Could this really happen with resale?

[robinbutterfly]

So I am on the fence about buying resale or through Disney.
I know none of us have a crystal ball, but do you think Disney will really take away the chance of resales to stay at all of the DVC resorts?
I mean, they have to keep up a business for themselves, and the way the resale market is, nobody is going to buy from Disney soon!
I am worried that is what they will do. We are buying DVC so we can stay at other resorts...not just our home resort.

 

[juncker]

Anything is possible, but I don't expect to see them take away the ability to book at other DVC properties. This is the main value that we get out of our DVC ownership. This would drop the price of resales in a huge way. People would perceive direct DVC purchases as losing the majority of their value right away as it would not have as much value as a resale.

I could see additional restrictions for RCI stays, or other vacation options, but I think that the core DVC property rules are going to stay.

The other point is, if they follow the pattern that they have already started with resale purchases, that changes could be grandfathered in. If you buy resale now, and they change the rules, it may not apply to you.

It is a crapshoot. To be safe, don't buy into a property that you would not be happy at staying at. We bought at SSR due to the price, but we do love the place. I wouldn't dump my DVC if we were only limited to SSR.

Regardless, I wouldn't buy direct based upon a hunch of what could happen.

 

[lions1995]

I agree with juncker. I do not foresee DVC taking this step, but I suspect ANY step they take in retrictions on resales would be grandfathered. of course, nothing is certain.

If DVC makes resale plummet, it could make people think twice about buying direct from them do to the low resale price (though I doubt first time buyers think about that). But if prices plummet too far, it may drive people to resale more. Obviuosly Disney could start excercising ROFR, but I am sure they would rather be SELLINF than BUYING.

 

[JimMIA]

I'm pretty sure DVC cannot take away basic components of ownership from any group. Obviously, restrictions on which resorts particular buyers could use would be an infringement on the basic real estate interest you'd be purchasing.

I don't see DVC ever removing the ability to use points at other DVC resorts. That would defeat the purpose of the "club."

There could be a situation where they choose to remove one of the resorts from the club -- for example, if they sold one of the resorts. But in that case, ALL owners of that resort would be prohibited from using points at DVC resorts, and NO owners of DVC would be allowed to use the removed resort. Those restrictions would apply to all owners, no matter how they purchased.

DVC can place restrictions on non-DVC uses of points (and they have), and they could probably place restrictions on various perks or operational aspects of the program.

Or, they could create a different category of ownership with enhanced perks. For example, other timeshare systems have extended booking windows for "VIP's" and only directly-purchased points count toward VIP status.

 

[JimMIA]

I could see additional restrictions for RCI stays...

Their ability to do that would be constrained by their agreement with RCI, which I believe is for five years.

And restricting RCI access might actually hurt DVC more than it helped them. DVC's access to RCI is already very limited; if they removed a huge chunk of their inventory from eligibility, I don't think they'd be a very attractive partner for RCI.

 

[luckyman_apd]

JimMIA is definitely WAY more knowledgeable about timeshare systems than me, but if you are happy with what is included in a resale contract TODAY, than I see no reason to by direct. I can't imagine Disney changing rules on a purchase you made AFTER the purchase. Whether it CAN or CAN'T be done is irrelevant really. It would spark litigation and PR problems and Disney is interested in neither if they can help it......Unless they can spin it. They have a track record of "grandfathering" in changes already so if you don't see a difference other than price, than I would go resale. I did.

 

[ajseagles3]

There are reasons to buy direct:
-Speed of transaction (If you want to go in June, you could book the trip in a matter of days.)
-No limitation on perks
-Trust/Perception of risk

It really sounds like you are concerned about all three, so why not just buy direct but buy fewer points? DVD probably has some direct purchase availability at other WDW resorts, not just BLT.

 

[awilliams4]

One thing they may change is the booking advantages.....direct gets 11 and 7 while resales get 11 and say 6.

