DVC resale changes coming!?!

Discussion in 'DVC-Mousecellaneous' started by 1153rsmith, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. 1153rsmith

    1153rsmith DIS Veteran

    Apr 3, 2009
    We are here at Disney now. We are not currently DVC owners but have considered it for years. I was told today by a DVC sales person at a resort that DVC is getting ready to make some changes to where if you purchase DVC on resale, you will only be able to stay at the resort you purchased at. I was also told that the new President of DVC is not letting as many resales go through ROFR as the prior president did.

    Can anyone confirm either of these?

    I would love to own DVC, but the resale prices are a stretch... based on what he said the purchase price is directly from DVC, I don't know how it would ever pay for itself.

    He said if I wanted to buy resale, I better do it now, so I would be grandfathered in.
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide this advert.
  3. z28wiz

    z28wiz DIS Veteran DVC Gold

    Feb 6, 2003
    Ya know I heard the same this week from dvc not my normal guide but another guide I know. That will plummet the whole resale market. I would buy resale now as the guide advised you too.
  4. dvcterry

    dvcterry DIS Veteran

    Jul 14, 2010
    Heard the same about the first part you posted op.
  5. DougEMG

    DougEMG DIS Veteran

    Aug 14, 2008
    Will be interesting to see if they can actually restrict any grouP of owners to just staying at their own resort as I thought it was the resort that belonged to the "club" allowing everyone one to trade. One problem this could cause is that more people could trade into a resort then trade out, thus shutting out those owners with restricted trading from using their points anywhere.

    And if this did come to pass and resale prices plunged, then I'd look at buying even more points. I'd gladly stay at any of the onside resorts if somewhere want to sell them to me for a huge discount to current resale prices. Could have a bad effect on off-site resorts.
  6. ELMC

    ELMC DIS Veteran

    Jul 4, 2011
    Dean has written extensively about the legalities of this type of restriction, so hopefully he will weigh in here. On a separate note, I'm with Doug in that I would totally buy more points if any changes caused the resale market to dip. As it is I only buy where I want to stay because I travel during some peak periods and need the 11 month window. That being said, it would be a little sad to see the cash sale value of my existing contracts take a big hit as that makes an exit strategy more difficult.
  7. 1153rsmith

    1153rsmith DIS Veteran

    Apr 3, 2009
    Even if the price dips, the sale still has to go through ROFR. Based on what was said to me, DVC seems to be buying back more of those, so in effect, they are getting the advantage if the price dips. Seems like a win-win for them and a loose for owners.
  8. disneynutz

    disneynutz DIS Veteran DIS Lifetime Sponsor

    Dec 11, 2006
    Anything is possible and nothing would surprise me. Disney looks out for Disney and as I have posted before, several sources at Disney have told me that to them, people who buy resale are taking food off of their table.

    :earsboy: Bill

    KAT4DISNEY Glad to be a test subject

    Mar 17, 2008
    I'm of the opinion that it doesn't seem possible for them to only restrict resale buyers to their home resort but who knows for certain. For me it would only be yet one more reason that I would not buy direct.

    As far as ROFR - I'd call that untrue. Just prior to and just after the resale restriction happened Disney did pretty much halt ROFR but prior to that they were as active - or maybe even more active in ROFR.

    How nice of the guide to give you a heads up to purchase resale sooner rather than later!
  10. bighoo93

    bighoo93 Mouseketeer

    Dec 30, 2011
    A little sad?? I'd be furious. That would be an enormous middle finger from Disney to their existing owners, with a kick in the teeth to go with it. I still find it hard to believe they would be so short-sighted and foolish. But you never know.
  11. disneynutz

    disneynutz DIS Veteran DIS Lifetime Sponsor

    Dec 11, 2006
    No different than not letting resale buyers use their points for DCL. There is a reason the the legal docs are written the way that they are.

    :earsboy: Bill
  12. Sammie

    Sammie DIS Veteran

    Aug 20, 1999
    With Grand Floridian coming online and the possible Polynesian why is anyone surprised.

    Will be an interesting annual meeting if this does come to pass.
  13. Lil' Grumpy

    Lil' Grumpy <font color=purple>Lil' Grumpy is really a Big Swe

    Feb 14, 2006
    no~ anyone can see why changes are needed. there are
    many other issues where dvc can protect their markets.

    why grandfather the previous resales. it is within their
    means. the current playing field has been out of balance
    for us since we joined. like ssr owners, they don't need
    to book @ 11mos when they are trying to move
    during the 7mos.. and if their points go into a holding
    account @ ssr, no problem getting your home resort.
    but if you're a blt owner, you have no chance getting
    your home resort. blt points are not the same as
    ssr points. clearly blt owners are @ a disadvantage. so the
    only question about "grandfathering" current resales depend
    on if they are legally bound which they are not.
    disney cares about their image, but the trend lately
    are those taking advantage of disney instead of the
    other way around. ( my observation was based on
    how many posts about buying @ the lowest costs,
    no matter what)

    going down--how? what can resales people, already
    paying less than half to 2/3, have any leverage on
    buying direct ? now that there will be differences, will
    they suddenly buy direct? i think not. they want the
    cheapest but all the "perks".

