December DVC Sales Tumble

[Sandisw]

This is why I'll only believe unrestricted Poly2 once I see it in writing. I think Poly2 would be much less slowed down by restrictions than CFW will be.

I am with you on this. While I said I am willing to move the need PVB will be involved in some way based on the info I received, I won’t be convinced we won’t see something involving restrictions.

We know there is language in the PVB POS that seems to allow them to create a diffrrent vacsrio plan for inventory added so we shall see if they get creative with it all.

I am back to the Wild thought. It gets added to the boundaries of PVB but the units never get declared into the condo association?

DVD just puts them directly into the trust and only sells them that way? No different than the entire building at RIV and VDH being part of the resort but only units declared into the condo get used by owners.

Nothing prevents them from ever having to sell those undeclared units on the traditional way so not sure why it can’t apply to Poly tower in the same way.

 

[kboo]

DVD just puts them directly into the trust and only sells them that way? No different than the entire building at RIV and VDH being part of the resort but only units declared into the condo get used by owners.

So ... (trying to understand) ... then they end up in the trust with CFW and so they're semi-restricted to resale buyers of CFW and Poly2? That would make "resale restrictions" a lot more palatable because even if you don't have booking ability everywhere, you have at least 2 resorts that are wildly different in theming if you ever want a change of pace. Huh.

I do think that DVD is moving away from a single profile of who's a DVC owner and maybe that is why they are fine with many resorts being on sale at once. And no hurry on RIV because if you want to be close to EP and HS your options are BCV/BWV with 1/2 the lifespan at 3/4 the cost or RIV where the only "restriction" happens if you sell (and isn't really your problem). Or they sell to people like us who want home resorts in more than 1 location. heh.

Not gonna lie, if we didn't already have VGF, Poly 2 would have been really appealing. We held back because we realized we don't want to be in studios all the time.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I think it is more of a reason why they tried to sell out VGF fast (and not RIV): VGF would otherwise have been the third resort at MK on offer at the same time. This was the reason for the VGF incentives last summer. They seem to be fine with Aulani and Riviera being on offer for a long time but I don't think they they try to have an Epcot resort available - otherwise they'd start work on the next one (or an extensions to RIV - poor old CBR).

Oh I see. Yeah, I can see this as part of the larger reasoning. Also, if I were to place money on anything I’d say their next Epcot resort will be at the Yacht Club. It’ll likely just be a CCV/AKJ type thing where DVC is simply embedded into the current structure rather than a new build. Does anyone know when the Yacht Club is meant to get a refurbishment? That could be a clue Anyway YC would be an instant and easy win for them.

I think Riviera is still too controversial and is taking much longer than I’m sure they originally hoped so why add even more inventory (even if they’re finding some benefit now to let the process linger). Maybe you’re right, maybe they’re trying to bridge the gap between this Epcot resort and announcing the next. D23 guesses anyone?

 

[Sandisw]

So ... (trying to understand) ... then they end up in the trust with CFW and so they're semi-restricted to resale buyers of CFW and Poly2? That would make "resale restrictions" a lot more palatable because even if you don't have booking ability everywhere, you have at least 2 resorts that are wildly different in theming if you ever want a change of pace. Huh.

I do think that DVD is moving away from a single profile of who's a DVC owner and maybe that is why they are fine with many resorts being on sale at once. And no hurry on RIV because if you want to be close to EP and HS your options are BCV/BWV with 1/2 the lifespan at 3/4 the cost or RIV where the only "restriction" happens if you sell (and isn't really your problem). Or they sell to people like us who want home resorts in more than 1 location. heh.

Not gonna lie, if we didn't already have VGF, Poly 2 would have been really appealing. We held back because we realized we don't want to be in studios all the time.

Speculation here. But if they did do something like this, the trust is set up in such a way that they can have different resort use plans.

That means, they could structure is so you still buy a plan that includes rooms at a specific property and that is your home resort.

They do not have to lump them together. So, it could be that Poly tower rooms are part of their own plan and when those interests are sold, resale gets access to only the tower

Basically, this new trust can be set up no different than the current set up in terms of booking but just not as something sold as a leasehold condo with an actual ownership in property.

So, they do not need to give those who buy into the Cabins resort use plan home resort access to any other property that is declared as trust property.

The way it written is that you an interest in a specific trust use plan, not all of them. Now, the only one that exists today is the Csbins one, but it is structured in such a way that they can have multiple plans included.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

This is why I'll only believe unrestricted Poly2 once I see it in writing. I think Poly2 would be much less slowed down by restrictions than CFW will be.

