Blackout days for DVC Resales???

[BestDadEver]

I didn't answer for you, I labeled your perspective.

I don't believe your stated reason would make ANY difference one way or another. The only way this would make a difference would be if they created a new and unrelated timeshare system and then cross linked them only giving access to a specified group which might be qualified owners/points or it might be those in a VIP system that had as a min requirement, qualified points. I do not believe it's possible for the current resorts for DVC to limit resale owners to the home resort only or to create a shorter reservation window than the window for other owners (currently 7 mo). Thus resale vs retail makes zero difference in the 7 or 11 month availability other than as it might affect the intent of a given new buyer. It could actually work in reverse for both the 11 and 7 month window if it created 2 distinct groups (even more than now), those that want a given resort and those that just want a points cow. Thus it has the potential to make it both more difficult at the 11 month window for high demand resorts AND at the 7 month window based on even more points in play. I know some retail buyers come at this from a vindictive direction, they don’t see resale buyers as a true and full part of the system and are happy with whatever happens to them, I see that perspective as petty and small but I know they are out there.

Now, if they add enough additional perks to retail buyers, that could add value though I’m doubting they will. More likely take more things away from resale buyers. If they were able to reduce the pool of buyers that were qualified, they could improve the value of cash type exchanges, but this is contrary to their sales goals. However, given that everyone who sells (even if they bought retail) will be selling as resale points, there is a certain loss to all owners. Even with the current spike, resale prices are generally down after the resale limitations than before. Any further changes, almost certain to be negative, would further hurt values. IMO this actually helps resale buyers more than it does retail buyers unless they actually put enough changes in place to truly hurt those resale buyers and I don’t see DVD as having that much backbone in this area, but we’ll see.

Perspective on deans post disgruntled dvc member . I answered why I think that way . I don't agree with what your says so well have to disagree . Only time will tell.

 

[Missyrose]

Perspective on deans post disgruntled dvc member . I answered why I think that way . I don't agree with what your says so well have to disagree . Only time will tell.

Seriously? Dean as a disgruntled DVC member? He's one of the most knowledgeable and pragmatic owners on these boards. Geez.

 

[disneynutz]

People don't want to admit it but Disney's decisions are based on increasing profit, period. IMO they will do what ever they have to to meet their numbers, change rules, make additional restrictions, add fixed weeks, raise prices, close down remote sales sites, fire contracted real estate agents.

DVC Member add-ons and referrals make up half of DVC sales (contributing $200M annually). If sales are where they expect them to be, we won't see much of a change, if they aren't where they need to be, changes will be made or they risk losing their jobs.

Bill

 

[Chuck S]

I think it is something that may be legally possible for NEW DVC resorts when the interuse contracts bringing them in to "the club" are drawn up. But as far as existing current resort interuse agreements..not unless that paperwork is refiled and it would serve little purpose, really, IMO.

For instance, if the build the Polynesian, the agreement allowing use at other DVCs could, from the get go, say that only those people who buy at the Polynesian directly can use the other resorts associated with the club, and only those other owners who purchased directly could use their points at the Polynesian.

I really don't see these agreements being changed for existing resorts, since all the other resorts have people who've already purchased resale without such restrictions in place prior to their resale purchase. I really think IF they were going to do this, though, they should have started with BLT and included all the monorail DVCs. Such a limit, even on new construction, is IMO, pointless unless there is a new resort area developed that has special things to make it particularly attractive, like a new park, exclusive shows, or totally new type of resort to park transportation system.

 

[Sandisw]

I think it is something that may be legally possible for NEW DVC resorts when the interuse contracts bringing them in to "the club" are drawn up. But as far as existing current resort interuse agreements..not unless that paperwork is refiled and it would serve little purpose, really, IMO.

For instance, if the build the Polynesian, the agreement allowing use at other DVCs could, from the get go, say that only those people who buy at the Polynesian directly can use the other resorts associated with the club, and only those other owners who purchased directly could use their points at the Polynesian.

I really don't see these agreements being changed for existing resorts, since all the other resorts have people who've already purchased resale without such restrictions in place prior to their resale purchase. I really think IF they were going to do this, though, they should have started with BLT and included all the monorail DVCs. Such a limit, even on new construction, is IMO, pointless unless there is a new resort area developed that has special things to make it particularly attractive, like a new park, exclusive shows, or totally new type of resort to park transportation system.

I have to agree...and, I believe that if that was a direction they were thinking, we would have seen something attached to VGF...since we did not--I believe some were speculating that they might make it the start of a new "club"--I would bet that changing trading rights isn't something that is on the table at this time.

