Whats up next for Starwood owners [MUST READ!]

[nodge]

[...] If there are no plans for further expansion then reputation with new owners (ones buying from developer) is meaningless. I am truly starting to believe that the long term plan is to buy back these resorts at pennies on the dollar. With the control of the HOA, starwood can raise MFs over time to ridiculous levels, thus forcing more people to sell and lowering resale prices at the same time. It can then use ROFR to buy these back at 5%-10% of what original buyers paid. Forget renting what people trade into II - they will be able to rent all weeks, all views, whatever, whenever, while the few remaining owners subsidize the housekeeping costs...

[...]

I want to emphasize that this is of course just PURE SPECULATION on my part; I have absolutely no evidence to back it up (besides the ridiculous trajectory of MFs at most resorts) but with the guy heading up the organization - would anyone be surprised if this was an actual deliberate strategy?

Here's some data to support your theory. (Read the last post from "Jeff" to "Kent" on "page 3"). The poster is pretty PO'd at the massive special assessment at Vistana Resort and has flately refused to pay it. In response, SVO offered to buy his SVO timeshare for $210.

-nodge

 

[jerseygirl]

I don't know what their long term agenda is, so I am just speculating. They already got the inflated sales prices so how do they maximize revenues now? They can try to milk owners as much as possible with their cut from MFs, SVN fees, rentals, etc but I am not sure if that is sustainable in the long run.

Think about what are the options when MFs at WKORV reach $4000 or $5000? At this rate this can happen in about 5-6 years... At that level of MFs thousands of owners wll seek to dump their properties and resale values will literally be zero because nobody will want to buy them. So either Starwood buys the hotel back or owners vote to close down the property, if the latter is even an option. If they buy a week at $1000 (probably very generous, because at that level of MFs owners will be willing to give their weeks away, or even pay someone to take them) that's $50,000 per 2BR villa in a super prime location. Much cheaper than building from scratch... (in fact, buying just the furniture and appliances inside the villa would probably exceed that value). Even with the risks of economy/competition this has got to be a very attractive proposition for Starwood.

As an illustration think of their return on investment in an ultra conservative scenario - they rent a 2BR villa for $300 a night ($100 for the studio and $200 for a 1BR suite), have only 70% occupancy rates at those ridiculously low rates, and their costs to operate the villa are 90% of revenues... So their operating income per villa per year would be $300 * 365 days * 0.7 occupancy * 0.1 operating margin = $7665 per year. On a $50,000 investment that's a pretax return on equity of over 15% a year. And I think we can all agree this is a very conservative scenario...

Now in more realistic, but still quite conservative scenario, they rent a villa at $500/night (say $200 for a studio and $300 for a 1BR suite), have 80% occupancy and let's just assume their costs are still 90% of sales. Now their operating income per villa per year would be $500 * 365 days * 0.8 occupancy * 0.1 operating margin = $14,600 per year. On a $50,000 investment that's a pretax return on equity of over 29% a year! This doubles to a 60% pretax annual return if the costs are 80% of revenues and they have a 20% operating margin.

When you think of it that way you see that despite the risks, buying the hotel back fr a symbolic price would be a great way to create value for Starwood shareholders (not the SVN owners). This is not so outlandish as it may seem at a first glance at the idea...

Danny,

I'm sure your math is accurate, but I think you may be overlooking a couple of important factors:

-- It's illegal in all 50 states for maintenance fees to exceed operating costs (obviously, reserves are permitted -- but I'm talking about the "pure" costs to run the resort on a day-to-day basis).

-- Yes, we all suspect that Starwood "pads the expenses" to increase their percentage-based management fee. But, I think they're smart enough to stay below the radar. I'm not suggesting that the padding may not be significant, but I don't think it would change the economics drastically if they suddenly found it unwise to pad their own (rather than our) expenses.