Yes, completely agree. I own resale PVB but I still find that unless they just want to be very nice to members, especially PVB owners, it doesn’t make much sense to make CFW restricted but the Polynesian, the beloved and ultra popular Polynesian in the most prime spot in all WDW(maybe my biased opinion lol) not be restricted. I’m having a hard time doing the DVC math there. Maybe they’d lose a handful of existing members? But IMO it would still be a huge success for them, either way, much more so than RIV.

I am back to the Wild thought. It gets added to the boundaries of PVB but the units never get declared into the condo association?

DVD just puts them directly into the trust and only sells them that way? No different than the entire building at RIV and VDH being part of the resort but only units declared into the condo get used by owners.

What does adding the tower to the boundaries of PVB but not declaring into the condo association mean effectively? Is it just shared amenities and dues at that point?

Nothing prevents them from ever having to sell those undeclared units on the traditional way so not sure why it can’t apply to Poly tower in the same way.

If they do a half and half situation, they could sell the trust contract to those who have no idea/new members who never ask differently and make the whole thing more appealing by saying it could give buyers earlier access to the other trust products. They don’t even need to explain the difference or mention that there is technically 2 different contracts so it won’t be too convoluted of a sales pitch.

And for those who might prefer a deeded interest like current, they can sell that way, as well, and attempt to “downplay” it as you will only have access to that one home resort, etc. But we’d now have a choice. I don’t think they would have to change anything about who gets home resort priority at PVBT, both trust and deeded would get that same access but trust purchasers would get potential access to other trust products at a certain period later.

That would make "resale restrictions" a lot more palatable because even if you don't have booking ability everywhere, you have at least 2 resorts that are wildly different in theming if you ever want a change of pace.

I think that’s one of the things that we’ve been debating is what the resale of the trust product can look like. If this whole thing is being setup to try to deter the resale market (or partly so) then I would think they will restrict resale access to just the original trust product you purchase into. So direct trust would have access to all trust and resale trust would only work at CFW, for example. I agree, if it goes the way you’re looking at it, resale would be much more appealing but seems a bit counterintuitive to adding one type of harsh restrictions to RIV and VDH but another type of softer restrictions to the trust. For simply sake alone, I think they’ll keep restrictions the same as it is currently.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, completely agree. I own resale PVB but I still find that unless they just want to be very nice to members, especially PVB owners, it doesn’t make much sense to make CFW restricted but the Polynesian, the beloved and ultra popular Polynesian in the most prime spot in all WDW(maybe my biased opinion lol) not be restricted. I’m having a hard time doing the DVC math there. Maybe they’d lose a handful of existing members? But IMO it would still be a huge success for them, either way, much more so than RIV.


What does adding the tower to the boundaries of PVB but not declaring into the condo association mean effectively? Is it just shared amenities and dues at that point?


If they do a half and half situation, they could sell the trust contract to those who have no idea/new members who never ask differently and make the whole thing more appealing by saying it could give buyers earlier access to the other trust products. They don’t even need to explain the difference or mention that there is technically 2 different contracts so it won’t be too convoluted of a sales pitch.

And for those who might prefer a deeded interest like current, they can sell that way, as well, and attempt to “downplay” it as you will only have access to that one home resort, etc. But we’d now have a choice. I don’t think they would have to change anything about who gets home resort priority at PVBT, both trust and deeded would get that same access but trust purchasers would get potential access to other trust products at a certain period later.


I think that’s one of the things that we’ve been debating is what the resale of the trust product can look like. If this whole thing is being setup to try to deter the resale market (or partly so) then I would think they will restrict resale access to just the original trust product you purchase into. So direct trust would have access to all trust and resale trust would only work at CFW, for example. I agree, if it goes the way you’re looking at it, resale would be much more appealing but seems a bit counterintuitive to adding one type of harsh restrictions to RIV and VDH but another type of softer restrictions to the trust. For simplify sake alone, I think they’ll keep restrictions the same as it is currently.

From my understanding, the property would simple become part of the PVB.

But, just like undeclared inventory now, it’s still owned by DVD until they declare it into the condo association for use and sale.

It is that declaration into the condo association under the current vacation plan that gives owners the access.

Just like undeclared, DVd pays for the expensives of it. Owners wouldn’t at that point, just line VDH owners aren’t paying for the expenses related to units not yet declared.

In practice, it could mean PVB owners don’t get acces any sooner than any other owners.

Basically, they make it that so that all the terms if being at the resort are applicable…but DVd continues its own ownership of it, adds ut to the trust and sells access via a trust use plan.

If that were to happen, they can add restrictions and any other rules they want.

