Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[Tatebeck]

It certainly could, but it would end up being more expensive if I had to keep adding on every other year to have enough points for the same vacation I initially bought in for. Say I bought 200 points for 40k. Then when they inflate the point charts 20% I’d have to add on another 40 points to get the same vacation I had the prior year. That’d be an additional 9400 dollars at today’s rates.

Oh yeah, it would still stink, and may require buying more points, but at least a decrease in dues helps offset some of the hurt if/when they increase the point charts.

Any increase would make resale more viable though so I don't think Disney would go overboard with the increases.

Increase the point charts -> lowers the dues -> someone buying resale from someone else (possibly angry about the point chart increase and wanting out) has to stay only at that resort/RTU (hopefully one they love) but now gets cheaper points (resale) AND cheaper dues

 

[juliebee]

It certainly could, but it would end up being more expensive if I had to keep adding on every other year to have enough points for the same vacation I initially bought in for. Say I bought 200 points for 40k. Then when they inflate the point charts 20% I’d have to add on another 40 points to get the same vacation I had the prior year. That’d be an additional 9400 dollars at today’s rates.

yeah, the favorite week option would be the only way to lock it in. However most people like the variety of different times a year so even when they have a favorite week, they waive it instead for general use points. I'd hate to see the situation you described where your points are subject to deflation.

 

[Chili327]

At some point I would just Air BnB a house with a pool. lol

 

[Kailunkat]

Without a fixed point chart, I don’t really understand the benefit to pre paying for accommodations. Wouldn’t the rising dues, combined with the rising point chart, create a “pinch point” where it’s better to just rent a hotel room?

I would assume this is the tightrope they will be walking in order to keep the product viable. I think as long as there are still members of the OG13 around and comparisons can be made - it will keep the trust in an "acceptable range". Whatever happens to the 2042 resorts (especially the EPCOT based area) will shake things up a bit. I could see the argument that having EPCOT as a base option could raise the ceiling in terms of what trust owners will tolerate.

However, I really do think that DVC will start buying back BCV and BWV en-masse before they expire to roll some rooms into the trust product before then. I really think that they will get creative with the offerings for the trust and will market different them as small group offerings of a specific combination. For example MK based (LSL, CFW), EPCOT based (BWV, BCV), and maybe even a "4 park option" with AKV rolled in with LSL, BWV, BCV. In actuality, if you throw everything into one big pot - then ultimately the dues SHOULD spread out and be reasonable for everyone on average. The issue being that they can mess around with the points chart more - but only to the extent that they can still sell the product. It's in Disney's favor to have more affordable accomodations and then sell you on dining, experiences, merch and tickets which are all more flexible pricing anyway.

 

[Cfabar1]

A number of us believe that they will not be able to add existing resorts into the trust until after January, 2042.

I suppose the question is what DVC thinks they can do, and how strongly the membership comes out against it...

But yes, for those taking a play for a long time... this is why I always say buy the amount of points equivalent to a full week in a season you like in the size unit you want to stay... (studio, 1, 2, or 3 bedroom...) hopefully with 10% more points than you need...

We own at the grand... if I had to do it all over again, I would have not bought there... only because of just how high the points chart is... and how many points we need...

 

[Sandisw]

Yikes... that really brings home the message about "buy where you want to stay".

To clarify, though, they can only remove a resort from trading via BVTC under certain conditions.

However, they kength of the home resort period, which impacts when others can trade in, can be whatever DVC decides to make it, as long as owners are given one month advantage.

What selling LSL and any future resorts through the trust and RTU model does is give them the opportunity to create a second layer of trading between home resort and using BVTC.

I am not sure we will see that…

 

[Sandisw]

the trust is souring my take on dvc. I really want continue buying points with new resorts but it sounds like the trust model could really screw us if they wanted to. The way I take it, they could make our points with 20% less every year. So if I buy a contract that would give me 10 days in a studio per year, in five years I’d only get about 3?

