Westin Kierland Villas staroption values

[DavidnRobin]

My 2br wekk 40 unit is not a L/O. It is correctly identified as a regular 2br in the BSC. In 2008 units 39-47 were high season worth 67,100 SOs. This year the Star options chart show that anyone going to Vistana will have to spend 81,000 options. The catch is (to the benefit of Starwood and everyone elses loss) that the same value of 81,000 SO is not given to timeshare owners of the resort to trade within the SVN. Yes I know life is unfair, but this is beyond that its is a rip off for both owners at the resort and users of SVV.

Interesting - the SO chart posted in the SVO resources sticky from June'08shows the week 40, 2Bd non-LO units at SVV- Bella to be assigned 81K SOs - yet the chart from April'08 in my records shows these assigned 67.1K SOs.

I didn't know that SVV-Bella owners were invited to join SVN - as I thought that Bella was always a M resort. Again - I do not keep up with the workings of the Sheraton VOIs only the Westin VOIs. However, if this was the deal that was made (by whom?) to allow for an imbalance of these SOs - then it is what it is - unfair or not.

I do find it amazing that there is an imbalance for a variety of reasons - this is not the same as was done for WSJ-Hillside units.

 

[work2travel]

SVV Bella is and has been a mandatory. It is not part of the Vistana Resort phases where certain phases have been allowed to join into the SVN system recently.

There has not been any change in the status of Sheraton Vistana Village Bella. It is and has been part of the mandatory SVN for quite some time. That is why this is so frustrating. If this is the first time that Starwood has done this it could be precedent setting,!!! If they devalue ownership in that manner at SVV today which resort will they devalue next?

 

[DavidnRobin]

SVV Bella is and has been a mandatory. It is not part of the Vistana Resort phases where certain phases have been allowed to join into the SVN system recently.

There has not been any change in the status of Sheraton Vistana Village Bella. It is and has been part of the mandatory SVN for quite some time. That is why this is so frustrating. If this is the first time that Starwood has done this it could be precedent setting,!!! If they devalue ownership in that manner at SVV today which resort will they devalue next?

I can really understand the frustration - if possible I would try and challenge based on the CCRs, but that will be based on the text used. Also - if this was voted upon to alter the CCRs (assuming the HOA board approved this) - then I would question the HOA at SVV-Bella as to the reason this was done as it creates this SO imbalance.

Did they devalue your ownership compared to others? It seems - if I understand correctly - that you still have the same amount of SOs assigned. It is just those using the SVN exchange system have to use more SOs for certain SVN VOIs. I am unclear how that devalues your VOI specifically - while I do see how it devalues SVO VOIs in general since now there is less value in some SVN exchanges, but that holds true for all owners within the SVN system.

By allowing more and more Owners into SVN (which seems to be the trend) - when they couldn't previously use SVN - this has an overall impact on SVN value since it will now be more difficult to find availability - add to that the SO increases at some resort - SVN exchangers will get less value overall.

In looking at the charts - it appears that they were attempting to align the VOIs (resort-week-unit-type) between the associated SVV resorts (Bella, Amelia, KW, St August.) by collapsing them together (rightly or wrongly) for ease of use by SVN users.

For WSJ - they increases the WSJ-VG SOs to bring them into alignment with WSJ-BV. Plus, they were seriously undervalued (e.g. I would previously only get a HI studio with a 2Bd WSJ-VG).

So I am glad they increased WSJ-VG - but at the same time my other VOIs now get less value for SVN exchanges.

I do not agree with the decision or defending them - just saying...

 

[work2travel]

I understand that you are not defending them and thank you for taking the time to discuss the issue.

I really do not mind the increase in SOs due to an appropriate valuation of a resort, what I do mind is the inequity of Starwood charging someone more SOs to use the very same unit than the SOs they allocate to the unit's owner to trade into another resort. The value of a particular unit should be constant for the proprty owner and exchanger. That way equity is maintained. I

t sounds that in your case the SOs at St John were upgraded for both the exhanger and for you as the owner to the same amount. That is fair!