 

[gray52]

I don't have it backwards I am talking about when there is an excessive amount of people looking elsewhere this will become a problem at specific times and specific resorts . Now they added GFV like you said that person not going to want to stay GFV every trip , now you have 8 instead of 7 resorts (not sure about thoses numbers )of people trying to book Epcot resorts during food and wine GL

BestDad... but what's your reasoning for dividing DVC members into classes based on if you purchased resale or direct? I would bet money you purchased all your points direct, yes?

Why in the world would you want DVC to institute a restriction that would de-value your product (unless, of course, you keep the contract until it expires)? At some point, every point was purchased direct, so why a distinction because i'm the second owner? Should there be restrictions on a person because they didn't build the house they're living in? Should there be restrictions on a used car? This is nothing more than a corporation trying to control all the variables to increase profit.

There are X number of DVC points... and X number of contracts that represent those points. It all balances in the end. There's room for everyone in "the club". If you're a planner, you'll always get your resort. If you're not a planner, you probably shouldn't be in DVC to begin with. Nobody's getting shut out of their resort. Nobody is screaming "I can't make a reservation at my home resort at 2 months out so something needs to change!"
In my opinion, this system has worked very well for everyone for the past 22 years. The only people a restriction will hurt is you and me... all of us... direct and resale buyers alike. The only people it will help is DVD... to sell more pixie dust.

If i remember correctly, you were on these boards some time ago... debating resale vs direct and, even after all the numbers were shown to you, you still decided to purchase direct? If i'm not mistaken about that fact, then you are one of the few who has done so (add-ons excluded).
Giving people something nobody currently has as a perk is one thing... but splitting us into tiers and then taking something away from one particular group, any group, isn't good for anyone.

 

[BestDadEver]

This just makes the adage "Buy where you want to stay" all the more important. I also think that the number of resale buyers isn't as large as we might think. This board is a very skewed sample of DVC owners. We tend to be very knowledgeable, knowing the ins and outs of the system before we purchase and have weighed the pros and cons of resale vs. retail. I would venture to say that resale buyers make up less than 20 percent of the owners pool. The vast majority of people who buy DVC don't learn there is a resale market until after they buy. So another round of restrictions may not make as big an impact as you'd hope.

That is a valid point .

 

[BestDadEver]

Seriously? Dean as a disgruntled DVC member? He's one of the most knowledgeable and pragmatic owners on these boards. Geez.

I didn't say he wasn't very knowlageable . He has great info if your looking for a non DVC TS

 

[marynvince]

I can answer for myself dean .



If they keep creating new dvc resorts there is going to be a flood of people that opt out of there home resorts trying to get the hot spots , making it harder to book outside you home resort , alleviating part of the problem .

What? Whenever I come across one of your posts, BDE, I scratch my head. You always seem to end up saying well that's what I think and therefore I'm right according to my point of view.

While I don't always agree w Dean, I respect his knowledge and attempts to help.

 

[Missyrose]

I honestly don't understand how blacking out dates for resale buyers to book outside their home resorts becomes a value add for retail buyers. If I am "forced" to stay at my home resorts of BLT and BWV, then those villas won't be available for people who bought SSR directly (for the value of price per point and MFs) to stay at those resorts.

 

[keishashadow]

This just makes the adage "Buy where you want to stay" all the more important. I also think that the number of resale buyers isn't as large as we might think. This board is a very skewed sample of DVC owners. We tend to be very knowledgeable, knowing the ins and outs of the system before we purchase and have weighed the pros and cons of resale vs. retail. I would venture to say that resale buyers make up less than 20 percent of the owners pool. The vast majority of people who buy DVC don't learn there is a resale market until after they buy. So another round of restrictions may not make as big an impact as you'd hope.

Even those who bought where they wanted to stay are shut out within the 11 month window at times, but any leg up on booking is better than none.

Don't forget there is another category of members out there:

those who bought direct, then added on resale (or vice-a-versa)

 

[Apps]

I really don't understand why ANYONE...even direct buyers, would want to reduce the value of their timeshare by reducing the value of resale. DVC timeshares are sold around 50-60% of their retail value which is really great should you want to unload the assets. If I bought direct, I would be pretty angry every time they put a restriction on resale further reducing the value of the asset

 

[tjkraz]

I really don't understand why ANYONE...even direct buyers, would want to reduce the value of their timeshare by reducing the value of resale. DVC timeshares are sold around 50-60% of their retail value which is really great should you want to unload the assets. If I bought direct, I would be pretty angry every time they put a restriction on resale further reducing the value of the asset

That tends to reflect the knee-jerk reaction whenever restrictions are discussed. However, consider that in order for restrictions to have their desired effect, they have to be beneficial to some group.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that DVC manages to block resale buyers from reserving the first two weeks of December. The result is every single direct purchaser booking those dates has reduced competition...for the next 30-50 years!