The increases still have to match the new inventory that is added

In order for that ti happen, they’d have to activate 20% more points and inventory every year,

Once activated, they can’t sell it for cash. Look at CFW…it’s only had two sets of cabins added…because sales are slagging.

 

[Sandisw]

Well dues are the taxes and then funds actually used to run the resorts. So if they kept increasing the cost for existing rooms, the dues per point would have to decrease fairly proportionally to the increase in point cost I think?

Yes it woood because adjustments to the point charts are still based on added inventory.

So, if they decide to add LSL to the trust and then add its inventory to the same RTU plan as CFW, the dues should come down because they are based on expenses for all inventory within that RTU plan.

I am still of the belief that these two projects were meant to to be one resort all along and the pandemic messed it up because LSL building had to be ouchsed back.

 

[Sandisw]

I would assume this is the tightrope they will be walking in order to keep the product viable. I think as long as there are still members of the OG13 around and comparisons can be made - it will keep the trust in an "acceptable range". Whatever happens to the 2042 resorts (especially the EPCOT based area) will shake things up a bit. I could see the argument that having EPCOT as a base option could raise the ceiling in terms of what trust owners will tolerate.

However, I really do think that DVC will start buying back BCV and BWV en-masse before they expire to roll some rooms into the trust product before then. I really think that they will get creative with the offerings for the trust and will market different them as small group offerings of a specific combination. For example MK based (LSL, CFW), EPCOT based (BWV, BCV), and maybe even a "4 park option" with AKV rolled in with LSL, BWV, BCV. In actuality, if you throw everything into one big pot - then ultimately the dues SHOULD spread out and be reasonable for everyone on average. The issue being that they can mess around with the points chart more - but only to the extent that they can still sell the product. It's in Disney's favor to have more affordable accomodations and then sell you on dining, experiences, merch and tickets which are all more flexible pricing anyway.

They can not roll any 2042 inventory into the trust because that inventory is declared to another association already and all units have owners other than DVD.

DVD can’t add property to become trust property unless they own it in full.

Once things expire, yes, it can be immediately become trust property….but not before.

 

[Steelers0854]

A lot of doom and gloom in this thread, just wanted to offer another perspective. Disney has a vested interest in maximizing buying direct and maximizing ownership. They only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee. They are a for profit business so of course their legal documents are written in a way to maximize their flexibility, thats smart business sense. But unlike other timeshare programs, their program is directly tied to their brand. Can they stop 7 month trades and raise the points needed to book in the trust model as discussed above yes? Are they likely to do it in any significant way? No. Do I think owning resale will ultimately be stripped down to as barebones as possible? Yes. But will they make owning direct, in any fashion, unpalatable? No. Again, thats how they make the majority of their money. So damaging the desire or benefits to owning direct only hurts them in the long run. So im giving them the benefit of the doubt and will wait and see what actually happens. Would I buy in the trust model now? No, but thats because there are still great resort options in buying direct at the moment.

 

[mkatsy]

A lot of doom and gloom in this thread, just wanted to offer another perspective. Disney has a vested interest in maximizing buying direct and maximizing ownership. They only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee. They are a for profit business so of course their legal documents are written in a way to maximize their flexibility, thats smart business sense. But unlike other timeshare programs, their program is directly tied to their brand. Can they stop 7 month trades and raise the points needed to book in the trust model as discussed above yes? Are they likely to do it in any significant way? No. Do I think owning resale will ultimately be stripped down to as barebones as possible? Yes. But will they make owning direct, in any fashion, unpalatable? No. Again, thats how they make the majority of their money. So damaging the desire or benefits to owning direct only hurts them in the long run. So im giving them the benefit of the doubt and will wait and see what actually happens. Would I buy in the trust model now? No, but thats because there are still great resort options in buying direct at the moment.

