After the dust has settled ( I think)

Before all the $&#@ hit the fan with Starwood/II, I was considering purchasing a cheap SDO resale week for exchanging into other Starwood properties. Once the Starwood/II thing raised its ugly head, I backed off and was waiting for the situation to clarify itself. I haven't religously keep up with everything here, but wanted to get opinions on whether I should start looking agin or if I'm crazy to even consider buying into Starwood. I see their is still alot of angst over the increases in MF's as well as the issue with exchanging with II. What has been the experience with exchanging under the new regime with SDO units?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Nick - We found out that true fixed weeks are not under the new exchanging rules, so a very prime fixed week at another resort might be a better trader.

By ture fixed weeks, I mean a week that cannot be used any other time, period. A fixed-floating week does not qualify.

So a fixed platinum week would be primo for exchangability since you retain your trading power. Have your soured on SDO? Which other Starwood properties would you consider?

I own at SDO, but I wouldn't go out and buy another one. Note that SDO doesn't have any fixed weeks.
SVR has true fixed weeks, but I am not familiar with all of them. I own a fixed Falls week - dedicated 2 bdm., and I've used it to trade into WPORV twice.

Ideally, I'd own a true fixed one bdm., or true fixed 2 bdm. lock-off for trading these days. But I am not sure which resorts have those options.

Sheraton Vistana Resort - Falls (dedicated 2 bdm.) - MF $714.50
Sheraton Desert Oasis (2 bdm. lock-off) - MF $889.08

I'm still getting decent enough trades with my small bedroom SDO. Exchanged with old rules 2010 week into princeville for September, and new rules 2011 week to a 2 bedroom lagunamar for next February.

We are able to travel anytime of year so that helps.

Laura7811 said:

I'm still getting decent enough trades with my small bedroom SDO. Exchanged with old rules 2010 week into princeville for September, and new rules 2011 week to a 2 bedroom lagunamar for next February.

We are able to travel anytime of year so that helps.

Click to expand...

Laura:

What type of unit/season do you have?

DeniseM said:

I own at SDO, but I wouldn't go out and buy another one. Note that SDO doesn't have any fixed weeks.
SVR has true fixed weeks, but I am not familiar with all of them. I own a fixed Falls week - dedicated 2 bdm., and I've used it to trade into WPORV twice.

Ideally, I'd own a true fixed one bdm., or true fixed 2 bdm. lock-off for trading these days. But I am not sure which resorts have those options.

Sheraton Vistana Resort - Falls (dedicated 2 bdm.) - MF $714.50
Sheraton Desert Oasis (2 bdm. lock-off) - MF $889.08

Click to expand...

Denise:

Thanks for you candor. I value your opinion very much.

Nickfromct said:

Before all the $&#@ hit the fan with Starwood/II, I was considering purchasing a cheap SDO resale week for exchanging into other Starwood properties. Once the Starwood/II thing raised its ugly head, I backed off and was waiting for the situation to clarify itself. I haven't religously keep up with everything here, but wanted to get opinions on whether I should start looking agin or if I'm crazy to even consider buying into Starwood. I see their is still alot of angst over the increases in MF's as well as the issue with exchanging with II. What has been the experience with exchanging under the new regime with SDO units?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Click to expand...

I don't own there but from what I've read people are still getting decent trades even with the 1-52 weeks. However, keep in mind that Starwood controls what weeks go into II and usually keep the "best" (high demand) weeks for internal trading. You are not likely to get a prime summer Hawaii week if it's not deposited no matter what your trading power is. As Laura7811 points out, if you can travel anytime of the year it definitely helps.

The main advantage to buying a fixed week (as I see it) is that you don't lose the "request first" option - which is huge.

So for example, my fixed week is the week before or after Easter 65% of the time. If I use it to put in a "request-first" and don't get the exchange I can still:

1) Use my fixed Easter week myself
2) Rent it (and have a popular week for a rental)

Another big advantage to the fixed weeks is that you can deposit them 24 mos. in advance - instead of just 12.

