Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[Tatebeck]

Your example at the end is what I am talking about.

If they want to add the next set of cabins for more points and then redo the charts so that there is an increase, they can and the reason can be so they can lower dues, or anything else they want it to be.

It would not require a decrease anywhere.

If they add LSL to the same RTU plan, they can use the CfW points already there, along with the new points to crease a new chart for both the new rooms ar LSL and the cabins.

The only thing they can’t do is change the cabin points more than 20% up or down for any given use day….but it doesn’t have to be based on demand at all…since the change would be related to new inventory.

Of course, they could very easily say that the change was demand related, even when new points are there.

But, the bigger difference is that if you have both LSL and CFW together and demand is higher at LSL, they will get to take CFW points and move them right over there, and raise LSL with the offset coming from CFW.

Again I agree that they could do any of this, only disagreeing with the part that says that they only limited by the 20 percent per year and nothing else.

You really think they would be 100% within the POS to add new inventory each year, with ever steadily increasing point value per Vacation Home, increasing each and every room by 20% every single year? So in 4 years the cost per night would have more than doubled and in 8 years each of the old rooms would have increased over 4 times in cost per night, and in year 12 the cost per night would have increased more than 8 times over? (and on and on).

And no members who bought would be able to argue at all? That just seems wild to me.

So yes we will just have to agree to disagree like you say about whether they have more guardrails or not. I definitely hope they never do any changes close enough to try and prove me wrong that's for sure! I just simply don't think it gives them unlimited power (like palpatine )
<- DVC with their Trust

 

[Sandisw]

Again I agree that they could do any of this, only disagreeing with the part that says that they only limited by the 20 percent per year and nothing else.

You really think they would be 100% within the POS to add new inventory each year, with ever steadily increasing point value per Vacation Home, increasing each and every room by 20% every single year? So in 4 years the cost per night would have more than doubled and in 8 years each of the old rooms would have increased over 4 times in cost per night, and in year 12 the cost per night would have increased more than 8 times over? (and on and on).

And no members who bought would be able to argue at all? That just seems wild to me.

So yes we will just have to agree to disagree like you say about whether they have more guardrails or not. I definitely hope they never do any changes close enough to try and prove me wrong that's for sure! I just simply don't think it gives them unlimited power (like palpatine )
View attachment 1045051 <- DVC with their Trust

Yes, I do think that the trust is set up for them to do just that.

Of course, I 100% think what would prevent them from going crazy is that the whole purpose is to sell, so that guardrail will always exist.

Right now, the cabins go quickly at 7 months so demand is there…

If they decide to put LSL into the same RTU plan, I wont be surprised at all to see the cabin charts go up across the board…

And, if LSL proves popular, I would not be surprised to see them slowly raise those charts over time too.

We shall see!

 

[zavandor]

Take a look at the AKV charts, comparing 2026 with 2027. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more sturm und drang about that, because the Value rooms went up quite a bit. As someone who does not own there, I am not upset by this, because the Savanna rooms went down in response. But if I owned there because of the Value rooms, I'd be very unhappy. I haven't read AKV's POS carefully, but I would be surprised if it was permissive enough to make this clearly okay.

This hasn't been discussed as much or I've missed it, it wasn't on my radar. It's as bad.

 

[zavandor]

What Sandy explained should scare anyone from buying a trust resort. But it'd be scarier if the law would allow that.
Florida law for timeshare was written mostly at a different time, when everyone was selling weeks and must be interpreted for point systems. That's what muddles the waters.
Is there a Florida organization that oversees timeshares that can be contacted for clarifications?

 

[Add-On-Itis]

Anyone here own other timeshare that has TRUST model? What are the inflation rate to the point charts there?

 

[Brian Noble]

I've never read the Club Wyndham Access documents, but I don't recall anyone else pointing out that the point values could float. I suspect they might not, but don't know for sure. I may know more in a few months.

 

[Sandisw]

What Sandy explained should scare anyone from buying a trust resort. But it'd be scarier if the law would allow that.
Florida law for timeshare was written mostly at a different time, when everyone was selling weeks and must be interpreted for point systems. That's what muddles the waters.
Is there a Florida organization that oversees timeshares that can be contacted for clarifications?

Because this is being sold at just RTU and not as a leasehold condo, it allows the points for use to be allocated across all inventory that is activated.

They can’t simply add points though…they add inventory and set how many points it will take to reserve that inventory for the year.


But, because they are not selling a % of the unit, they can decide the use rate, each time they add more inventory. Thst is what is not static….they don’t have to decide ahead of time total points for all the trust property because that trust property may never get activated for sale.

My guess is I would start with the FL timeshare board if someone feels this isn’t allowed,,,but they are the ones who have to approve things.

 

[Sandisw]

Anyone here own other timeshare that has TRUST model? What are the inflation rate to the point charts there?