In theory I agree with you, in practice, I’m skeptical. People that are passionate about protecting their brand don’t hide from their customers (refusing to clarify the December member meeting statement by Yvonne Chang regarding Poly Tower). People that are passionate about protecting their brand don’t bury important changes deep in an online disclosure, they make official announcements like adults. When it comes to consumer trust, there is no room for games. This shift in feeling toward the board is the direct result of their actions, it’s not fabricated, it’s not a conspiracy. risk tolerance is very personal, and I think the voices you hear are those (including myself) that don’t have a lot of patience for games with undisclosed rules. I haven’t gotten as far as I am in life by “winging” it.

 

[Chili327]

Do I think owning resale will ultimately be stripped down to as barebones as possible? Yes. But will they make owning direct, in any fashion, unpalatable? No. Again, thats how they make the majority of their money. So damaging the desire or benefits to owning direct only hurts them in the long run. So im giving them the benefit of the doubt and will wait and see what actually happens. Would I buy in the trust model now? No, but thats because there are still great resort options in buying direct at the moment.

I’m not so sure I agree with that, I think all the restrictions are definitely putting a damper on the DVC brand as a whole. DVC has an amazing value to it over the usual hesitation of a “timeshare”, and the closer they get to that, the worse it becomes.

 

[Brian Noble]

DVC has an amazing value to it over the usual hesitation of a “timeshare”,

I'm not sure that value translates to differences on the sales floor. The competition is also able to sell plenty of full-freight timeshares at very similar price points.

I say this all the time, but DVC is just another timeshare. It is wrapped in a pixie-dust-fueled Reality Distortion Field, but that doesn't change its essential nature. It's also the only one I've ever bought from the developer, so that RDF is pretty powerful.

 

[davidhr]

I'm not sure that value translates to differences on the sales floor. The competition is also able to sell plenty of full-freight timeshares at very similar price points.

I say this all the time, but DVC is just another timeshare. It is wrapped in a pixie-dust-fueled Reality Distortion Field, but that doesn't change its essential nature. It's also the only one I've ever bought from the developer, so that RDF is pretty powerful.

I agree with this. As much as I love Disney, I’ve always seen them as a ruthless corporation that will do anything to get my money. Good thing for both of us is that, at least until now, I like what they have been doing to get my money.

I think that seeing them as this magical thing that wants the best for me will lead to disappointment sooner or later.

I don’t think they’ll have any issues selling DVC if the parks remain an attractive destination for a significant amount of people. Even if the restrictions and trust make DVC a “worse” product in people’s eyes.

 

[Sandisw]

A lot of doom and gloom in this thread, just wanted to offer another perspective. Disney has a vested interest in maximizing buying direct and maximizing ownership. They only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee. They are a for profit business so of course their legal documents are written in a way to maximize their flexibility, thats smart business sense. But unlike other timeshare programs, their program is directly tied to their brand. Can they stop 7 month trades and raise the points needed to book in the trust model as discussed above yes? Are they likely to do it in any significant way? No. Do I think owning resale will ultimately be stripped down to as barebones as possible? Yes. But will they make owning direct, in any fashion, unpalatable? No. Again, thats how they make the majority of their money. So damaging the desire or benefits to owning direct only hurts them in the long run. So im giving them the benefit of the doubt and will wait and see what actually happens. Would I buy in the trust model now? No, but thats because there are still great resort options in buying direct at the moment.

I personally do not subscribe to the doom and gloom that DVC will tank things because they need to sell.

But, i also think it’s important for people to have a good understanding of what they are buying and that includes current resorts not sold via a trust.

They can’t remove trades from BVTC without the resort being removed. But, they don’t have to be at 7 months…they can increase home resorts yo decrease non home resort bookings.

I think the only reason we may see them shift how they sell LSL and future resorts is it give them a lot more flexibility in making decisions that they don’t get with selling as a leasehold condo.

 

[Chili327]

I'm not sure that value translates to differences on the sales floor. The competition is also able to sell plenty of full-freight timeshares at very similar price points.

I say this all the time, but DVC is just another timeshare. It is wrapped in a pixie-dust-fueled Reality Distortion Field, but that doesn't change its essential nature. It's also the only one I've ever bought from the developer, so that RDF is pretty powerful.