SDO New Rules trades

I also had done all the research for SDO right before everything changed. I, however, had already purchased, and was closing escrow the week the new rules came out. For a few days, I wondered if I was really in trouble. I bought the SDO two bedroom on E-bay from Vin Inc. for $1,475. At the time, it was a good price. It is not a true platinum, but a 1-52 float. It is listed as Gold Plus on II now.

I have made four trades since August using my 2009 and 2010 weeks. I did not do deposit first. My intention in buying SDO was to trade and to hopefully be able to trade the each side for a 2 bedroom. We have four boys ages 2-8, so we have to have a 2 bedroom. However, we homeschool, so we can travel at will.

Here are my trades:

1) In August I traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Hyatt Sedona Pinon Pointe in Sedona the first week in November.
2) In August I also traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Hyatt High Sierra Lodge in January (beautiful ski week!)
3) In November is traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Westin Princeville in January and was able to send some extended family.
4) In January I traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at WKOVR-N the last week in August 2010.

We have already traveled to both Hyatts -- they were beautiful and wonderful trades. I had hoped when I bought SDO that I would be able to exchange into Princeville and Maui and I already have done both. I know that many people show reduced trade value, but I believe that I have been able to see everything I've checked from the Sightings Board with just one side of my 2 bedroom.

I also realize that my trades are not necessarily for the highest seasons, but they have all been for good times to be where we were going. Sedona was gorgeous in November, the skiing was great in Tahoe, and Hawaii is nice year round!

I hope this helps. I understand why many people are so frustrated with Starwood, but our little SDO purchase has worked well for my family.

Blessings,

Emily

SCMom said:

1) In August I traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Hyatt Sedona Pinon Pointe in Sedona the first week in November.
2) In August I also traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Hyatt High Sierra Lodge in January (beautiful ski week!)
3) In November is traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at Westin Princeville in January and was able to send some extended family.
4) In January I traded a 1 bedroom for a 2 bedroom at WKOVR-N the last week in August 2010.

Click to expand...

Great trades! Your 2-bed SDO has already paid for itself.

SCMom said:

However, we homeschool, so we can travel at will.

Click to expand...

This (and access to the TUG sightings board) is the key to this type of ownership and these types of trades.

I've come full-circle on this. I was one of the last on here to close on a 1-52 2 bed SDO before the trading rules changed. I was upset as most owners of SDO were to hear of the changes. Up until recently, I was exploring the option of trying to sell my interest. However, based on sightings posted by others with "new rules" deposits, this thing still accomplishes exactly what I need it to for a fraction of the cost of alternatives (the alternatives I was considering were Marriott or Worldmark).

What I want:
1. The ability to lock-off and get two trades.
2. The ability to trade to either Maui or Kauai *wood properties in the Jan-Apr timeframe and get a preference period on the trading window.
3. Ability to trade to either Marriott's Newport Coast Villas or Four Seasons Aviara outside of summer.

Even with the modified trading methodology, I'm still able to accomplish all of the above fairly easily it appears.

I thinik you're exactly right -- for now.

But, can we trust that long-term? I don't trust any company that removes basic, long-held, ownership rights (e.g., the right to book any available week in one's float season and do what you want wih it -- including use it, rent it, exchange it). Or a company that strong-arms II into removing it's biggest competitive advantage (request first).

We're now in a position where Starwood completely controls our trading rights .... which would be fine if we were in SVN (as that is part of the membership agreement). But, it's unprecedented (except for maybe Wastegate -- and we certainly don't want to be in their company!) for a non-club ownership. And, if we let them get away with this, what will they try next?

Has it occurred to anyone that the trading is good now so as to reduce the complaints ... sweep the changes under the rug, per se? I belonged to a club that had excellent points-based trading power with II. As soon as the club stopped depositing prime weeks, the trading power dropped considerably. Luckily, I was able to get out (bought for $199, sold for $1 ... had 8 or 9 wonderful trades in the interim). But, things are changing -- will we be able to get out of our Starwood properties for $1? I sure hope so, but my confidence level is waning.