It seems a crazy way to do it…but because we now have the trust product in play…you have to wonder?

What I definitely do not see is them selling them both ways…it will either be sold like the good old days or part of the trust,
Irrespective of its connection to PVB.

One thing I do think we will get insight on a bit is the purpose of the trust once this is declared. If there is no connection to the trust, it could very well mean it’s only because of the cabins, or it’s not for the short term but long term..ie: 2042 properties

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

From my understanding, the property would simple become part of the PVB.

But, just like undeclared inventory now, it’s still owned by DVD until they declare it into the condo association for use and sale.

It is that declaration into the condo association under the current vacation plan that gives owners the access.

Just like undeclared, DVd pays for the expensives of it. Owners wouldn’t at that point, just line VDH owners aren’t paying for the expenses related to units not yet declared.

In practice, it could mean PVB owners don’t get acces any sooner than any other owners.

Basically, they make it that so that all the terms if being at the resort are applicable…but DVd continues its own ownership of it, adds ut to the trust and sells access via a trust use plan.

If that were to happen, they can add restrictions and any other rules they want.

It seems a crazy way to do it…but because we now have the trust product in play…you have to wonder?

What I definitely do not see is them selling them both ways…it will either be sold like the good old days or part of the trust,
Irrespective of its connection to PVB.

One thing I do think we will get insight on a bit is the purpose of the trust once this is declared. If there is no connection to the trust, it could very well mean it’s only because of the cabins, or it’s not for the short term but long term..ie: 2042 properties

Yeah I guess it was too much to hope that they find a way to sell both ways. Thank you for further clarifying. Hopefully we’ll get a little bit information more after tomorrow.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah I guess it was too much to hope that they find a way to sell both ways. Thank you for further clarifying. Hopefully we’ll get a little bit information more after tomorrow.

That is what I am hoping. But at the very least we should get reports of how iCFW is being presented for sale!

 

[tidefan]

What does adding the tower to the boundaries of PVB but not declaring into the condo association mean effectively? Is it just shared amenities and dues at that point?

As an existing PVB1 owner (direct, BTW), this is what worries me the most, not that we wouldn't have 11 month access to the tower, rather that the exclusion would happen, but that DVD would saddle PVB1 owners with additional dues to support the tower.

I would want no part of that and I suspect you would have a bit of an uprising of PVB1 owners...

 

[Sandisw]

As an existing PVB1 owner (direct, BTW), this is what worries me the most, not that we wouldn't have 11 month access to the tower, rather that the exclusion would happen, but that DVD would saddle PVB1 owners with additional dues to support the tower.

I would want no part of that and I suspect you would have a bit of an uprising of PVB1 owners...

The only fees they can charge you for operation of the resort are units that have been declared as part of the condo association.

Just like now, when the annual dues budget is created, it’s based on how many rooms/units are declared.

If you look at the RIv budget today, you won’t see all 341 rooms. You will only see the actual ones that have been declared for sale and use.

So, if they add Poly tower to PVB, the property, bit don’t add the rooms to the condo association, then the cost to operate and maintain those rooms remain with DVD.

The only aspects you would pay, which wouldn’t change no matter what is the shared expenses which are calculated in several ways, occupancy being one of them.

So, PVB owners will have to pay a share of the amenities like the pool, etc but so will the hotel division, assuming that it is open to all.

How they sell the tower rooms wouldn’t change that…meaning the amount charged to PVB owners and DVD would be based on what is or is not part of the condo

 

[kboo]

I think that’s one of the things that we’ve been debating is what the resale of the trust product can look like. If this whole thing is being setup to try to deter the resale market (or partly so) then I would think they will restrict resale access to just the original trust product you purchase into. So direct trust would have access to all trust and resale trust would only work at CFW, for example. I agree, if it goes the way you’re looking at it, resale would be much more appealing but seems a bit counterintuitive to adding one type of harsh restrictions to RIV and VDH but another type of softer restrictions to the trust. For simply sake alone, I think they’ll keep restrictions the same as it is currently.

Interesting discussion above - never focused on it because I cannot, will not, buy more points...

But: agree that "deter" resale is the right word. DVD has an interest in the resale contracts still being sold at real $$. This keeps them from being saddled with dues from foreclosures and helps them sell direct contracts at the prices they charge. My parents own(ed) timeshares through RCI and I don't know what else, back in the 80s. You couldn't unload them for the maintenance fees. That wouldn't benefit any of us.

 

[Sandisw]

Interesting discussion above - never focused on it because I cannot, will not, buy more points...

