since I was not a MVC owner in 2010, but someone else may be able to comment on whether the resale values plunged after 2010 due to this change. Also wondering if there were any lawsuits then since MVC’s change probably affected the value of reselling weeks contracts.

 

[remowidget]

T

There are other factors to consider, IMO

Are maintenance fees of $2500 on Maui "too high" if the rental value of a week is $4500-$5000? Would you buy such a week if it was $10K? Would you still buy it if it was $30K?

And if the rental value math for Princeville were similar, would you pay more for a week with or without Staroptions?

There are multiple factors that go into the decision to buy a week. Not everyone cares about the same things but to me rental values matter a lot, because it's an alternative to using it. When considering conversion to things like cruises and such, I don't look at maintenance fees vs cruise value, I look at rental value vs cruise value. Maintenance fees are already paid and don't really matter.

I would be much more likely to buy a Maui week over an Orlando week because of rental value (relative to MF), despite perhaps an inferior SO/MF ratio. I can't rent Staroptions (at least not directly), but I can rent the timeshare.

That makes sense if you are going to rent it, but we use our time. Also, we do t really want to go to Maui. Too crowded and expensive.

 

[Red elephant]

Regarding your second point - I don't think something can be in the DC exchange unless it is part of the DC Trust or is an owner actually elects for DC points. With Vistana it was and will likely continue to be automatic - anything not booked at 8 months was in SVN. This seems more like Interval where an owner actively needs to deposit a week. Moreover, with the DC they need to elect point by September or October in the prior year. If I want to use points in 2023, I need to elect by October this year.

Regarding your first point I generally agree but am not clear about the mechanics. Here is a thought experiment....
(1) Suppose a resort has a Platinum season 1-52 Float (say WKORV as an example)
(2) Electing for points doesn't require you to actually reserve a week, you just a elect points and the week goes to the DC exchange
(3) You have 520 Owners elect to convert to DC in a given year

So now we have 520 WKORV weeks in the DC and other owners using DC Points can reserve those at 13 months out. But what weeks can they reserve at 13 months out? Can they all book 4th of July at 13 months out? Can they all reserve New Year's at 13 months out? Or can they just reserve 10 weeks of every week in the year? If there is no pro-rata allocation, I can see a potential problem for home resort reservations if all those 520 deposits allow booking the highest demand weeks (e.g., 4th of July, President's Day, Spring Break) at 13 months out.

This is the question of the day!!! It seems like people will be booking home resort usage and electing conversion to DC points at the same time the previous year . So anyone trying to book home resort use after October might find it difficult if all the good weeks have been allocated to the DC trust. So confusing.

 

[remowidget]

This would be to use at that voluntary resort, or trade it via II, etc?

Certainly there are many ways to use your ownership, and no one "correct" method.

Yes, I would use or trade through ii