    legally, are owners shown why blt owners being
    charge the biggest dues jump? i am questioning
    this because blt was vandalized and the mangers let
    the guilty get by with it. now if dvc making me pay
    for others wrong doings, then i feel this is a tort.
    to me, this has legal implications vs. "limiting" a resales
    owner to the resort that they only paid 1/3 that
    we did for blt.

    if dvc asking me as a direct owner, i think this isn't the
    best choice for changing. again, if i was a dvc official
    with power, i would consider the possible effects
    toward my company future. put all the issues on the
    table and then do problem solving with those with
    the higher priority (effecting incoming incomes) &
    then look @ all the changes that can give the
    greatest returns. in this situation, there are other
    options that would be better for both groups. but
    i am just observer & no dvc connections. either way,
    i am for the changes.

    i don't see any concerns with those only buying for the cheapest.
    they will always be there & are predictable no matter the
    changes. liked buying hh for $30 a point, compared to
    what we paid for our 3 direct blt contacts? where should they
    fall in comparison? just like renters and rci trade ins. there
    isn't a big gain to consider the changes "effect" on these
    groups because they are out to take advantage of direct
    owners. however, where will the new owners buying
    direct will come from ( what group)? even with all the
    current problems, we only "see" direct being right for
    us because money isn't the top priority. we feel paying
    more to get what we want is. however, we are not
    comfortable to recommend our friends from all current
    problems where owners are being taken advantage.
    ( liked a 30 $ resale point getting a better room than
    a blt point--and dvc know the difference but do nothing. )
    with these issues finally getting some "needed" attentions,
    does make us feel better in recommending new
    customers toward dvc. and we only consider direct over
    resales or rci, because we believe getting what you pay

    i remember a previous thread about why others brought
    dvc. ours were not mentioned so i thought we were
    off tract. but that was when i first started reading the
    dvc posts, & then realizing the differences came from
    our backgrounds being direct vs resales , resales &
    rci owners.

    i too , will be waiting to hear mr. dean's input. he has
    demonstrated great accuracy & insights. but i also think
    mr. sammie is on the right tract too. ( i give their
    observations high merits. )
  14. bookwormde

    bookwormde <font color=darkorchid>Heading out now, another ad

    Mar 16, 2008
    I would certainly trigger a legal challenge since that is a core component of the "club" and would be require a change to everyones "plan" which would clearly not be in the best interest of the majority of memebers (resale value damage). They certainly could initiate it with GF, but I think that would hurt its saleability significantly.
  15. disneynutz

    disneynutz DIS Veteran DIS Lifetime Sponsor

    Dec 11, 2006
    I don't see a legal issue especially if they grandfather in existing owners. Disney doesn't have any legal obligation to maintain resale prices, just like other timeshares and we all know where their prices are.

    New buyers will still buy and existing owners will buy direct if they want resort hoping rights.

    There are around 400,000 people who are members and only 3,200 or so have posted on the DIS members thread. It's clear that most members don't bother to get involved in the politics of DVC ownership.

    :earsboy: Bill
  16. zavandor

    zavandor DIS Veteran

    Jul 22, 2011
    Until now DVC salespeople have never lied, like they do in other systems. They often said that in the future more restrictions might come, but now they are starting to give this as a matter of fact. And there is the detail about the retriction being of resort hopping.
    So it's something to be worried about.

    In the next condo meeting I think they are going to give details about GFV, and how to justify a crazy price like 180 or190$?
    With new resale restrictions!

    We know that law is strict about what they can or cannot do. Many say it's not possible to restrict resort hopping to resale, unless they remove the resort from the club. But that would impact direct too.

    But what if they say that GFV is in a different club than the others? They would let existing direct DVC member to use points to book it like they do with Disney collection, while resales would not have the same option.

    At the same time they would let direct GFV to book other resorts outside the "GFV DVC" as a perk, not available to who will buy GFV resale in the future.

    Existing members will not be able to complain, because we purchased before GFV being sold so we were never been promised to be able to book there. But as more resorts will be added with this restriction, resales will be more and more limited.

    I only hope they grandfather existing contracts like they did.
  17. bighoo93

    bighoo93 Mouseketeer

    Dec 30, 2011
    This is almost exactly what I was going to post (the only thing I'd quibble about is how to handle GF resale points).