-- If Starwood would decide to turn WKORV back into a hotel (which would be virtually impossible due to need for owner votes as specified in the deed), they would have to substantially increase services, and corresponding expenses (daily housekepping is just one example). to command rental prices to compete with other luxury resorts in the area. (Althernatively, they'd be comparable to a Residence Inn.)

-- Just as an example, for an uncoming trip, we're staying in a Club room at the Hyatt in Maui. We have personal club concierge services, a guaranteed ocean view, killer pools, daily maid and turn-down service, a sitting room, breakfast every morning in the club suite, drinks and appetizers every evening in the club suite, 24-hour room service, ~7 restaurants/3 lounges, admission to the oceanfront athletic club, onsite full spa services, a coffee maker, refrigerator, microwave, mini-bar, robes, a fax machine ... you get the picture ... we'll probably even have trash can liners. (Disclaimer: we wish we had a washer and dryer, but we'll just have to let the concierge take care of that little incovenience). Our rental rate (discounted, due to the economy, I'm sure) is approximately $1000 more than the equivalent maintenance fee for a one-BR at WKORV. Based on the quotes I've seen in the maintenance fee thread, it would cost WKORV at least $1000 more/week just to offer daily housekeeping service, let alone some of the other features found at full service hotes. Do you really think that Starwood could offer all these things without substanitally increasing their already out-of-control expense lines?

We may have to agree to disagree, but Starwood (and Marriott and Hyatt and Hilton and Disney, etc.) knew exactly what they were doing when the got into the timeshare business. They sell property at extremely inflated prices, pass the vast majority of the risk to the owners, and then sit back and collect annuitized managements fees. It was a win-win, until the credit freeze and subsequent recession left them holding the bag on a mountain of unsold property. Now they're forced to look for other ways to increase revenue -- and that should be scaring each and every owner. But, turning it back into a hotel, even if it were possible and the rooms were obtained for $0, would not guarantee profitability. WKORV has one advantage that the Hyatt in Maui doesn't have -- and it's a big one -- WKORV has as close to guaranteed 100% occupancy as is humanly possible (and I mean occupancy in the revenue sense of the work, not the physical presence sense of the word).

 

[tomandrobin]

To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.

 

[Transit]

To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.

I've been doing the same since June 11 .I did get 1 bed deluxe but I'm trying to get a standard 2 bed and have had no luck calling twice a day.Every time I call I also check for studio and 1 bedroom avalability at WSJ also never an opening.

 

[gmarine]

To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.

Well if you really want to go that week why not go to the Atlantis website and rent a unit directly from Starwood? They have one bedroom deluxe units going for $5800 and one bedroom premium going for $6200. Price include tax and service charges. Why should those units be made available to Starwood owners? I mean really, your maintenance fees are so low.

Doesnt that make you proud to be an owner of a Starwood resort?

 

[tomandrobin]

Every week I called, the only units available were the two least desirable units. Always the deluxe unit. I have gotten a premium unit or lock-off every year, but this year. Plus I called for the entire month of May, normally I only try just for June.

 

[Transit]

I put Starwood Reservations on my cell phone speed dial and I added them to my family and friends account so I don't waste minutes calling them so often.

 

[jerseygirl]

I haven't called every day ... but at least 6 or 7 days. Found one one-BR deluxe -- that's it.

I think ithe increased competition from the new SVR members is affecting the situation ... but, if it's not there to begin with, it doesn't matter how many owners are competing.

Thanks to the II issue, I've spent a considerable amount of time reading disclosure documents lately. Here's what Starwood can pull out of the reservation pool:

SVN Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at any time thirty (30) days after the beginning of the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, for the purpose of depositing the reserved Vacation Periods with an External Exchange Program on behalf of SVN Members based on SVN Operator's determination, in its sole discretion, of anticipated SVN Member demand to access an External Exchange Program or the Starwood Preferred Guest Program

............the document then it goes on to talk about the "SVN Float Period," (i.e., the 8-month mark, which is what we're discussing with regard to June Harborside reservations:

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

Note that there is no discussion of SVN rental capability at this point.