I think some people have lost sight of the real issue with Starwood and why owners should be concerned.
The point isnt that you cant still get good exchanges. You can. Many owners are reporting that they arent as good as in the past, but never the less still good. However, that isnt the point.
The point is, Starwood is trying to control owners usage of their deeded weeks. Non-SVN owners have the right to make a reservation and assign that usage to anyone they wish. Starwood has no right to tell an owner what they can or cant do with a reservation. Starwood has received many,many complaints about this and refuses to supply any documentation that they have a right to do this. This is because it does not exist.

This is where owners should be concerned. If Starwood can just disregard ownership rights on this issue, who knows what they will do next.

Starwood is counting on the fact that most owners are passive, lazy and/or too disinterested to care about what happens as long as they are given a trade to pacify them. If you are a Starwood owner and this fits you, then you are what they are counting on.

I dont have much money invested in Starwood and I could just walk away and take the easy way out. But that is what Starwood is counting on. I've never let any big company push me around and I refuse to let it start now.

gmarine said:

The point is, Starwood is trying to control owners usage of their deeded weeks. Non-SVN owners have the right to make a reservation and assign that usage to anyone they wish. Starwood has no right to tell an owner what they can or cant do with a reservation.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a compelling argument but if this is such a clear cut issue ("they have no legal right to do it but are doing it anyway") what is stopping a lawsuit? Maybe this even qualifies to be a class action. If a law firm was convinced it was clear cut they would have undertaken this already on a contingency basis - lawyers are the first to get paid for their time in a class action lawsuit...

The fact that Starwood is actually doing this makes me think their lawyers advised them that this territory is gray enough that they are probably safe from a legal perspective.

DanCali said:

This sounds like a compelling argument but if this is such a clear cut issue ("they have no legal right to do it but are doing it anyway") what is stopping a lawsuit?

Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping a lawsuit - I expect that there will be one.

DeniseM said:

There is nothing stopping a lawsuit - I expect that there will be one.

Click to expand...

And I suspect you have inside information on this issue

DanCali said:

This sounds like a compelling argument but if this is such a clear cut issue ("they have no legal right to do it but are doing it anyway") what is stopping a lawsuit? Maybe this even qualifies to be a class action. If a law firm was convinced it was clear cut they would have undertaken this already on a contingency basis - lawyers are the first to get paid for their time in a class action lawsuit...

The fact that Starwood is actually doing this makes me think their lawyers advised them that this territory is gray enough that they are probably safe from a legal perspective.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately companies take illegal action all the time. They may make a decision to do so based on a risk versus reward scenario. For example, does the chance that some owners/customers will actually file a lawsuit outweigh the money they make/save by attempting to get away with the action.

To answer your question, nothing is stopping the lawsuit. Without getting into specifics about it here, the process has begun.

K2Quick said:

Even with the modified trading methodology, I'm still able to accomplish all of the above fairly easily it appears.

Click to expand...

Maybe for now, but as Jerseygirl pointed out so well, trading power will drop when Starwood deposits lesser weeks. I am not surprised II and Starwood are doing this slowly.

This will make your day: I talked to an II guide a week ago, and she said, "You will only get the Westins with your Sheratons when Marriott owners have taken their fill, as Marriott owners have priority over Sheraton owners over everything in the system."

I asked if this was something new to come, something that has been discussed at II? Are you saying there will be no internal preference in the future, because Starwood includes Westin and Sheratons, and we keep being told there is a preference. She seemed resolute. If there are rumors like that circulating in II, I find that very interesting.

Could be she didn't know what she was talking about. :rofl:

DanCali said:

And I suspect you have inside information on this issue

Click to expand...

Oh ... I suspect she does too! It's not wise to layout all your cards on a public board. :ignore:

rickandcindy23 said:

I talked to an II guide a week ago, and she said, "You will only get the Westins with your Sheratons when Marriott owners have taken their fill, as Marriott owners have priority over Sheraton owners over everything in the system."

Could be she didn't know what she was talking about. :rofl:

Click to expand...

II has also made changes that have reduced the trade value of many Marriotts. They give out many fewer ACs and there is a thread on the Marriott forum discussing how Newport Coast summer weeks have been "blacked out" so that exchangers cannot even request them.

I'm of the opinion that SDO will still continue to be a respectable trader. I wouldn't buy SDO if I was hoping to trade into a lot of high demand weeks.