True, I’m no expert, I just know I would have never looked into a timeshare until I learned about DVC.

I agree with this. As much as I love Disney, I’ve always seen them as a ruthless corporation that will do anything to get my money. Good thing for both of us is that, at least until now, I like what they have been doing to get my money.

I think that seeing them as this magical thing that wants the best for me will lead to disappointment sooner or later.

I don’t think they’ll have any issues selling DVC if the parks remain an attractive destination for a significant amount of people. Even if the restrictions and trust make DVC a “worse” product in people’s eyes.

100%

I personally do not subscribe to the doom and gloom that DVC will tank things because they need to sell.

But, i also think it’s important for people to have a good understanding of what they are buying and that includes current resorts not sold via a trust.

They can’t remove trades from BVTC without the resort being removed. But, they don’t have to be at 7 months…they can increase home resorts yo decrease non home resort bookings.

I think the only reason we may see them shift how they sell LSL and future resorts is it give them a lot more flexibility in making decisions that they don’t get with selling as a leasehold condo.

Maybe they won’t let it implode completely, but I do think they will push it to the edge and tarnish their rep for a dollar.

 

[Sandisw]

True, I’m no expert, I just know I would have never looked into a timeshare until I learned about DVC.



100%



Maybe they won’t let it implode completely, but I do think they will push it to the edge and tarnish their rep for a dollar.

I’m just not sure because many new buyers don’t know about the past in the way owners who have been around since all the changes began in 2012.

As I said, I can see how they could make a product with more than one component site as a home resort be a plus for new buyers.

Take this situation. If they do indeed make LSL part of the trust and it goes with CFW, there may be people who will see that as a plus who might not want CFW alone.

It’s like restrictions…in 2019 there weee a lot of people who wrote off RIV, me included, who decided owning there was worth buying inspite of them.

This potential model, should it happen, in 5 years, will simply become the way it is.

Over the years, the changes that DVC have done had always shifted the benefits to buying direct which is why I don’t see them doing something for the sake of doing it but rather because they believe it will enhance the product from their view to spark sales.

At least we should be about a year away from knowing if the trust model was a one and done with CFW or not.

 

[Kailunkat]

They can not roll any 2042 inventory into the trust because that inventory is declared to another association already and all units have owners other than DVD.

DVD can’t add property to become trust property unless they own it in full.

Once things expire, yes, it can be immediately become trust property….but not before.

Yes, I should have clarified that I think they will look to buy back points to make whole rooms prior to 2042. I don't think that will happen in the next 5 years or anything, but I expect that once the values of expiring 2042 contracts starts to really drop - they will start buying back a lot of the contracts. So maybe by 2032/33 ish? We haven't really seen how any of this will work but I expect that the resale market will drop considerably once the remaining years on contracts go to single digits.

A lot of doom and gloom in this thread, just wanted to offer another perspective. Disney has a vested interest in maximizing buying direct and maximizing ownership. They only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee. They are a for profit business so of course their legal documents are written in a way to maximize their flexibility, thats smart business sense. But unlike other timeshare programs, their program is directly tied to their brand. Can they stop 7 month trades and raise the points needed to book in the trust model as discussed above yes? Are they likely to do it in any significant way? No. Do I think owning resale will ultimately be stripped down to as barebones as possible? Yes. But will they make owning direct, in any fashion, unpalatable? No. Again, thats how they make the majority of their money. So damaging the desire or benefits to owning direct only hurts them in the long run. So im giving them the benefit of the doubt and will wait and see what actually happens. Would I buy in the trust model now? No, but thats because there are still great resort options in buying direct at the moment.