 

[Captron]

I had similar issues. SVR Fountains II outbound I get 76,000 SO but it costs someone else 81,000 to get in. My Cascades LO I get 90,000 SO outbound but it costs someone else 95,700 coming in. I know that these are V units. This just gets really screwed up when you try to exchange within the system and end up with odd numbers left over.

I had extensive discussions with many at SVO about this (Where do the SO go? to the Owners Assoc? To SVO and profit? to SVO with credit to OA? - all I got was the run around. Since discovering TUG I now understand why!!!!!!!!)

I guess all the more to donate! I think I will have ~6000 options to donate for 2009. Does anyone know if I can get any kind of tax receipt for it? It doesn't really matter but wouldn't hurt.

If anyone has a link to the donation info or contact other that what is in the post-it please PM so I have it for reference.

 

[SVOForever]

This frustrates me

Hi Everyone

I own a lot of SVV resales and in my "portfolio" I have a few of the SVV Bella units that went from 67,100 to 81,000.

Back in October I spent a LOT of time with SVO - one of the million VP's and SVP's and got the basic answer that you all have provided.

Yes, for 10 weeks, they now require 81,000 to trade INTO my unit, but only give me 67,100 if I want to trade OUT of my unit. To this day I find this absurdly unfair, unprofessional, you name it. Since I *never* actually go to my SVV unit, instead trade elsewhere, for the 15 units I own, Starwood "profits" by giving me 13,900 x 15 Staroptions LESS than they should. They tell me I can still keep my week and not have to pay more, but since I never keep it, they are unfairly profiting.

If I give them a week, and they give me 67,100 they shoudl either only take 67,100 or give me 81,000.

I went back and forth and back and forth ... no luck.

Anyone hear otherwise?

 

[SVOForever]

Actual email text...

Dear XXX:

The 10 weeks that moved to Prime season become Prime float. Owners purchasing Prime season pay more and receive more options (81K) "booking out" and "booking in". Seasons changed and require more options now.

SVO will not make an exception in your case and increase your options to 81K, prime season. In reality we did not take anything away from you.
You still own what you owned prior to the season change (High) and have the same use rights.

It is our hope that you do not feel that we did anything underhanded to you or any of our valued owners, as this was not our intent. That is why we did not impact your usage from your original ownership purchased from SVO or re-sale weeks.

I am working with our Learning and Development management team to provide our associates with proper response to future questions regarding the season change at SVV so we are all communicating accurately to all owners. I appreciate your time and correspondence in helping us in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at anytime in the future if you have other questions or concerns.

Regards,

XXX
Vice President XXX

 

[DavidnRobin]

As stated - I think you got the answer (that they are not taking anything away from you) as it does not impact your SVN usage that you originally purchased.

I am not defending them as to the fairness - it is what it is.

 

[work2travel]

David and Robin: you are absolutely wrong on this one. Starwood did in fact take quite a bit from the value of those VV timeshare owners.

Didn't you say that your WSJ unit was increased in staroptions? How would you have liked it if they charged excangers into your unit to pay more but they did not give you an equal amount of staroption? unfair when it is you huh? You just dont seem to get it!!!

 

[DeniseM]

Jamy - I guess I don't get it either. I understand why you don't think it's equitable, but how will it change your personal usage from what it was when you purchased?

 

[work2travel]

Denise, I bought my timeshare for its trading value with equilivalent staroption timeshares in SVO resorts. When Starwood increases the staroption value for exchangers into a resort but does not honor and give that same staroption value to the timeshare owners at some resorts but in other resorts starwood increases the staroptions for owners and exchangers this creates an inconsistency that prevents owners from exhanging into resorts that they previously could.

For example my 2br VV unit could get me a 2br WSJ last year also valued at 67,000 options in 2008. This year my unit is valued at 67,000 (for me) and 81,000 options (for exchangers into the resort) so I can not exchange into WSJ any longer. In addition the 2br WSJ is valued 81,000 options for owners and exchangers into the resort which is inconsistent with the way they handled the VV staroption increase.