Rentals don't come into play until here:

f. SVN Priority Period. The SVN Priority Period is the sixty (60)-day period immediately preceding the Check-in Day of a given Vacation Period. If a reservation request for a given Vacation Period has not been received by Reservation Services by the beginning of the SVN Priority Period, Reservation Services' ability to confirm a subsequent reservation request for the Vacation Period will be limited by and subject to the following:

(1) Any reservations made available by SVN Operator to the Managing Entity for maintenance purposes;
(2) Any reservations used by SVN Operator for rental to SVN Members; and
(3) Any reservations used by SVN Operator for its own purposes including exchange, promotional use, rental to third parties, or any other purpose as SVN Operator determines in its sole discretion.

In simpler words, Starwood has no right to rent weeks until the 60-day mark (which is consistent with other timeshares I own and language I've seen in online state statues).

But, I have a new theory. See the red sentence above.

-- I don't think they're pulling much Harborside inventory for bulk banking (otherwise we'd see summer weeks in II, and that never happens).

-- I do believe, however, that they could be pulling significant inventory for SPG conversion. That would give them some NICE rental income vs. the value of StarPoints they have to give owners who convert. This is my new theory for the problem.

 

[Transit]

Besides the normal outlets we see Harborside units for rent. Check out how many this guy has booked and available for rent.Ok alot of them are expired but someone like that who is handling multiple sales and rentals can eliminate a months worth of availability if they have access to make resevations for owners in 1 phone call.

 

[stevens397]

Well George, I'm impressed, pissed and disgusted.

Four years ago, I purchase the Manhattan Club at the then unheard of price of $17,000. Retail at that time was over $35,000. Maintenance fees were just over $1,100 and as long as you didn't want Thanksgiving weekend, reservations were easy.

Four years later, you have to plan 9 months in advance and if your plans change (pretty easy when you plan 9 months ahead), you pretty much lose the days since it is too late to reschedule and expect to get ANYTHING!

Maintenance fees are now over $2,100 - over $300 per night. I'm staying at a luxury hotel in a suite for XMas for $269 per night!

Went to the users' meeting in August and it was clear that there was absolutely no leverage that the owners had. I put it up on eBay, got less than 10% of what I paid and got the hell out.

BTW, go to hotels.com and you will find weekend suites available. Owners can't get squat but the developer is renting suites! There is clearly hanky-panky going on and they are counting on the fact that it's too hard to fight it.

And now, I see the same thing happening with Starwood. It's been just over 7 years since we bought out first timeshare and we've loved it. Businesses have ups and downs but they are killing the business and any owner loyalty. I like my resorts so I'm okay using them, but I'm incensed by all you told us. It's a very helpless feeling.

 

[DanCali]

...We may have to agree to disagree, but Starwood (and Marriott and Hyatt and Hilton and Disney, etc.) knew exactly what they were doing when the got into the timeshare business. They sell property at extremely inflated prices, pass the vast majority of the risk to the owners, and then sit back and collect annuitized managements fees. It was a win-win, until the credit freeze and subsequent recession left them holding the bag on a mountain of unsold property. Now they're forced to look for other ways to increase revenue -- and that should be scaring each and every owner. But, turning it back into a hotel, even if it were possible and the rooms were obtained for $0, would not guarantee profitability. WKORV has one advantage that the Hyatt in Maui doesn't have -- and it's a big one -- WKORV has as close to guaranteed 100% occupancy as is humanly possible (and I mean occupancy in the revenue sense of the work, not the physical presence sense of the word).

Jerseygirl - I agree that they knew what they were getting into and i don't think their intentions were to ultimately own the hotels up front. However, given the current economy and the fact that there are no new properties planned that changes the game.