I agree that they will still need/want to protect the brand. But I disagree with you when you say that "only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee". DVC is unique from most timeshare programs in that they have an exclusive product - "The Disney Bubble". When most people buy DVC it's to have the convenience and immersion that being inside the bubble gives you. They know that they will make a TON more money in the long run by selling food, merch, tickets and experiences to people if they are housed in close proximity to the parks. The two (in the case of Disney World and DVC) CAN'T be made mutually exclusive. I'm sure DVC gets internal comparisons to "hotel side guests" all the time internally about what hotel VS DVC spend on certain things - and they have rightfully realized that DVCers want "exclusive" access (plus kitchens lol). It's only a destination because of the park.
Ultimately though we agree that Disney has ample incentive to keep the product strong and competitive.

In theory I agree with you, in practice, I’m skeptical. People that are passionate about protecting their brand don’t hide from their customers (refusing to clarify the December member meeting statement by Yvonne Chang regarding Poly Tower). People that are passionate about protecting their brand don’t bury important changes deep in an online disclosure, they make official announcements like adults. When it comes to consumer trust, there is no room for games. This shift in feeling toward the board is the direct result of their actions, it’s not fabricated, it’s not a conspiracy. risk tolerance is very personal, and I think the voices you hear are those (including myself) that don’t have a lot of patience for games with undisclosed rules. I haven’t gotten as far as I am in life by “winging” it.

This is how it SHOULD work for sure. But I think the real hurdle here is the scale. How many DVC owners are there in actuality? And most of them don't care the way that the owners who are Disboard regulars do. So I think that although it feels like "winging it" to us (and I totally agree with you btw) I don't think they have a lot of pressure to change their internal structure enough to make it possible.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, I should have clarified that I think they will look to buy back points to make whole rooms prior to 2042. I don't think that will happen in the next 5 years or anything, but I expect that once the values of expiring 2042 contracts starts to really drop - they will start buying back a lot of the contracts. So maybe by 2032/33 ish? We haven't really seen how any of this will work but I expect that the resale market will drop considerably once the remaining years on contracts go to single digits.



I agree that they will still need/want to protect the brand. But I disagree with you when you say that "only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee". DVC is unique from most timeshare programs in that they have an exclusive product - "The Disney Bubble". When most people buy DVC it's to have the convenience and immersion that being inside the bubble gives you. They know that they will make a TON more money in the long run by selling food, merch, tickets and experiences to people if they are housed in close proximity to the parks. The two (in the case of Disney World and DVC) CAN'T be made mutually exclusive. I'm sure DVC gets internal comparisons to "hotel side guests" all the time internally about what hotel VS DVC spend on certain things - and they have rightfully realized that DVCers want "exclusive" access (plus kitchens lol). It's only a destination because of the park.
Ultimately though we agree that Disney has ample incentive to keep the product strong and competitive.


This is how it SHOULD work for sure. But I think the real hurdle here is the scale. How many DVC owners are there in actuality? And most of them don't care the way that the owners who are Disboard regulars do. So I think that although it feels like "winging it" to us (and I totally agree with you btw) I don't think they have a lot of pressure to change their internal structure enough to make it possible.

Even if the own the entire unit…which is nearly impossible because they sell ownership interests in every one…it still can’t just be undeclared from the 2042 resorts.

There are only certain circumstances in which DVD can remove inventory from an association.

At one time, I thought maybe.

If they have declared 100 rooms into an association, then those 100 rooms must be available to the owners if they association regardless of who owns the points, until expiration or one if the qualifying reasons happens that allow them to remove, which is typically a casualty situation.

Basically they can’t make a 2042 resort smaller at any point in time, just because they want to.

 

[Cfabar1]

Even if the own the entire unit…which is nearly impossible because they sell ownership interests in every one…it still can’t just be undeclared from the 2042 resorts.

There are only certain circumstances in which DVD can remove inventory from an association.

At one time, I thought maybe.

If they have declared 100 rooms into an association, then those 100 rooms must be available to the owners if they association regardless of who owns the points, until expiration or one if the qualifying reasons happens that allow them to remove, which is typically a casualty situation.

Basically they can’t make a 2042 resort smaller at any point in time, just because they want to.

Did not know this.... Wow... I always thought if they found a way to own the entire unit they could remove it...