I can see DVD giving more benefits to direct owners.

 

[Dean]

I go back and forth on the issue of whether they can alter the booking window. My reading of the POS says no but 2 other timeshare systems based in FL had done so after the fact. Bluegreen gave VIP access to wait lists and tied the VIP status to retail vs resale (simplified). Marriott gave multiple week owners the ability to book a month ahead but did not tie it to resale. As for restricting access to other resorts, the short answer is no they can't AS LONG AS A GIVEN RESORT REMAINS IN THE CLUB. That wouldn't necessarily apply to new resorts or even new section at existing resorts. IMO, the bottom line is that there is no risk that matterws in buying resale related to these issues. Maybe Brian or Jim have a thought on how Wyndham handled their VIP change over and how it might apply in this situation. I don't believe DVC could restrict access to RCI related to resale but even if they did, one can always trade privately and with the independents.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with Dean. Disney has the right to limit owners of any DVC resort, per the terms of the POS, to stays at only their home resort, if they remove it from the club.

I see no way to remove, for example, BWV from the club just for resale owners without having an effect on direct buy owners. BWV either has to be in or out of the club and as long as it is in, I think resale owners would have trading rights to the other DVC resorts.

DVC is only obligated to give owners--all of them--what is in the POS. As long as they are following the terms of that, then they are okay. Anything that is not guaranteed, is fair game and DVC can decide how to apply the rules.

Resale or not, buy a resort that you are comfortable staying in case you can't go anywhere else.

Good luck!

 

[Brian Noble]

Maybe Brian or Jim have a thought on how Wyndham handled their VIP change over and how it might apply in this situation.

VIP "perks" are pretty inconsequential for the most part.

There is a small booking window advantage that VIP owners have---home resort priority is 13 months, open season for all owners is 10. VIP owners are allowed "reciprocal advance" rights at about 11 months or so at resorts they do not own, but only once or twice a year. This is a pretty limited perk in part because home resort priority isn't that important in Wyndham's system generally, and in the few instances when it is, 11 months is too late.

Whether or not DVC could do something similar probably depends on precisely how the governing documents are written, so I would not automatically assume that just because Wyndham can do it that DVC can as well. For example, one important feature of the Wyndham setup is that you own property at a very specific resort (which could be point-based, or week-based), and then you assign rights to that property to the "trust" which manages the point system. That gives Wyndham significant flexibility in managing the points program. I don't understand DVC's legalities enough to know if they have the same layer of indirection that they could exploit.

The most relevant thing to this discussion is the Wyndham Presidential Reserve inventory. Essentially, that's an entirely separate timeshare system, in parallel with "regular Wyndham", with a 1-to-1 exchange rate for exchanging points between them. When a PR owner wants to book a regular Wyndham unit, compensating PR inventory must be made available to regular Wyn owners. But, Wyndham gets to choose which PR inventory to make available, so they can make sure that the most in-demand PR inventory remains available to PR owners. Importantly, this isn't a case of existing resorts being pulled out of the "regular" Wyndham club. Rather, these are brand new resorts (or, brand new units within regular club resorts) that were never part of the club in the first place.

It is possible that DVC could do something similar with new resorts (or units within existing resorts) that have not yet been declared into the condominium. Whether or not it is likely, I don't know. In some sense it doesn't matter, because you probably should not be buying---resale or retail---for anything that is not actually part of the system today.

 

[Dean]

VIP "perks" are pretty inconsequential for the most part.

There is a small booking window advantage that VIP owners have---home resort priority is 13 months, open season for all owners is 10. VIP owners are allowed "reciprocal advance" rights at about 11 months or so at resorts they do not own, but only once or twice a year. This is a pretty limited perk in part because home resort priority isn't that important in Wyndham's system generally, and in the few instances when it is, 11 months is too late.