But: agree that "deter" resale is the right word. DVD has an interest in the resale contracts still being sold at real $$. This keeps them from being saddled with dues from foreclosures and helps them sell direct contracts at the prices they charge. My parents own(ed) timeshares through RCI and I don't know what else, back in the 80s. You couldn't unload them for the maintenance fees. That wouldn't benefit any of us.

I honestly do not think that DVD does anything to keep resale up. I think their goal is direct and their own needs and use ROFR when it benefits them.

I think the higher resale value has just been a bonus. If they were really that concerned they would have not started in 2012 making the resale product different than direct.

 

[kboo]

I think the higher resale value has just been a bonus. If they were really that concerned they would have not started in 2012 making the resale product different than direct.

Whether intentional or not, though, I think they succeeded in differentiating direct and resale enough that there can be a case made for direct. In part that is because the delta between direct/resale can - with incentives - be really close, like VGF last summer. VGF resale contracts probably moved a little slower then, but the prices didn't go down to -0- or even close to it. When a new resort goes on sale, the price after incentives is just a little bit higher than some of the higher-priced resale contracts, so that will sway higher-end resale buyers to think about direct. It's not done intentionally to keep resale prices high, but it IS done intentionally, and has the effect of keeping resale prices lower than direct but not super super low. If we end up in another big recession, we could see resale prices drop more, but ROFR has been mostly silent for how many years now? And resale prices are still solid. Not has high as they were in 2019 or so, but still not bad.

 

[Cfabar1]

Staying at Disney is incredibly expensive. A night at a deluxe hotel for a normal room can easily be $800 or some similarly absurd amount....

That reality is what will always provide a floor the DVC resale prices. Many other timeshares are in a niche location few people care about or in a place that has so many options.

Also, the dues, to their credit, have remained, relatively, affordable in most locations.

With these two realities, we are unlikely to see restricted resale locations $40/pp or something like that for a while given their far out expirations....

 

[Sandisw]

Whether intentional or not, though, I think they succeeded in differentiating direct and resale enough that there can be a case made for direct. In part that is because the delta between direct/resale can - with incentives - be really close, like VGF last summer. VGF resale contracts probably moved a little slower then, but the prices didn't go down to -0- or even close to it. When a new resort goes on sale, the price after incentives is just a little bit higher than some of the higher-priced resale contracts, so that will sway higher-end resale buyers to think about direct. It's not done intentionally to keep resale prices high, but it IS done intentionally, and has the effect of keeping resale prices lower than direct but not super super low. If we end up in another big recession, we could see resale prices drop more, but ROFR has been mostly silent for how many years now? And resale prices are still solid. Not has high as they were in 2019 or so, but still not bad.

It was in full force in 2022 which raised things quite a bit. It’s only been absent a year and some resorts have gone down quite a bit.

SSR was being taken in the $120/s in 2022 and now many getting it in the low 90s.

BLT was holding steady in the $150s and now you can get it in the high $120s to $130s.

So, things have definitely moved in the wrong direction in the past year…but I do see them beginning to stabilize.

As long as WDW exists, there will be a resale market for it and it will hold up better than most timeshares.

But, DVD I don’t think the reason behind ROfR is to keep the prices higher.

 

[WDWFERN]

I am eagerly awaiting the sale of CFW tomorrow. While probably low likelihood, one of the only things that makes sense to me (admittedly not at all a business background so I’m probably way off base) is that DVD has known they are going to be selling CFW as a trust deed. I can’t help but wonder if they haven’t been planning to declare the last part of RIV and possibly some of AUL/VDL and eventually PVB into the trust as well.

It just doesn’t make sense to me that they would have a fire sale of VGF this summer, but once it sold out, only offer underwhelming incentives on RIV and AUL. I just can’t rectify wanting to be aggressive with one property, but then not focusing on the sales of RIV and AUL even if the cash bookings do well there.

Given its somewhat more remote location, lack of existing on site amenities/restaurants, and limited room types without washer/dryer, I feel like CFW has a relatively more limited sales appeal. I can’t help but wonder if they didn’t offer larger incentives the last few months at RIV and AUL, recognizing that they wanted to reserve a portion of those properties so they could be offered with CFW to provide a wider variety of options to purchasers.

Really hoping we learn more tomorrow, or at least in the next few months. We really want to add on, but I am hesitant to do so until I have a clearer picture of the options and direction they are heading, so I can make the most informed decision.

 

[kboo]

It was in full force in 2022 which raised things quite a bit. It’s only been absent a year and some resorts have gone done quite a bit.

You're right. I had totally forgotten about that. Sorry!