I believe the WSJ way is the right way to address increases in staroptions (setting a single staroption value for both owners and exhangers) because equity in timeshare value is maintained for owners and exchangers - and not the way they handled the VV staroption increase.

 

[jerseygirl]

I don't know the history of the SVV changs, but for Cascades/Lakes-- didn't it have to do with float weeks and averaging the number of StarOptions?

My Cascades LO I get 90,000 SO outbound but it costs someone else 95,700 coming in.

The weeks were originally sold as Float 1-52. Then, seasons were created as follows:

Weeks 6-17, 23-34, 39-47, 51-52 95,700 SOs Total # of weeks = 35 X 95700 = 3,349,500
Weeks 1-5, 18-22, 35-38, 48-50 81,000 SOs Total # of weeks = 17 X 81000 = 1,377,000

Total # of SOs = 4,726,500 / 52 = 90,894 average per week

Depending on the week/season, people can trade in for 81,000 or 95,700 ... so owners were given an average (rounded down, not up -- bad form!).

I rarely agree with any Starwood policies, but other than the rounding down, this seems fair.

I sort of remember the same thing with Fountains (the original seasons did not line up with "SVN" seasons). But, again, have never followed the SVV seasons so I can't comment on that one.

I believe that Starwood reserves the right to change the # of SOs assigned at any time. But, if they were smart, all changes would be balanced (if I'm not mistaken, Disney has this clause). For example, even though I'm happy that they increased the # of SOs for WSJ, where's the offset? Did it come from VV? Or did they just increase WSJ with no offsetting decrease anywhere else in the system? It's too early for me to think through the ramifications of unbalanced changes, but they can't be good.

 

[LisaRex]

I'm sure I'd be ticked if I were an SVV owner and they increased the SOs to get into my resort but didn't increase the SOs for owning. After all, isn't this a major complaint for folks who bought from the developer on the ability to convert to StarPoints? On one hand, you're still getting the number of StarPoints that they promised; on the other hand, the buying power of 80k StarPoints is diminished every year.

Or, Starwood is charging 12k SPs for a studio and 16k SPs for a 1 bdrm villa each night at WKORV, so to book a 2 bdrm villa for a week it would cost me 196,000 SPs. However, if I convert my villa to SPs, they give me 80k StarPoints, or 41% of the value that they assigned to it. Sure seems unfair to me. (And it's one less reason to buy from the developer.)

Giving two different SO designations also seems like a bookkeeping nightmare. Just for simplicity's sake, I think the SO value should be the same whether you're going out or in. I hate how Starwood keeps changing the system. I can't imagine how many footnotes the reps have to read when trying to understand the process.

***
If it's any consolation, I used to have enough SOs to get a 3 bdrm in WSJ in the winter. Since they adjusted the SO requirements, I no longer have enough. I think it was a necessary and fair adjustment for the folks at WSJ, but it kind of sucks for me. C'est la vie.

 

[DavidnRobin]

David and Robin: you are absolutely wrong on this one. Starwood did in fact take quite a bit from the value of those VV timeshare owners.

Didn't you say that your WSJ unit was increased in staroptions? How would you have liked it if they charged excangers into your unit to pay more but they did not give you an equal amount of staroption? unfair when it is you huh? You just dont seem to get it!!!

???? why attack me - you should find someone else to take your frustrations out on...???

I do get it - in your view you got screwed - join the club...

I have continously tried to help Tuggers on this forum - as they have helped me. What have you contibuted except to rail on about how you got screwed and it isn't fair, and denied the view point of others who are willing to input? I have never used the 'ignore' feature on this forum - but that BS post may warrant it...

 

[work2travel]

whatever...

Has anyone told you before that your "help" to others reflects a "know it all" attitude, and sometimes comes across as condocending? Humility is a sign of people that dont need to prove anything to anyone and make people more likable. May want to consider that - or just use the ignore function. Trully who cares

 

[Steve]

Let's try to keep the discussion from getting too personal. I understand there are strong feelings on this topic, but it's better to try to stay focused on Starwood...and not on each other.

