Originally Posted by
jpdx
. . .
The 1:3 conversion calmed initial fears of Starwood members, and helped avoid the exodus we would have seen if a 1:2 conversion rate had been implemented. But in the long run, Marriott may have shot itself in the foot. Both Marriott members and SPG members are bound to be disappointed going forward -- and these problems could have been avoided almost completely with a 1:2 conversion rate.
If,
as you state, Marriott had implemented a 1:2 conversion rate and we would have had an "exodus" of Starwood members, then Marriott certainly would not have received the value in the merger for which they paid. Marriott did not just pay for the physical properties. They also paid for the members, and their loyalty, in the SPG program.