2025 Condo Meeting Information - Renting

[Sandisw]

it’s true that because of owners deciding to trade out, DVC take rooms.

However that doesn’t mean DVC should take the rooms that are already hard to get. It’s thy wanted BWV then take p/g view and resort/savanna view at AKV.

I’m in the boat that DVC does not first and foremost do this for owners. They do it to fill the pockets of the parent company Disney. If they can also help the members doing so, that’s great.

DVC brings a lot of money to the table for Disney and i can’t imagine them not having anything to say them it comes to AP point prices, cruise point price etc. If the members was the 1st priority then DVC would have gotten us lower prices etc across the board.

That said I’m not mad about what we have, just saying it could be better if DVC really wanted them to be.

The flip side is that the cost to trade is based in part on being able to pay for that trade by renting the rooms for cash.

What I can tell you is the other divisions have the bigger say in terms of trade values.

I know DCL definitely does because they don’t want to have point trades so low that it takes away cash bookings for them

At least the point values are fixed once set and don’t rise when the cash rates rise..and they do regularly based on how well the ship is selling.

The only time they go down is if DCL does a discount for a GTY restricted room…which can be applied to the point charts in many cases.

But, as I said, being involved in the cash side of things and watching how DVC rooms show up, I don’t see that DVC is taking more hard to get over other room types.

Yes, DVC will always look to maximize potential income above and beyond…but if they are taking rooms they are allowed to take when an owner trades, then IMO, it falls within the guidelines of the program and product we bought.

The key for me here is that we now have specific info that lots of owners use thier DVC memberships in ways many here on the DIS…which is a very small sample of owners.,,might not.

The more options for owners to trade points instead of renting them out on their own, the number of private rentals out there will be reduced in some way. You may never be able to tell, but it is happening.

Can it be seen as a double edged sword? Sure…

But, the fact that they did negotiate for points to trade for APs…gives owners a big benefit they didn’t have before.

Many have said, including me and I believe even you. that the way that DVC decides to deal with issues that some owners see as issues may not be the same way they hoped it would.

 

[Rochester Disney Fan]

On the plus side this means 20% of the dvc nightly stays are not competing for moonlight magic because they aren't eligible owners.

 

[Evita_W]

We are power users who would never use exchange as its a bad use of points, but apparently tons of normal DVC owners use em for cruises and other exchanges apparently.

I'd have never guessed 20% of all points get exchanged yearly. That's crazy.

There have been times when exchanging was actually what made more sense economically speaking, one cruise in particular that we took we did this, if we didn't we would have had to rent out our pints for something like $25 per point to get the same value the exchange offered us in order to pay cash and at the time points were renting around $12 each. It all really depends on the exact cruise and timing. Similarly there have been similar exchange rates with RCI/Interval International, don't assume the exchanges are not a good value they can be on certain circumstances.

 

[Cyberc1978]

On the plus side this means 20% of the dvc nightly stays are not competing for moonlight magic because they aren't eligible owners.

That’s true and quite important actually.

Since we don’t know for sure if trades into interval international is included in the numbers (I assume not because DVC can’t rent those points) that would mean that thousands of eligible members points are taken out of the moonlight magics 1st round of booking which require a reservation. We can’t say for sure or not if they don’t have more points than what they used to trade, some might not while others do.

Even if only 10% of the points traded comes from members who does not have more points it’s still a lot of members you won’t compete against.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s true and quite important actually.

Since we don’t know for sure if trades into interval international is included in the numbers (I assume not because DVC can’t rent those points) that would mean that thousands of eligible members points are taken out of the moonlight magics 1st round of booking which require a reservation. We can’t say for sure or not if they don’t have more points than what they used to trade, some might not while others do.

Even if only 10% of the points traded comes from members who does not have more points it’s still a lot of members you won’t compete against.

My guess is that number includes trade to II because it seemed the point was to help owners to understand that owners were trading out of DVC which was playing a role in availability.

So, while some would be rooms rented by DVC on behalf of the owners, it would also be DVC taking rooms to send to II.

 

[Cyberc1978]

There have been times when exchanging was actually what made more sense economically speaking, one cruise in particular that we took we did this, if we didn't we would have had to rent out our pints for something like $25 per point to get the same value the exchange offered us in order to pay cash and at the time points were renting around $12 each. It all really depends on the exact cruise and timing. Similarly there have been similar exchange rates with RCI/Interval International, don't assume the exchanges are not a good value they can be on certain circumstances.