I think we will both agree that (i) As a public company, Starwood is under great pressue to improve profitability and (ii) Buying a 2BR villa for $50,000 or the whole resort for $10 million is much less expensive than building a hotel or the whole resort from scratch.

If we agree on these points then it has to be more profitable to employ the strategy I mentioned than to build new hotels - although both could ultimately be losing propositions. It could be that building a new hotel from scratch involves loans/financing and interest rates that make it not viable. It could also be that the added expenses you mentioned would make buying units from owners for almost free and operating as a hotel not profitable. This is where we probably disagree.

I personally think that it would be extremely profitable for them to get the rooms for a symbolic price and operate like a hotel. For one, the whole incentive scheme changes - rather than give "Starwood Cleaning" a nice contract for housekeeping and collect 10% off the top, they will now negotiate in their favor and get the best prices. The same for "Starwood Gardening," "Starwood Pool Guys," etc... No doubt some costs like housekeeping will go up due to daily service but other costs will go down due to this change in incentives, and some new amenities (e.g. room service with $30 entrees) can operate at a profit.

Even if the hotel option is too uncertain, risky, or difficult to estimate then another way to think about it is suppose Starwood gets to pay $1000 per 2BR villa week and own it. Now they do that 52 times per unit * 200 units so they own the resort for $10 million. How much would Marriott pay them to buy it from them and put their name on it? In my opinion - probably alot more than $10 million... Alternatively, they could sell these as 2BR condos say at an average of $1 million per unit - that's $200 million on a $10 million investment... not too shabby! (we'll maybe they need to spend $5-$10 million more in marketing the units + some broker commissions, but still)

 

[jerseygirl]

Jerseygirl - I agree that they knew what they were getting into and i don't think their intentions were to ultimately own the hotels up front. However, given the current economy and the fact that there are no new properties planned that changes the game.

I think we will both agree that (i) As a public company, Starwood is under great pressue to improve profitability and (ii) Buying a 2BR villa for $50,000 or the whole resort for $10 million is much less expensive than building a hotel or the whole resort from scratch.

I agree to both points in the above paragraph. However, I think they're immaterial because even if Starwood were to get its hands on 100% of the units (highly improbable -- I'll bet David'nRobin or DeniseM would hold out just to be ornery! ), the initial documents almost assuredly require them to operate as a timeshare for a specified period of time. Could they be 100% "timeshare owners?" I suppose, but it would be unprecedented.

I don't know the terms of dissolution as they relate to WKORV, but here's what has to happen at WSJ Bay Vista:

Term of the Vacation Ownership Plan. The Declaration and the Condominium will automatically terminate forty (40) years after the date of the initial recording of the Declaration; provided, however, that this term may be extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, if (i) such extension is approved by the affirmative vote of eighty percent (80%) of the total votes eligible to be voted at any regular or special Association meeting called and convened in accordance with the Bylaws and called at least sixty (60) but not more than ninety (90) days prior to the date of termination, (ii) all necessary approvals, if any, from all applicable governmental authorities are obtained; and (iii) the document evidencing the extension of the term of the Declaration and Condominium is recorded in the Recorder’s Office. Upon the termination of the Declaration and the Condominium, each Owner shall become a tenant in common with every other Owner in the Condominium in the percentage of the undivided interest previously owned by such Owner in the Common Elements and a Sale Trustee (as defined in the Declaration) will sell the Condominium Property and wind up the affairs of the Association and the proceeds of the sale of the Condominium Property will be distributed to the Owners in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration and the Bylaws.

Pursuant to the Declaration, the Condominium will automatically terminate forty (40) years after the initial recording of the Declaration unless an extension of the Condominium is approved by an affirmative vote of the Owners as set forth in the Declaration. At such time as the Condominium is terminated, the Condominium Property (including all Vacation Ownership interests) shall be sold and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed to the Owners in accordance with the Declaration.

It takes total destruction (act of war, weather) to dissolve a Condominimum Association any other way.