Now there may be some corresponding decrease in resale value as a result of the restrictions. But that's only relevant if you end up selling before the end of the contract term.

Again referring to my example, if I hold my BWV points until expiration in 2042 and frequently book early-December with them, I would greatly benefit from not having to compete with resale buyers. I really don't care if resale prices drop from $50 per point to $48 per point as a result of the policy change. The value of my points is still $0.00 come 1/31/2042.

 

[Apps]

That tends to reflect the knee-jerk reaction whenever restrictions are discussed. However, consider that in order for restrictions to have their desired effect, they have to be beneficial to some group.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that DVC manages to block resale buyers from reserving the first two weeks of December. The result is every single direct purchaser booking those dates has reduced competition...for the next 30-50 years!

Now there may be some corresponding decrease in resale value as a result of the restrictions. But that's only relevant if you end up selling before the end of the contract term.

Again referring to my example, if I hold my BWV points until expiration in 2042 and frequently book early-December with them, I would greatly benefit from not having to compete with resale buyers. I really don't care if resale prices drop from $50 per point to $48 per point as a result of the policy change. The value of my points is still $0.00 come 1/31/2042.

I see your point. Never thought about holding my DVC to term

 

[tjkraz]

I see your point. Never thought about holding my DVC to term

Most people don't assign any perceived value to something like a timeshare--or at least they shouldn't. In the case of DVC, it's going to be worth $0 eventually.

You'll spend years spinning your wheels if you try to assign blame for every fluctuation in resale pricing.

EDIT: And even if you don't hold the contract to term, with any resale policy change it's worth considering whether the benefits received outweigh some modest loss on the back end. Some people won't consider it a worthwhile trade-off....others will.

 

[Sammie]

That tends to reflect the knee-jerk reaction whenever restrictions are discussed. However, consider that in order for restrictions to have their desired effect, they have to be beneficial to some group.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that DVC manages to block resale buyers from reserving the first two weeks of December. The result is every single direct purchaser booking those dates has reduced competition...for the next 30-50 years!

Now there may be some corresponding decrease in resale value as a result of the restrictions. But that's only relevant if you end up selling before the end of the contract term.

Again referring to my example, if I hold my BWV points until expiration in 2042 and frequently book early-December with them, I would greatly benefit from not having to compete with resale buyers. I really don't care if resale prices drop from $50 per point to $48 per point as a result of the policy change. The value of my points is still $0.00 come 1/31/2042.

Thanks for a very well put point of view of the other side. There are always two sides to everything and while some think this could never happen, with Disney I would caution never say never.

This would definitely increase the appeal of fixed weeks, in my opinion.

As with TJ, I don't care if resale prices drop and we all need to realize that DVC has to stay solvent and to do that they have to sell direct. There is no benefit to them in resale.

 

[brertoad]

There is no benefit to them in resale.

Of course there is some benefit.

1) Increased dollars spent on-site by resale members year after year, tickets, food, merchandise.

2) Potential future direct sales. You assume that no resale owner has ever purchased direct add-ons or new contracts at new DVC resorts.

3) Referrals. Happy DVC owners are their best advocate for generating new sales.

4) A reason for their captive DVC audience to keep returning to Disney for decades to come.

5) Cross-selling. DVC members are more likely to be open to purchase other Disney products, like cruises or travel experiences.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer. So, all this talk about how resale owners are some how hurting direct owners - blame DVD, they can buy up every single contract. Obviously they don't want to do that. It's a symbiotic relationship. They need resale customers to keep values high. Additional restrictions will decrease resale value thereby hurting direct purchasers the most.

If any direct purchasers are worried about their yearly vacation, then perhaps a fixed week option will provide them with the peace of mind they want. However, I would never opt for a fixed week, I would venture to guess that most people don't vacation that way.

 

[Chuck S]

Of course there is some benefit.

1) Increased dollars spent on-site by resale members year after year, tickets, food, merchandise.

2) Potential future direct sales. You assume that no resale owner has ever purchased direct add-ons or new contracts at new DVC resorts.

3) Referrals. Happy DVC owners are their best advocate for generating new sales.

4) A reason for their captive DVC audience to keep returning to Disney for decades to come.

5) Cross-selling. DVC members are more likely to be open to purchase other Disney products, like cruises or travel experiences.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer. So, all this talk about how resale owners are some how hurting direct owners - blame DVD, they can buy up every single contract. Obviously they don't want to do that. It's a symbiotic relationship. They need resale customers to keep values high. Additional restrictions will decrease resale value thereby hurting direct purchasers the most.