Now you can easily get $24-$25 pp so it’s not a good deal to trade for a cruise anymore and it haven’t been for quite a while.

 

[Cyberc1978]

My guess is that number includes trade to II because it seemed the point was to help owners to understand that owners were trading out of DVC which was playing a role in availability.

So, while some would be rooms rented by DVC on behalf of the owners, it would also be DVC taking rooms to send to II.

Then I must have misunderstood it.

My understanding was that DVC rented 20% of all the points in the system. For BWV in particular th number is 15%

By renting I took that for a reservation for cash - not when an owner booked a room in Spain and DVC then deposited a 1br at SSR to match the points used in interval international

 

[Sandisw]

Now you can easily get $24-$25 pp so it’s not a good deal to trade for a cruise anymore and it haven’t been for quite a while.

Depends on how you value your points. For me, ease is more important so I’d trade points without hesitation then dealing with a rental, even if the financial $ per point was less.

Obviously plenty of owners who find value in it.

 

[Sandisw]

Then I must have misunderstood it.

My understanding was that DVC rented 20% of all the points in the system. For BWV in particular th number is 15%

By renting I took that for a reservation for cash - not when an owner booked a room in Spain and DVC then deposited a 1br at SSR to match the points used in interval international

I don’t think it was that cut and dry. I think the notion was “used points for other things” and they discussed the rentals DVC had to do but I think it may also include II.

If it doesn’t, then it means that even more rooms leave the system.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Depends on how you value your points. For me, ease is more important so I’d trade points without hesitation then dealing with a rental, even if the financial $ per point was less.

Obviously plenty of owners who find value in it.

Ease is important but if the delta between ease and DIY becomes too large more members prefer the DIY.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I don’t think it was that cut and dry. I think the notion was “used points for other things” and they discussed the rentals DVC had to do but I think it may also include II.

If it doesn’t, then it means that even more rooms leave the system.

Fair enough so either DVC rents 20% of all points or 20% less the II trades.

 

[Sandisw]

Fair enough so either DVC rents 20% of all points or 20% less the II trades.

Either one but the result is the same…lots of points inventory leaves the system.

ETA: And the info I got was that this was not breakage inventory that goes to cash…it’s simply from members who choose to use points outside of booking DVC rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

Ease is important but if the delta between ease and DIY becomes too large more members prefer the DIY.

Maybe…but I think the numbers support that the average owner who trades doesn’t look at it that way.

Now that they are putting out the message that renting is being looked at closer, and the whole personal use statement, it’s bound to have an impact on an owner maybe thinking twice to jump into the market.

Especially when one had the points to do it. I think if the value of trading is at least equal to dues, it’s going to be seen as a decent return…for those not part of communities like this.

It’s pretty easy to just trade points and not have to come up with cash…especially if it’s replacing a Disney trip.

Plus, MMB removes the $95 exchange fee…a lot of moves by DVC to encourage owners to trade.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Now that we know that DVC is the biggest commercial renter of them all. Why do people feel a pain in their rear end when other owners rent too? It’s not as if the renters are causing you to be unable to book a room - maybe not that resort view at BWV - but that could just as well be because of DVC, another owner who uses it or a renter. Maybe even a combo of all 3.

DVC rents millions of points each year. So what if someone rents 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 points. It’s water under the bridge in comparison. I understand it’s a pain to see the room type and date you want for rent at Facebook, but it’s no different than seeing the same room for rent direct with Disney. Only difference is that they allowed themselves the option to commercially rent.

If I’m lucky enough to book a BWV RV at 11 months then I could walk it to ie December. Then when I have my dates, someone else gets their chance to get the RV. If someone have more than 1 room of a particular date they must have picked it up after walkers or waitlisted. Either way they have the same chance of getting the room as EVERYONE else.

I do agree if an owner rents hundreds of reservations per year it will cause some impact to the inventory, but that’s mostly if not only done by the LLC renters.

I know we aren’t allowed to rent commercially but we are still allowed to rent.

IMO if you are against commercial renting then you are against DVC doing it too. Just because one is allowed and others aren’t does not make it more or less okay - morally speaking. Rule wise is different, but again one part is able to change the rules to their own benefit the other part is not.

 

[Brian Noble]

That is a specious argument. Renting is not an "exists or does not exist" quesiton. It is always a matter of degree. That's because rental bookings are made with an eye towards maximizing return on investment, not maximizing vacation enjoyment, and that produces an imbalance. The more renters there are, the worse the imbalance. It doesn't need to be eliminated, only reduced.