If we agree on these points then it has to be more profitable to employ the strategy I mentioned than to build new hotels - although both could ultimately be losing propositions. It could be that building a new hotel from scratch involves loans/financing and interest rates that make it not viable. It could also be that the added expenses you mentioned would make buying units from owners for almost free and operating as a hotel not profitable. This is where we probably disagree.

Yes, this is where we definitely disagree. I believe it's more profitable, over the long term, for them to manage a property where other owners pay 100% of the expenses. I think Marriott agrees with my position as they only own about 4 (?) hotels -- the rest are managed.

I personally think that it would be extremely profitable for them to get the rooms for a symbolic price and operate like a hotel. For one, the whole incentive scheme changes - rather than give "Starwood Cleaning" a nice contract for housekeeping and collect 10% off the top, they will now negotiate in their favor and get the best prices. The same for "Starwood Gardening," "Starwood Pool Guys," etc... No doubt some costs like housekeeping will go up due to daily service but other costs will go down due to this change in incentives, and some new amenities (e.g. room service with $30 entrees) can operate at a profit.

I agree -- but this is where a responsible HOA comes into play. We will always pay a premium for the Starwood/Westin/Sheraton brand. But, if a responsible, independent HOA truly did it's job, the differences you speak of would be significantly smaller.

Even if the hotel option is too uncertain, risky, or difficult to estimate then another way to think about it is suppose Starwood gets to pay $1000 per 2BR villa week and own it. Now they do that 52 times per unit * 200 units so they own the resort for $10 million. How much would Marriott pay them to buy it from them and put their name on it? In my opinion - probably alot more than $10 million... Alternatively, they could sell these as 2BR condos say at an average of $1 million per unit - that's $200 million on a $10 million investment... not too shabby!

Well, not Marriott ... they're in the management business as mentioned above. But, you're right that someone else would probably pay them a nice chunk of change. But, we're talking about an impossibility, in my opinion. They have no choice but to operate as a timeshare for X years (i.e., 40 in the case of WSJ).

Please know that I agree with you as it relates to the fact that their actions are destroying the value. However, I see it as short-sighted mismangement. As much as I love a good conspiracy theory, I have to disagree that their end goal is to own the property before the condominium association dissolves.

 

[DeniseM]

However, I think they're immaterial because even if Starwood were to get its hands on 100% of the units (highly improbable -- I'll bet David'nRobin or DeniseM would hold out just to be ornery! )

So very, very true! :hysterical:

 

[jerseygirl]

Denise -- If this comes to pass, I'll pay half your maintenance fees just to keep you in the game. I'll even let you have the large side of the lockoff 'cuz I'm a nice person!

 

[DeniseM]

Denise -- If this comes to pass, I'll pay half your maintenance fees just to keep you in the game. I'll even let you have the large side of the lockoff 'cuz I'm a nice person!

Hang on to those valuable coupons you are going to get for paying your MF early this year - I will even honor 50% off the rack rate! Just like Starwood!

 

[yumdrey]

First, thank you very much George for what you did/doing for starwood/II situation.
I have sent complaint (actually, copied and sent ) to II and didn't get any reply. Did anyone get reply from II regarding this complain letter?
The more I know about Starwood, the less I want to own it. Now I realize how nice Hilton is. I want more Hilton points or Marriotts, NEVER Starwood!

 

[l2trade]

First, thank you very much George for what you did/doing for starwood/II situation.
I have sent complaint (actually, copied and sent ) to II and didn't get any reply. Did anyone get reply from II regarding this complain letter?
The more I know about Starwood, the less I want to own it. Now I realize how nice Hilton is. I want more Hilton points or Marriotts, NEVER Starwood!

I agree! Thank you George and everyone else here!