Any time you buy a timeshare only to trade you are taking on the risk that it will not pan out. DVC dumped II for RCI, so anyone who bought an II trader for the sole purpose of trading into DVC was stuck out in the cold.

DanCali said:

This sounds like a compelling argument but if this is such a clear cut issue ("they have no legal right to do it but are doing it anyway") what is stopping a lawsuit? Maybe this even qualifies to be a class action. If a law firm was convinced it was clear cut they would have undertaken this already on a contingency basis - lawyers are the first to get paid for their time in a class action lawsuit...

The fact that Starwood is actually doing this makes me think their lawyers advised them that this territory is gray enough that they are probably safe from a legal perspective.

Click to expand...

As has been mentioned before in other threads, it's not necessarily a gray area, but rather how you look at the problem.

It can be framed such that Starwood is not controlling what you can and cannot do with your week...rather, II is saying that it will only accept a deposit initiated/determined by Starwood. THAT is completely within the right of II as an exchange company. They do not HAVE to accept your reseerved week...they have latitude to make exchange policies as they see fit. Why would they do this? Obviously keeping SVO as a client is most important....individual exchangers come and go.

Framed as above (which I guarantee is how SVO would frame it in court), the only possible legal principle I can think of to sue SVO on would be tortious interference of contract. Theoretically we entered into our contracts with II with the expectation we could deposti our reserved weeks. SVO's subsequent pressure on II has interfered with that expectation. However, the damages if proven would likely be no more than the reaminaing value of our II membership fees...

I think a more productive lawsuit would look at how SVO reserves weeks for rental income they keep. This is the REAL reason for the change. They don't want to compete with us exchangers in nabbing good weeks for deposit that they could nab for padding their own pockets with rental income. I have been too lazy to look at all the documents, but it sure seems like there may be something fishy giong on with the way SVO gets to reserve and rent out weeks for it's own use.

ocdb8r said:

As has been mentioned before in other threads, it's not necessarily a gray area, but rather how you look at the problem.

It can be framed such that Starwood is not controlling what you can and cannot do with your week...rather, II is saying that it will only accept a deposit initiated/determined by Starwood. THAT is completely within the right of II as an exchange company. They do not HAVE to accept your reseerved week...they have latitude to make exchange policies as they see fit. Why would they do this? Obviously keeping SVO as a client is most important....individual exchangers come and go.

Framed as above (which I guarantee is how SVO would frame it in court), the only possible legal principle I can think of to sue SVO on would be tortious interference of contract. Theoretically we entered into our contracts with II with the expectation we could deposti our reserved weeks. SVO's subsequent pressure on II has interfered with that expectation. However, the damages if proven would likely be no more than the reaminaing value of our II membership fees...

I think a more productive lawsuit would look at how SVO reserves weeks for rental income they keep. This is the REAL reason for the change. They don't want to compete with us exchangers in nabbing good weeks for deposit that they could nab for padding their own pockets with rental income. I have been too lazy to look at all the documents, but it sure seems like there may be something fishy giong on with the way SVO gets to reserve and rent out weeks for it's own use.

Click to expand...

Starwood is also refusing to allow owners to deposit reservations to RCI as well and claims they have the right to control owner deposits/reservations because they are the management company. I have this in writing.

I have spoken at length with II management as well. II will accept any Starwood week I give them as long as Starwood will confirm usage. This is where the problem lies. Starwood wont confirm my usage as available if I want to give it to II or RCI. Whats next? Only owners can occupy peak season weeks and/or high season weeks cant be assigned to others? Or high season weeks can only be assigned to others if you pay Starwood a fee?

Starwood is counting on owners to be the usual passive, misinformed people that the timeshare community generally are.

What bothers me most, and maybe others will agree, is Starwood has a very profitable rental program, basically through their hotel rental site. They offer condos to the general public via rental, yet the HOA's don't get any money for those rentals.

I would like to know why Starwood is allowed to rent inventory at any resort they choose, and then not pay back the HOA, so the owners don't have to pay for owners who aren't paying fees.

So Starwood rents the inventory not receiving fees from deadbeat owner, and they stick us with paying for those weeks through our fees. Where does that rental income go? That is my question.