    The best way I can think of that Disney could pull this off is if they say that GF and subsequent resorts can only be reserved with points from direct contracts. This takes nothing away from existing owners of any kind, direct or resale. Those of us who bought resale get exactly what we bought at the time, and anyone who wants to sell their points is selling the same thing that resale sells now: the right to use your points at any of the resorts built up through Aulani. But it does add value to those who purchased direct: they can use their points at all the resorts, including the newest ones. This is smart business thinking. Adding value to direct points is the way to approach this, not devaluing resale points. You don't kick your existing loyal customers in the teeth. I own resale points, and even I would endorse the plan if this is what they are talking about. And it would give me more confidence in Disney management than if they did the stupid business move of stripping significant value from their existing customers.

    It doesn't take long reading these boards to realize that a fair number of people who have purchased direct or purchased more expensive home resort points deeply resent what they view as lesser folk and assorted riff raff who bought resale points at less expensive resorts can stay at their resort despite paying less. I can ignore that. But that shouldn't be something that drives Disney to screw over people who bought resale already (and frankly, everyone, because selling your points WILL be devalued).
  18. nunzia

    nunzia You can't top pigs with pigs, but you CAN top Toys

    Oct 19, 2007
    If I recall correctly it seems like alot of this same discussion..the part about a resort belonging to a different 'club' like a Deluxe branch of DVC was around before Aulani came out. I would not be surprised at any future restrictions on resale and it wouldn't bother me..Disney is a business and has a responsibility to use its assets wisely to generate income. I don't even know if they HAVE to grandfather in previous resales legally or if that is just a goodwill measure. It seems to me..after I slogged through my first contract as best I could..that is is written strongly in Disney's favor. I have always purchased direct since my resort is not that easy to get into regularly at 7 months and is the only one at DLR so not much chance to stay other places without high points at DLH and PP and even those places are restricted with resale points, and resale points are hard to find (so are direct points as I have been on Disney's list for 7 months for another add on)
    I don't resent any 'riff-raff' who bought cheap resale points and then stay at VGC that I paid full price for..why should I? a point is a point and if they are lucky enough to get in at 7 months, or lucky enough to find resale VGC points and book at 11 months then good for them. I don't see DVC as having 'classes'...it's just a timeshare for heaven's sake.
  19. joeyrose

    joeyrose Mouseketeer

    Jul 4, 2012
    only reinforces "buy where you want to stay"...probably at cheaper prices if this goes through. but, "about to make changes" by a sales rep should be taken way a grain (box?) of salt.
  20. bighoo93

    bighoo93 Mouseketeer

    Dec 30, 2011
    So much to dig into here. The "playing field" is not out of whack. People who own at BLT have a privilege that those who own SSR do not, which is to reserve the most desirable rooms year round at BLT. Things like what happens to your points in holding is a result of the popularity of BLT, which is why owners bought BLT in the first place. That's it. It isn't some built-in advantage for SSR owners.

    And one of the main arguments AGAINST stripping rights from existing owners is because Disney cares about their image. I recognize that many, perhaps most people tend to take an immediate, short-term, narrow view of a decision and not think about reactions and consequences. Like how raising taxes doesn't generate as much revenue as projected because people find ways to shelter more income. Disney screwing over their customers in order to satisfy a subset who resent what they see as freeloaders and lowlifes who don't own what they see as the exclusive and upscale resort points (like the almighty BLT) does not help their image. And I don't just mean Disney, I mean any customer-oriented business. It takes years, decades and in Disney's case, generations to build the brand value and image that you have. It doesn't take nearly so long to destroy it (which is why Coca-Cola responded frantically to the backlash against New Coke in the mid-80s). Stripping value from existing customers is simply myopic. If they want to segment their customers, and I can understand why they might, they ought to be adding value to some, not taking it away from others.

    And finally, the idea that people who own at the ghetto resorts (as some BLT owners view them) are "taking advantage of Disney" is absurd. They are not exploiting loopholes or using their points in ways that were not intended by the program in the first place. Owning particular home resort points confers certain advantages, and people ought to evaluate those before purchasing. If some later regret their decision and believe they overpaid, Disney shouldn't exact retribution on their behalf so they can feel better.
  21. bighoo93

    bighoo93 Mouseketeer

    Dec 30, 2011
    What I am disputing here is whether this would constitute using their assets "wisely." It seems to me that some are taking a very near-term view without considering the consequences. I don't think what is being suggested here (i.e., stripping resale points of the ability to book at non-home resorts) is at all a wise move from a business perspective. It seems to either be very short term (i.e., hey, Disney can make people give them more money) or simply resentful (i.e., I purchased direct at BLT and it isn't fair that others bought SSR resale for half price and can still stay in the same resorts).

    Smart business thinking would be ADDING value to direct points. It makes the company look like they are trying to find ways to provide more value to their customers. STRIPPING value is not smart business thinking. It looks like you are trying to extract more money from people to get the same thing without adding any value.

Share This Page