Whether or not DVC could do something similar probably depends on precisely how the governing documents are written, so I would not automatically assume that just because Wyndham can do it that DVC can as well. For example, one important feature of the Wyndham setup is that you own property at a very specific resort (which could be point-based, or week-based), and then you assign rights to that property to the "trust" which manages the point system. That gives Wyndham significant flexibility in managing the points program. I don't understand DVC's legalities enough to know if they have the same layer of indirection that they could exploit.

The most relevant thing to this discussion is the Wyndham Presidential Reserve inventory. Essentially, that's an entirely separate timeshare system, in parallel with "regular Wyndham", with a 1-to-1 exchange rate for exchanging points between them. When a PR owner wants to book a regular Wyndham unit, compensating PR inventory must be made available to regular Wyn owners. But, Wyndham gets to choose which PR inventory to make available, so they can make sure that the most in-demand PR inventory remains available to PR owners. Importantly, this isn't a case of existing resorts being pulled out of the "regular" Wyndham club. Rather, these are brand new resorts (or, brand new units within regular club resorts) that were never part of the club in the first place.

It is possible that DVC could do something similar with new resorts (or units within existing resorts) that have not yet been declared into the condominium. Whether or not it is likely, I don't know. In some sense it doesn't matter, because you probably should not be buying---resale or retail---for anything that is not actually part of the system today.

The BG and Marriott changes were not inconsequential and neither are the benefits. For difficult to get items, they essentially limited those options almost exclusively to the highest VIP levels for advanced bookings. Marriott's Destinations program and Trust points are like you describe for Wyndham's Presidential Reserve situation. The Trust points are a separate timeshare system with NO home resort priority. The Destinations program is a bridge between the 2 systems now limited to retail buyers at least currently.

 

[Lil' Grumpy]

i think it depends on your favorite resort. more than "disney or
resales."

fyi,
if i was in authority, i would "junk" rci and all the other timeshares.
from reading here, rci is no friend to dvc owners. i don't see
dvc needing any other t-shares especially with them expanding
out west and the h. island. dvc is connected to wdw. universal
is nearby. i don't see many dvc owners wanting to trade with rci,
especially the low values. { when we brought dvc, our only
plans were to trade a few days in new york. our original guide
told us "no problem", but in reality turned out to be total
useless. } that has been our only disappointment. look how
many are always trying to manipulate trading in...some just to
rent their timeshares because they can't do other wise.

so @ least you have made up your mind to go with dvc. i think
it is best move. i think certain resales @ the smaller resorts
would be your best values even if they did restrict owners @ their
home resorts. first you would be more likely to get a trade
with another owner, second ...when /if you go to rent points,
they would be more desirable. ( liked blt vs ssr...where would
the majority of families like to be staying?)


i read here frequently. rci is low values and cost owners more in
dues. then they charged traders fees like the all inclusive..more than
if you did your own deal. what does dvc need rci for...i don't see any
value @ all. if dvc got rid of them , would not stop us from
buying dvc. i hope dvc is not releasing more rooms than being
traded out, but since they are releasing "groups" ...it seem likely.
from their stock? posters reporting the extra 95$ fee on ebay
are those "renting out"..that explain some of the aggressive
people we seen @ the resorts.

we debated this too- "disney vs resales"...we liked the security
of dealing direct. it also helped us get "exactly" what we expected
even after we had a few problems. again our only disappointment
is not have the rci promises but that was low on our list from the
start.

can dvc totally go by itself when the rci contact end? i think
if dvc did that then their value system would jump high, &
their sales would zoom again. not only "our" family are requesting
our points, but everybody we know. many with their own timeshares
but not dvc. i can create our own little "pool" & so could many
other owners.

if dvc does not unload rci, i wish they hire some professionals
from the timeshares so they could help dvc owners and even up the
playing field. if not, i know we wouldn't miss them. ( right now,
i can't see one benefit from rci- do any other owner without
having rci t-shares? )

as for your concerns, i think it is a fact, that dvc can tell the
difference between "direct vs resales" is significant, for future
changes. { there are some "real" nice perks they can do now
that direct/resales owners wouldn't even have to know).
secondly, because this is all about a long-term investment,
a couple thousands wasn't worth it to us. i also think there
are those low-balling their figures on their resales.i can't see an
owner losing $3.000 just to hurry up a sale. for example selling
ours for 80$ when we paid near $100---that makes no sense.


so my best advice is to be careful and "decide" based on your
best & future interests. good luck!