This isn’t just about it being a trust model. It’s also about what they are selling. They are simply selling you a long term use of their property.

As an owner, you become a beneficiary of sorts of the trust with access to trust property based on the terms of your RTU plan.

So, what one would have to look to see what and how any other timeshare that is being sold via a trust is structured to compare.

 

[Sandisw]

This hasn't been discussed as much or I've missed it, it wasn't on my radar. It's as bad.

It was discussed when the charts came out. The issue with AKV is the where the extra points for CL rooms come from.

It appears, from my reading, they are taken from other units. If CL closed, those points go back to other rooms. They don’t stay with those 5 2 bedroom lock offs.

Some said they were going to ask about it. If I was an AKV owner concerned, my first question would be to ask what units the extra CL points have been coming from.

I have a working theory on how it could have worked, but it’s no more than that and I don’t care enough to dig deeper into the math since I don’t own AKV.

 

[zavandor]

Because this is being sold at just RTU and not as a leasehold condo, it allows the points for use to be allocated across all inventory that is activated.

They can’t simply add points,,,they add inventory and set how many points it will take to reserve that inventory for the year.

But, because they are not selling a % of the unit, they can decide the use rate, each time they add more inventory.

My guess is I would start with the FL timeshare board if someone feels this isn’t allowed,,,but they are the ones who have to approve things.

Point fo view of someone buys CFW now: I buy knowing the on average the points needed to book a cabin is (I don't know, let's say) 20 points. Could be more or less depending on season and I know the week I'm interested in might go up or down depending on demand, but if a season goes up, another goes down. That's how DVC has always worked.
But I'm wrong: because the trust works differently. DVC adds more cabins to the trust, but this time they declare an higher amount, they reallocate and now all cabins cost on average 24 points. The points I've bought now "buy" me one fewer night.
And after a while same trick, and the average goes up to 28 points. I'm down from a week to 5 nights bookable with my points.
Honestly, I find hard to believe this is legal.

 

[MonorailCoral]

I am still curious how they get all the 2042 resorts into a product, and then sell that product. They have a massive funding issue to address once all those dues go away at once.

 

[Sandisw]

Point fo view of someone buy CFW now: I buy knowing the on average the points needed to book a cabin is (I don't know, let's say) 20 points. Could be more or less depending on season and I know the week I'm interested in might go up or down depending on demand. That's how DVC has always worked.
But I'm wrong: because the trust work differently. DVC add more cabins to the trust, but this time they declare an higher amount, they reallocate and now all cabins cost on average 24 points. The points I've bought now "buy" me one fewer night.
And after a while same trick, and the average goes up to 28 points. I'm down from a week to 5 nights bookable with my points.
Honestly, I find hard to believe this is legal.

I think what makes it legal is that you are not buying ownership in anything.

You are only buying the right to use any and all property that is put in your RTU plan.

Basically, one is buying CFW only right now because that is all that is there…but you are not guaranteed that CFW will be the only property that will be part of your plan.

The POS is written in a way that explicitly states that they can add property to your plan that is a different component site, that they can create multiple plans within the trust and that point charts are created each year based on total number of points that exist within your RTU plan

So, anyone buying, who reads the POS, knows they can add different property but that right now the only property is CFW…so that is all one is buying access to for now.

I also think it explains why the contract does not include a maximum allocation number because it will fluctuate when and if more inventory is added.

Right now, the CFW RTU plan has around 475k points so that is all the have to work with…but, when they add the next set, we shall see how many cabins it is and how many points…that might give more insight into how DVD might use this.

 

[Sandisw]

I am still curious how they get all the 2042 resorts into a product, and then sell that product. They have a massive funding issue to address once all those dues go away at once.

I think the trust model can actually help them. They simply move all the property to the trust.

Then, they create RTU plans to sell for those properties.

They could even start out by allowing current owners to trade at 7 months while they renovate the other.

Plus, they still have cash guests and can use those rooms for that side of things too.

 

[zavandor]

I think what makes it legal is that the POS doesn’t guarantee you point values the way it did because you are not buying an ownership interest.

You are only buying the right to use the property in your RTU plan.

I personally think the POS is written in a way that explicitly states that they can add property to your plan that is a different component site, that they can create multiple plans within the trust and that point charts are created each year based on total number of points that exist within your RTU plan

So, anyone buying, who reads the POS, knows they can add different property but that right now the only property is CFW…so that is all one is buying access to.

I also think it explains why the contract does not include a maximum allocation number because it will fluctuate when and if more inventory is added.

Right now, the CFW RTU plan has around 475k points so that is all the have to work with…but, when they add the next set, we shall see how many cabins it is and how many points…that might give more insight into how DVD might use this.