I don't think many other owners realize just how much power we can really have for change. I've seen HOA's fire developer chosen management companies before. Marriott Desert Oasis, hmm? Starwood is a management company for SDO now, not a sales company. Starwood owns very few units. They also own the main lobby building & snack bar and the HOA pays for space at the front desk. That is it. They use that building to sell other SVN properties which they had more say in the original deed conditions of. That is why our SDO HOA cannot offer resales / distressed listings for us upstairs or in the lobby. We (via the SDO HOA) can leave flyers door to door because we (meaning the SDO HOA which represents All of Us) own all the condo buildings. Our SDO HOA is going to need to request deeds and/or commence foreclosure on an enormous number of delinquent units (more than we can afford to do all at once). Then, they will need to sell them as quick as possible to any dues paying owner. Otherwise, paying owners will end up paying the difference in lost dues and delinquencies will increase further. It is a downward spiral. I do not believe that's what our SDO HOA or Starwood want to see continue, but it is going to be difficult to stop it. Although SDO's situation is pretty bad, it is in great shape compared to delinquencies across SVO and the entire timeshare industry. I do not believe for a moment Starwood wants to buy them all back, not in this market. I really want to help our SDO HOA sell all these units to dues paying members. I will do what I can, but Starwood is making that very difficult for me right now.

 

[SDKath]

Reading all this just makes me so sad. I really thought Starwood was the best of the best when it comes to TSing. Now I feel like they are actively trying to rip us all off. I gave them the benefit of the doubt a million times in the past (when they changed the platinum requirements and the retro requirements and the II deposit process, etc, etc.). But now I am done with it all. I am glad I own what I own and have platinum status but no way am I giving any more of my money to them. Ever again...

Sigh. Katherine

 

[kcgriffin]

This would explain why I could not trade my dedicated week 52 2BR townhome into the new Rivera Maya Westin even thou I called exactly minutes after the internal trade window opened up. I ended up doing a direct trade into one of the Royals with an owner there.

I had never tried to trade my WSJ unit, in part because of the high cost, and the ease I have had in renting it directly thru TUG.

I guess I won't even try to trade it in the future.

 

[Twinkstarr]

Besides the normal outlets we see Harborside units for rent. Check out how many this guy has booked and available for rent.Ok alot of them are expired but someone like that who is handling multiple sales and rentals can eliminate a months worth of availability if they have access to make resevations for owners in 1 phone call.

I talked to the timeshareking, he has owners that have him on as an associate so he can call and make the reservation to rent out the unit. Becasue they have no clue on the TS thing, his words not mine.

He was pretty upfront with me about some of his renters just use the units for income and perhaps go once every 3 yrs or so!

 

[tomandrobin]

I talked to the timeshareking, he has owners that have him on as an associate so he can call and make the reservation to rent out the unit. Becasue they have no clue on the TS thing, his words not mine.

He was pretty upfront with me about some of his renters just use the units for income and perhaps go once every 3 yrs or so!

I have talked to Russell several times in the past. He is the self anointed Harborside timeshare "King". He is very knowledgeable regarding Harborside. He is one of the few timeshare brokers who are very quick to call back and correspond with you. He does speak his mind, which I find refreshing.

He is correct about his clients. There are a lot of uneducated or disinterested owners. Look at some of the WSJ rental sites, you see the same thing. Also the same for AtlantisFamilyFun.com

 

[tlpnet]

I do believe, however, that they could be pulling significant inventory for SPG conversion. That would give them some NICE rental income vs. the value of StarPoints they have to give owners who convert. This is my new theory for the problem.

You are 100% correct. I went to my WSJ owner's update yesterday. I was there for some time, and at times was left alone. You could clearly hear 3-4 sales presentations at a time. Two of the most heard owners' questions were "How many hotel points can I get when if I convert?" and "So if I buy a second week/two weeks, I can convert to hotel points every year?" AND THIS IS WSJ, WHERE I WOULD GET 44,000 POINTS FOR MY 3BR!!!