 

[Dean]

i think it depends on your favorite resort. more than "disney or
resales."

fyi,
if i was in authority, i would "junk" rci and all the other timeshares.
from reading here, rci is no friend to dvc owners. i don't see
dvc needing any other t-shares especially with them expanding
out west and the h. island. dvc is connected to wdw. universal
is nearby. i don't see many dvc owners wanting to trade with rci,
especially the low values. { when we brought dvc, our only
plans were to trade a few days in new york. our original guide
told us "no problem", but in reality turned out to be total
useless. } that has been our only disappointment. look how
many are always trying to manipulate trading in...some just to
rent their timeshares because they can't do other wise.

so @ least you have made up your mind to go with dvc. i think
it is best move. i think certain resales @ the smaller resorts
would be your best values even if they did restrict owners @ their
home resorts. first you would be more likely to get a trade
with another owner, second ...when /if you go to rent points,
they would be more desirable. ( liked blt vs ssr...where would
the majority of families like to be staying?)


i read here frequently. rci is low values and cost owners more in
dues. then they charged traders fees like the all inclusive..more than
if you did your own deal. what does dvc need rci for...i don't see any
value @ all. if dvc got rid of them , would not stop us from
buying dvc. i hope dvc is not releasing more rooms than being
traded out, but since they are releasing "groups" ...it seem likely.
from their stock? posters reporting the extra 95$ fee on ebay
are those "renting out"..that explain some of the aggressive
people we seen @ the resorts.

we debated this too- "disney vs resales"...we liked the security
of dealing direct. it also helped us get "exactly" what we expected
even after we had a few problems. again our only disappointment
is not have the rci promises but that was low on our list from the
start.

can dvc totally go by itself when the rci contact end? i think
if dvc did that then their value system would jump high, &
their sales would zoom again. not only "our" family are requesting
our points, but everybody we know. many with their own timeshares
but not dvc. i can create our own little "pool" & so could many
other owners.

if dvc does not unload rci, i wish they hire some professionals
from the timeshares so they could help dvc owners and even up the
playing field. if not, i know we wouldn't miss them. ( right now,
i can't see one benefit from rci- do any other owner without
having rci t-shares? )

as for your concerns, i think it is a fact, that dvc can tell the
difference between "direct vs resales" is significant, for future
changes. { there are some "real" nice perks they can do now
that direct/resales owners wouldn't even have to know).
secondly, because this is all about a long-term investment,
a couple thousands wasn't worth it to us. i also think there
are those low-balling their figures on their resales.i can't see an
owner losing $3.000 just to hurry up a sale. for example selling
ours for 80$ when we paid near $100---that makes no sense.


so my best advice is to be careful and "decide" based on your
best & future interests. good luck!

The RCI issue has many facets. There is redeeming value to the option both from DVD’s standpoint and the membership’s. Having at least one exchange option is a great sales tool and it gives an outlet to dispose of unused point that DVD owns in the form of cash rentals through RCI. As a member, it’s always good to have option that don’t add to the cost of membership, even if a given member is unlikely to use those options. Comparing II and RCI, I think II was and still is a better option for the membership. However, given that much of that difference is directly related to Marriott being with II, the changes in the Marriott system have lessened that difference somewhat. Certainly RCI is a better FIT overall given the point orientation of RCI and the better rental outlet. A subset of RCI option are a reasonable value but it’s a small subset. The same was true of II as well and every other system. This is why I think DVD’s/DVC’s best approach would be to expand BVTC and link up with Hyatt, Hilton (which was with BVTC early on), Marriott and a SUBSET of other systems like Shell, Bluegreen, Wyndham, VRI, etc. Even a link with Marriott alone would likely be a move up for DVC members though not for corporate.