I 100% agree with you that it's what the POS says. And that's why I've kept saying I wouldn't buy CFW except if I wanted a guaranteed week.
But it's even worst than I thought: it's not only that they can add LSL and then reallocate, they can add the same type of units (already built and just a few steps away from the one already declared and in which members have already stayed, because Disney can put people in any cabin, not just the ones declared) and increase all points for all cabins.

Let's put it this way: if it's not illegal, it should.

 

[MonorailCoral]

I think what makes it legal is that the POS doesn’t guarantee you point values the way it did because you are not buying an ownership interest.

You are only buying the right to use the property in your RTU plan.

I personally think the POS is written in a way that explicitly states that they can add property to your plan that is a different component site, that they can create multiple plans within the trust and that point charts are created each year based on total number of points that exist within your RTU plan

So, anyone buying, who reads the POS, knows they can add different property but that right now the only property is CFW…so that is all one is buying access to.

I also think it explains why the contract does not include a maximum allocation number because it will fluctuate when and if more inventory is added.

Right now, the CFW RTU plan has around 475k points so that is all the have to work with…but, when they add the next set, we shall see how many cabins it is and how many points…that might give more insight into how DVD might use this.

Ill also just add, these products are "newer" and the law (timeshare regulation in this case) is really slow to catch up.

Not quite the same, but in New Jersey for example, there are a series of mobile home communities down the shore where you own the house itself, but not the land it sits on. For years, people have "owned" shore houses, but not really. A landlord could suddenly raise the land lease rent, sell the land etc. As private equity started buying up mobile home land, the State is now passing new laws to deal with that situation and add limits.

With an RTU, you don't own a deed, so the fear is how will it be regulated to stop a "bait and switch" from what you thought you were buying vs the flexibility of an RTU type model.

 

[MonorailCoral]

I think the trust model can actually help them. They simply move all the property to the trust.

Then, they create RTU plans to sell for those properties.

They could even start out by allowing current owners to trade at 7 months while they renovate the other.

Plus, they still have cash guests and can use those rooms for that side of things too.

They would need to start early and hope people will make the jump. Its millions of dollars up all at once. I am very curious to see what DVC 2.0 will look like.

 

[Sandisw]

Ill also just add, these products are "newer" and the law (timeshare regulation in this case) is really slow to catch up.

Not quite the same, but in New Jersey for example, there are a series of mobile home communities down the shore where you own the house itself, but not the land it sits on. For years, people have "owned" shore houses, but not really. A landlord could suddenly raise the land lease rent, sell the land etc. As private equity started buying up mobile home land, the State is now passing new laws to deal with that situation and add limits.

With an RTU, you don't own a deed, so the fear is how will it be regulated to stop a "bait and switch" from what you thought you were buying vs the flexibility of an RTU type model.

As long as the POS states that you are buying the RTU any and all property that in the plan at the time of sale and that they can add future property at other locations down the road and then your plan will be based on that, it’s not a bait and switch IMO.

But, I also don’t think we will see DVD stop using common sense when it comes to this because they still need to sell the product.

Demand will always play a role and I think that will be used by DVD to decide an upper limit on what point values they can attach.

 

[Sandisw]

They would need to start early and hope people will make the jump. Its millions of dollars up all at once. I am very curious to see what DVC 2.0 will look like.

They can’t move anything until it’s expired….but it’s not like they can’t sell those rooms for cash.

They can even make them a cash exchange situation for DVC owners.

I personally think they have lots of options if this is the way they move in terms of how they sell DVC.

Now, is LSL is sold leasehold and not RTU, then who knows what the future holds.

 

[MonorailCoral]

As long as the POS states that you are buying the RTU any and all property that in the plan at the time of sale and that they can add future property at other locations down the road and then your plan will be based on that, it’s not a bait and switch IMO.

But, I also don’t think we will see DVD stop using common sense when it comes to this because they still need to sell the product.

Demand will always play a role and I think that will be used by DVD to decide an upper limit on what point values they can attach.

Yes but you actually read this stuff, most people click away when signing

I agree with you though, currently seems to be legal and I think Disney will generally use common sense, however we have already seen some examples of missteps from a owner point of view (Copper Creek for example).

Its just wishful thinking for a lot of people here, you know what DVC is for the most part, and that may change soon.

 

[Brian Noble]

It was discussed when the charts came out. The issue with AKV is the where the extra points for CL rooms come from.

That is not the only change in the AKV charts, and not the one I am talking about. From 2026 to 2027, the Concierge rooms did go up. But, the Value rooms also went up. In exchange Savanna went down. This effectively shifts points from Kidani to Jambo, but I am 90% sure there are no Residential Units that include Vacation Homes in both buildings. So, by my IANAL reading of the AKV POS, the reallocation is not allowed.

At least around these parts, the conventional wisdom is that the only reason to own at AKV is for Value/Concierge. If that's true (I'm not sure it is, but...) the AKV ownerships were (arguably) devalued.