Steve
TUG Moderator

 

[work2travel]

Great idea

 

[bizaro86]

By allowing more and more Owners into SVN (which seems to be the trend) - when they couldn't previously use SVN - this has an overall impact on SVN value since it will now be more difficult to find availability - add to that the SO increases at some resort - SVN exchangers will get less value overall.

I'm not sure that adding resorts and owners into SVN decreases availability, or at least it wouldn't if the resorts added were equitable with the resorts already in SVN. That's because every owner from a new resort trading to an SVN resort gives up their "home week" to the SVN system for use by someone else. The reason the additions have been perceived as negative for system availability are because there was already lots of availability in Orlando, so anyone who wanted to trade in there could. So now there will be more people trying to trade out of orlando without an balancing increase of people trading in.

Compare people's attitude towards this with attitudes toward a new construction resort. If SVO announced (and actually built!) a resort in NYC, vegas, aruba, florida keys, the California beach, Europe, etc people would be happy about it, even though some of the owners from those resorts would try to exchange into Hawaii, WSJ, and harborside, reducing availability there. But those exchanges would be offset by new availability at the new resort.

Its just that in the case of Vistana, the availability being added to SVN is in Orlando, where SVN is already well supplied.

Michael

 

[DeniseM]

Let's try to keep the discussion from getting too personal. I understand there are strong feelings on this topic, but it's better to try to stay focused on Starwood...and not on each other.

Steve
TUG Moderator

What Steve said!

 

[Ken555]

Giving two different SO designations also seems like a bookkeeping nightmare. Just for simplicity's sake, I think the SO value should be the same whether you're going out or in. I hate how Starwood keeps changing the system. I can't imagine how many footnotes the reps have to read when trying to understand the process.

I agree 100%.

 

[work2travel]

I was finally able to talk with a Starwood supervisor yesterday about the difference in the way Starwood has handled the staroption increase in VV Vs. WSJ. She did not know why two different methods were used at each of these resorts. She promised to research the issue get back to me with Starwoods's explanation "if there was one".

 

[Joshadelic]

She promised to research the issue get back to me with Starwoods's explanation "if there was one".

Keep holding your breath. Hopefully blue is a good color for you.

 

[work2travel]

We do need humor in life dont we?

 

[James1975NY]

Here is the best way to understand the chnaging in the StarOptions charts for the Bella villas...

Just so this is clear....
1.) If I own 67,100 StarOptions at SVV (Bella) and I want to book a full week vacation on interval 47, I can still get a full week. Nothing taken away from this type of owners.

2.) If own 81,000 StarOptions at a resort other than SVV, it will take 81,000 StarOptions to book week 47 (and others that have changed). So, for this owner, you are going to use more StarOptions for week 47 in 2009 than you did in 2008.

This is somewhat like the SDO scenario where there are two condo companies (47 & 49). Company 47 villa were registered as one season all-year round and owners can book their villa owned any week of the year. Company 49 was registered with three seasons which is reflected on the StarOptions charts.

Nobody lost anything in the SDO scenario and I really do not see how there is going to be an impact in the SVV scenario. What you need to consider is when will you want to travel to SVV for these weeks that have been changed from 67.1k to 81k?

From my experience with Starwood is that they are cognizant of the impact that changes like this cause on the owner base. They did in fact also change the 79,900 SO category from the past (when SVN was implemented) and made all of those owners to 81,000 so that more movement was allowed and added flexibility to those owners of 79,900 who were a mere 1100 StarOptions away from some fabulous vacations opportunities.

From my perspective the change was made to consume more StarOptions for owners travelling in to SVV or SVO as the season truly calls for it.

IMHO, this does not belong on the top 5 issues relative to SVO.

 

[James1975NY]

Hello there, does anyone know if the staroption values for gold season timeshares at Kierland have changed in the last few years? What happens if someone buys resale today, would the timeshare staroptions for the timeshare be the originaly deeded ones or the current staroptions for the season?

They definitely changed from 79,900 to 81,000 about 3-4 years ago.