I can see how one could feel that having low value options is not worth fooling with but if one takes that approach, you’d have to remove the DC, DCL, CC and possibly BVTC as well. Over 3% of owners trade with RCI yearly, less than most resorts but not insignificant. Remember, RCI members can only trade in to the degree that DVC members have traded out.

 

[Lil' Grumpy]

fyi, i read all your posts & believe they have the highest merits.


100% accurate about how dvc used that to promote sales.
but i also { based on our experiences } think it has come
back to "bite" them..and a pretty good "case" for false
advestizing. ( sp,~ha, ha!} .

just want to add.....i don't think dvc is attempting to be
misleading or having owners disappointed. i think the source
of many of these problems are from dvc "not having experienced
rci personnel working/guiding/educating the sales department.nor
enough effective monitoring. ( while there's been a significant
drop off from this site, i still think there are those inside the dvc
sales department that are abusing the system for their personal
gain---even more personal , it's hard not to go in there
& confront some of their bold-face liars. ) . the reason we didn't
lose "faith" , from our past experiences, we know that some
are excellent "problem solvers". so we just kept searching.

from reading here, i noticed the majority came into dvc via being
owners to other t.~shares/ some of my previous strong words
were aimed @ some of the comments...they was trying to pass
as a reality. liked the miami t.~shares. i was not trying for a personal
effect, but to let new dvc owners/and those without rci
ownership, that i see as manipulation.

even when i do not agree or do not understand all that you presenting,
..i think it is very "solid" knowledge for keeping, via dvc owners or rci
alike.

also i read some topics that were liked walking on egg creates, but you
presented both sides in an excellent fashioned. and some of the
issues you have given input, could have gotten yourself "flame".
but the info . benefited the person & sometimes anyone reading
it.

when you posted about dvc using rci for less than a week , i wished
"we" could have responded. atlas, no one seem to be able to
less than a week. i think if dvc had rci workers with a background , then
both organizations would profit & work together.

fyi, my point was not meant to flatter, just to express my true observations.
they are self evident and in~deeds worthy. now if i could get dvc to
listen..they need rci experts.

 

[Dean]

I don't see any evidence it's hurt DVC other than a few here (not enough to matter) and I don't see any evidence of false advertising. The accusation that DVC employees are abusing the system, is vague but a very strong statement, one which I am confident is not accurate.

I think your view that most DVC owners were experienced with other timeshares couldn't be further from the truth. I think the vast majority of owners only own DVC and mostly only know about DVC (and even that level of knowledge is variable). Of those that have involvement with DVC and other timeshares, I think most that are knowledgeable in both owned DVC first then branched out. I think it's rare for one to be experienced in other timeshares and then buy DVC, and those that do, likely have a small amount of points to complement their other options. I can think of a couple of exceptions, but only a couple. Then there's the group that owned other timeshares, but were never really well versed in them and had bad experiences, then later bought DVC because they perceived it as different.

Your posts continue to be accusatory of DVC, esp the sales staff, hinting now (stating in the past) that you were lied to. You haven't shared details and that's your prerogative, however, I'd request you either let it go as far as this BBS is concerned or share the details so that we can make a judgement as to the situation. While I've never been complimentary of timeshare sales staff in general, often equating them with used car sales, I've seen precious few examples over the last 18 years or so that could be truly classified as lies, maybe only 1 or 2 that I can recall. As timeshares sales go, DVC sets the bar in appropriateness and honesty. Realize that's coming from one who was given completely inaccurate info on their sales tour such that when I ended up buying resale based on the info provided and it turned out to be completely wrong, DVC offered to make me whole even though I'd bought resale.