Later, I had the opportunity to meet with someone with knowledge (not in SVO group) at the resort, and specifically asked the question, "If an owner converts to StarPoints, does that mean that the hotel operator gets to sell the villa as a hotel room, and the answer was a definitive YES." I always assumed that was the case, and frankly it makes sense because the StarPoints give the owner access to the hotel system.

Because we on TUG are more educated to the system, we realize that with some exceptions, this is a bad value (and converting WSJ is ALWAYS a bad value). I spoke to several owners here (not necessarily WSJ owners) who told me that they exchange for hotel points EVERY other year because they can. I think here we sometimes assume that very few people convert to StarPoints, but I just don't believe that is the case. I'll bet the number could be as high as 50% of owners eligible each year convert to StarPoints. And most have to do so by March, so Starwood is always going to have "hotel" villas available during the year.

-tim

 

[thinze3]

To bolster you claim regarding Starwood keeping units to rent them selves. I have been calling for every F/S/S check-in for Harborside starting the first week in May, up to this morning. Not one time was a one bedroom premium or two bedroom lock-off during this time period. Only deluxe one bedrooms and dedicated two bedroom units. This is the first time in 4 years that I have not been able to get a premium unit, especially in May. This could be just coincidence, but I find it odd in a down market to find such limited availability.

Are you suggesting that the prime weeks were taken out of inventory for rental purposes before SVN members could reserve them with star options?

 

[LisaRex]

Are you suggesting that the prime weeks were taken out of inventory for rental purposes before SVN members could reserve them with star options?

My current understanding is that the villas for folks who convert to SPG points are taken out of SVN inventory.

The big question is what weeks they take out of SVN inventory when an owner converts to SPG points? Do they take the deeded week that was converted? A generic week in the season that they own? The best week in the season that they own? Or the best week of the best season in that resort, regardless of what season was owned?

Another question is how the process works for folks who use SVN to trade to another resort. I own an OF resort, for instance. This year I exchanged to WSJ. I assumed my villa would be available for others to exchange into with StarOptions. But what week do they choose to make available? The week that I reserved at WSJ? An off-season week? When you use SOs, you lose your view rights, so does that mean that Starwood substituted an IV villa for mine and then pocketed the rent for the OF unit? Or will they allow SVNers, especially elite members, to upgrade into OF units?

It's all a mystery. And part of the reason that we'll never see an online booking system.

 

[James1975NY]

Yes,yes, and they did indeed.

Keep in mind that I pretended to be many different people and was in many different situations. Many times I spoke of things like my sympathy for the employees who are being yelled at by owners for something management did, they should treat employees better etc. You would be surprised how much you can get from employees that you can get talking, especially if they even have the smallest amount of contempt for their employer.

Starwood's third quarter financial results were a disaster. Revenue from timeshares was down 44%. It makes sense that they are looking for any way they can to increase revenue. They are unfortunately attempting to do it ar the expense of owners.

I wanted to add that its pretty obvious Starwood knew the changes arent owner friendly. If Starwood anticipated good reaction they would have made an announcement about the changes and advertised the great new trading "enhancment". Instead they hid the whole thing and the only way owners find out is by calling and asking. Starwood is also still refusing to provide owners with the official details of the system.

Gary,

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no reason to believe the information that you are posting. The majority of it anyway. It does not matter who you pretended to be and what condolences you shared with the associate(s). The information that you are sharing is very likely derived from assumption and drawing your own conclusions. Conclusions which I believe were already drawn before your crusade.

Statistically speaking, there are not enough owners that want to deposit specific weeks with II or RCI that by preventing them from doing this would give Starwood enough financial traction to significantly improve their bottom line.

Further, there are plenty of owners that are not paying their HOA dues which Starwood is able to rent.

Now, we go back to: how is Starwood using the rental monies from these weeks to make the HOA's whole?

There are issues out there GMARINE and I believe there is a lot to figure out. But to think that Starwood is going to get out of a financial challenge by renting a few prime weeks that would otherwise be deposited by owners does not add up.

IMHO