And that is preicsely the lesson from Wyndham's crusade several years ago. They did not eliminate renting entirely, because it is impossible. But they put a very serious dent in it, and that resulted in availability improvements of "in demand" bookings even during the revenge travel boom.

That said, I would be thrilled to see Disney renting fewer DVC rooms, because every single one of them represents an owner who probably got a bad deal.

 

[walt34]

That said, I would be thrilled to see Disney renting fewer DVC rooms, because every single one of them represents an owner who probably got a bad deal.

When you see how much Disney emphasizes the use of points outside of DVC resorts at the DVC kiosks, it seems that they would like to keep things as they are or expand even further.

 

[Wedgeout]

I’m not against renting. The points are spread across the board for the year. We all have same access to them. (Sure we are not as fast as AI).

It’s just that the renter usually doesn’t grab points to stay there themselves. They pick portions of the year that we all prefer to visit. So when it becomes a pain in the rear to book, we pull out the torches & pitchforks for the renters.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Now you can easily get $24-$25 pp so it’s not a good deal to trade for a cruise anymore and it haven’t been for quite a while.

I don’t think we can “easily” rent points for $24-$25pp.

I’d go down to $20pp ( a 16%-20% decrease) before tax (less expenses).

 

[AstroBlasters]

I’m not against renting. The points are spread across the board for the year. We all have same access to them. (Sure we are not as fast as AI).

It’s just that the renter usually doesn’t grab points to stay there themselves. They pick portions of the year that we all prefer to visit. So when it becomes a pain in the rear to book, we pull out the torches & pitchforks for the renters.

Especially at BW where they had the not so brilliant idea of making all of the 2Bd’s lock off’s….

 

[Sandisw]

Now that we know that DVC is the biggest commercial renter of them all. Why do people feel a pain in their rear end when other owners rent too? It’s not as if the renters are causing you to be unable to book a room - maybe not that resort view at BWV - but that could just as well be because of DVC, another owner who uses it or a renter. Maybe even a combo of all 3.

DVC rents millions of points each year. So what if someone rents 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 points. It’s water under the bridge in comparison. I understand it’s a pain to see the room type and date you want for rent at Facebook, but it’s no different than seeing the same room for rent direct with Disney. Only difference is that they allowed themselves the option to commercially rent.

If I’m lucky enough to book a BWV RV at 11 months then I could walk it to ie December. Then when I have my dates, someone else gets their chance to get the RV. If someone have more than 1 room of a particular date they must have picked it up after walkers or waitlisted. Either way they have the same chance of getting the room as EVERYONE else.

I do agree if an owner rents hundreds of reservations per year it will cause some impact to the inventory, but that’s mostly if not only done by the LLC renters.

I know we aren’t allowed to rent commercially but we are still allowed to rent.

IMO if you are against commercial renting then you are against DVC doing it too. Just because one is allowed and others aren’t does not make it more or less okay - morally speaking. Rule wise is different, but again one part is able to change the rules to their own benefit the other part is not.

I know it’s semantics but the bulk of renting DVC is doing is because of owners who are using their memberships the way they are intended.

I just think it’s an important difference when discussing commercial renting.

Every room they rent for an owner who exchanges isn’t technically commercial renting at all.

Now, the renting DVC does with their own points can be seen that way…which they have the right to do and not count it as rising to a commercial level…but the rest, and what that 20% represents isn’t commercial at all.

This is what is always going to be difficult in this discussion because the term “commercial renting” is defined by people to mean lots of different things.

Let’s be honest…it’s the spec renting of hard to get rooms that causes the most frustration for owners.

But, DVC does not consider a spec rental, in and of itself, to be something that moves an owner from renting within the rules to renting outside them.

Could they ever decide to do that? Who knows? I personally dont think they can because of the law.



Now, do that a lot, and develop a pattern with it happening frequently and regularly, with overlapping reservations, then an owner should be worried.

And, based on my conversations with them, this is what they look for when making decisions,,,and I hope it stays that way.

With 250k owners and most likely at least 75k memberships, the rental market is just never going to be small….

There are certainly situations that appear to be a single owner who is doing a lot of rentals and is breaking the rules, but what we will never know is how many owners fall into that group.

DVC has decided, as of today, to not to change the metrics they use.

If they do, then owners will find out pretty quickly because the documents will be updated or there will be new reports of enforcement.