Discussion in 'DVC-Mousecellaneous' started by 312BillB, Dec 13, 2012.
But what is a "fair resale market?"
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
They are legally and technically independent. Ultimately DVD answers to the shareholders and DVCMC to the members. Obviously both represent Disney to a degree. While I'm sure Disney won't allow DVD to "tarnish their image", at least to the degree it hurts their bottom line (the only real test), I'd disagree with most here in DIS as to what that level is. I'd suggest that NONE of the issues discussed on this or similar thread's comes close to crossing that line. In essence Disney enthusiasts and potential DVC members are akin to sheep being led to slaughter for the most part. It was interesting when the issue of reallocations came up over the years how many people posted that DVC would NEVER do this. I'd suggest you go back to those thread's, the thread on the full week reservations and the valet parking thread to get get some insight as to how the members view things, what they say and what they actually do.
Why, it's not a factor in buying for essentially anyone (very rare exceptions). It'd only matter to them if it helped them sell, it doesn't and represents competition for retail sales. Remember almost no ones buys planning to resell so even those that know about the issue aren't likely to be overly concerned and most don't know prior to buying.
I think that you will agree that the DIS is the number 1 Disney fan site, yet less then 1% of the DVC Members have posted to the DIS according to Disney and the running count thread. Searching the internet there isn't a lot of unique info on the DVC. Half of the direct buyers are new to the DVC and probably bought based on emotion without doing any research.
If anything, Disney props up resale value through ROFR. If they didn't, average resale value would likely be lower. If they wanted to maintain a fair market, they would leave it alone and let the market decide the resale value.
How many buyers even think about their value if they sell, selling is the last thing on their mind.
Don't forget that low resale prices can benefit Disney. They exercise ROFR at $50 per point and resell them at $115.
Then how do you explain how much prices have dropped at resorts such as BWV or VWL and Disney has ROFRed almost no contracts from those resorts in the past few years?
I might be missing what you are trying to ask, so forgive me for stating the obvious if you meant something else. I would explain how much prices have dropped by the market valuing them less over the time period you are referring to. Some combination of supply and demand curves meeting at a lower price point. In other words, just regular, old market forces like you would see in the price of just about anything else.
Historically there have been times when ROFR has driven prices and times when they haven't. I'd say that it's been a small minority of the time when ROFR was the big issue. All ROFR does currently is to prevent the fire sale situation. To a degree this does give some support to prices but only to a small degree. I think the major resale companies do more to prop up resale prices than does DVD and ROFR currently.
Thats what i would expect. If the market values the contracts above the price that Disney executes ROFR, then ROFR has no impact. If the market price is below their ROFR threshold, then it would be expected to impact the market. In some cases, people will bid higher because they really want the contract. But another likelihood is that more contracts languish on the market because people don't bother bidding a price they know Disney will step on, and don't want to pay more than they believe it is worth.
Sometimes but it's the knowledge of ROFR not the actual process that affects prices. Once a contract gets to ROFR it simply goes through or Disney takes it. That's where information such as DIS and the price controls the brokers utilize comes into play. For example, it's been reported that at least one resale company has refused low price resales and to present low offers.
I've seen a handful of those anecdotes, too. My experience was completely different. I offered a price $13/point below list, the agent was more than happy to make the offer, I heard back within an hour or two, and we made the deal. But maybe another broker works differently. If a reseller refused to offer what I thought was a fair price, I'd just move to a different agent. But maybe there are people who don't do that, for some strange reason. Anyway, if this were happening in any systematic fashion across the major resellers (and I don't have reason to believe that it is), then it would have a similar price floor effect as ROFR could have.
Probably more effect given the present circumstances. It's bit all the resale companies from what I've heard, mainly one. Even then it may vary from one agent to another as do all things timeshare. Don't get me wrong, other than the issue of not presenting lowball offers (illegal), I don't have a problem with them setting themselves up to get the higher prices possible consistently over time.
I don't either, as long as this is understood and agreed to by the seller, and as long as the agencies aren't colluding. If someone is willing to pay more, the listing agent is doing her job by extracting that from the buyer. If the buyer isn't willing to pay more, then she either doesn't make a purchase, or finds a broker who is willing to make the offer. This is where the collusion problem comes in. If all the major resellers set a price below which they will not offer (or list), then they have effectively set a price floor, and I have a problem with that because it is disrupting the market and making it less efficient. However, in a free market, another agent should sprout up who is willing to make whatever offers come in or list at any price, stealing sales from the colluding agencies, which would ultimately force them to change their ways. I reiterate that I do not have any reason to believe such collusion is taking place, only that I would not condone it, and that it wouldn't likely stand because someone would step in to undercut them.
Omg I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes of my life on his ridiculous conversation. I think you should all donate some point to me to make it up to me!
One of the problems with timeshares is that the market is so specialized that market forces do not work well. It is unrealistic to think that a new company will spring up with the idea of selling at a lower price.
I completely disagree with this argument, but am open to changing my mind with some sort of reasoning or evidence. All it takes is one person seeing an opportunity to exploit an inefficient market and taking initiative. It happens all the time, every day, in markets large and small, broad and narrow. I am not aware of any significant barriers to entry in the timeshare reseller market.
Barrier's might include that there are possible impending changes in resale, the economy, the fact that DVC resale price took a big hit about 2 years ago and that many timeshares are selling (and many not selling) at $1. Of course you could prove the idea wrong by doing it, here's your opportunity. I think we've lost everyone else so I'm done with this thread and I'd recommend that it be closed. You can email me directly if you want to discuss further.
No, that's the perfect way to close this out.
I know that this is what people do, but really, no one should be buying something thinking they wil using it for 50 years. Who buys a house thinking they will never sell it!
My grandparents raised their kids and lived in the same house 60 years. I've lived in my house 32 years and have no intention of selling. My cousin's house has been in her family for 3 generations. And while no one in the family still owns it, my Great Grandparents farm and the house they built is still in use today. My great-Grand parents lived there from 1895 until their deaths. My Great-Grandmother lived until 1955, so that was 60 years.
Separate names with a comma.