If any direct purchasers are worried about their yearly vacation, then perhaps a fixed week option will provide them with the peace of mind they want. However, I would never opt for a fixed week, I would venture to guess that most people don't vacation that way.

As far as park admissions, merchandise sales and food it is of NO concern of DVC. DVD, the development and sales division of DVC, is in the business of building and selling timeshares. Period. Each division of the Walt Disney Company, though under an umbrella corporation, is responsible for their own profit and loss. The same is true of Adventures by Disney and the Cruise Lines. Cross selling has to be beneficial to both sides of the promotion.

I doubt to many resale purchasers refer friends and family to purchase DVC directly. They'd more than likely refer them to the broker where they purchased, not direct sales. I also doubt many resale purchasers by more than small add-ons directly, and only because it is almost a break even on small add-ons either direct or resale if you are in ahurry to get the points for a reservation. Again, they'd likely return to the resale market for large future purchases.

 

[Dean]

Perspective on deans post disgruntled dvc member . I answered why I think that way . I don't agree with what your says so well have to disagree . Only time will tell.

What do you disagree with, that creating 2 or more classes of members will not have any real affect on the 7 month availability? That train left the station some time ago, it hit full speed when SSR came on board and before any resale limitations. The only type of things that are going to change the 7 month availability are a LOT of high demand resort villas, increasing the demand sufficiently for the lower demand resorts or creating a VIP system. Unfortunately it takes about 10 or more (my estimate) high demand units (like GF) to off set one lower demand villa and it's points when it comes to the 7 month availability. I don't see how there can be enough higher demand resorts to do so thus I see this as already a fairly fixed and mature issue (I don't see it as a problem). Now if DVC throws a large lower demand resort into the mix, it'll further hinder the 7 month window options but likely not enough to notice. As for truly knowing going forward, we won't have the hard data, only indirect and anecdotal information. Remember every points that gets sold resale is already owned by someone thus those points are already seeking reservations (both 11 & 7 mo). Actually it's probably more likely that those selling, but haven't yet, will be looking for high end options to rent out. Besides, who cares if your or I can reserve at a resort we don't own at, it's not a guaranteed option when it comes to availability. In my mind, reserving at the 7 month window is akin to exchanging with II or RCI.

I think it is something that may be legally possible for NEW DVC resorts when the interuse contracts bringing them in to "the club" are drawn up. But as far as existing current resort interuse agreements..not unless that paperwork is refiled and it would serve little purpose, really, IMO.

For instance, if the build the Polynesian, the agreement allowing use at other DVCs could, from the get go, say that only those people who buy at the Polynesian directly can use the other resorts associated with the club, and only those other owners who purchased directly could use their points at the Polynesian.

I really don't see these agreements being changed for existing resorts, since all the other resorts have people who've already purchased resale without such restrictions in place prior to their resale purchase. I really think IF they were going to do this, though, they should have started with BLT and included all the monorail DVCs. Such a limit, even on new construction, is IMO, pointless unless there is a new resort area developed that has special things to make it particularly attractive, like a new park, exclusive shows, or totally new type of resort to park transportation system.

While they could start a new club, any new resort added to the existing club would have to come under the same rules.

 

[tjkraz]

1) Increased dollars spent on-site by resale members year after year, tickets, food, merchandise.

As Chuck said, this is of little-to-no consideration.

At Hewlett Packard, the head of the computer division doesn't get any credit for a highly profitable printer division. Similarly, Ken Potrock will be evaluated on his ability to sell Disney Vacation Club points...not on the number of churros that members buy over the next 50 years.

6) At any time they believe a resale buyer is getting TOO GOOD OF A DEAL. They have right of first refusal. They can take that resale away from the buyer.

Thing is, for every 200 point contract they ROFR at $50 per point, DVC has to pay $10,000 out of pocket. Implementing new resale restrictions costs them nothing out of pocket.

Certainly DVC has to give some consideration to the big picture. And this speaks to the other items on your list. They will not recklessly limit benefits and erect barriers to resale point usage.

However, if resale becomes a bigger threat to direct sales (which it really isn't right now), possible loss of referrals from "happy DVC owners" isn't going to keep them from turning a few screws.

In fact, as I said in my earlier post, there would be many "winners" with any resale restriction and those folks will sing the praises of DVC for protecting their interests. YOU may be upset as a resale owner if DVC manages to block you from certain dates...other owners will be openly supportive of DVC for giving them less booking competition for their direct purchase points.