Does the $500 fee change the pattern of resale?

[airjay75]

I assume prices for small contracts will adjust a bit, the small contract premium will disappear and then everything will continue as before for the most part.

I’ll honestly be surprised if the small contract premium disappears. An extra $5-$10 per point on 50 points is $250-$500. If all you want to spend is less than $10k and 50 points is all you need, it will be very easy to talk yourself into it.

 

[BayTower2010]

This reminds me when Auto Dealerships started to charge a Doc Prep fee, a non sense fee for someone to feed a standard contract into a printer, feed the sales info into a computer hooked up to the printer and pressing send. For those young enough to remember at first there was a big uproar, threats of law suites, etc. Now, years later, it is just common practice. My guess is this is the way the entire industry will adopt, big noise now but in the end to no avail.

 

[maui22]

I’ll honestly be surprised if the small contract premium disappears. An extra $5-$10 per point on 50 points is $250-$500. If all you want to spend is less than $10k and 50 points is all you need, it will be very easy to talk yourself into it.

Agree. I believe the majority of people have some budget in mind when purchasing. Thats what they can afford.

Many opt for financing. I wonder how many decide they can afford $300, $400, etc each month with financing? So they purchase based on that specific monthly payment.

Doesn’t Monera Financial charge 14.9%-17.9%? Additional $5k or more for 50 more points is going to be expensive for those who can’t pay off any financed purchase quickly.

 

[disneylandtour]

They didn’t explicitly say it, but that’s the assumption based on a few observations:

1.) ROFR decisions have accelerated drastically since right before this announcement. To the point some people heard decisions with a few days or the same day. Now that could be because of Christmas, but I think the acceleration has been faster than even in past Christmases.

I believe DVD simply needs to close out all resale purchases quickly so that they can cleanly delineate between the 2025 purchases (no fee) and the 2026 purchases (with fee). I fully expect this to be nothing more than a way to manage book keeping. If ROFR is a couple of days next December, I'll be surprised. But who knows?

 

[disneylandtour]

This reminds me when Auto Dealerships started to charge a Doc Prep fee, a non sense fee for someone to feed a standard contract into a printer, feed the sales info into a computer hooked up to the printer and pressing send. For those young enough to remember at first there was a big uproar, threats of law suites, etc.

This would be one of many reasons why every car, except one, here is a used car, not bought on a dealership lot.

 

[BruinEd03]

I believe DVD simply needs to close out all resale purchases quickly so that they can cleanly delineate between the 2025 purchases (no fee) and the 2026 purchases (with fee). I fully expect this to be nothing more than a way to manage book keeping. If ROFR is a couple of days next December, I'll be surprised. But who knows?

They don’t need to cleanly delineate it - they’ve already indicated that if theres’s a contract dated in 2025, there’s no fee. If it’s dated in 2026, then there’s a fee. Could people try to backdate it? Sure. They will probably be lenient on it, but at some point it will stretch credibility like submitting a contract dated Dec. 31 on Jan. 20.

 

[disneylandtour]

They don’t need to cleanly delineate it - they’ve already indicated that if theres’s a contract dated in 2025, there’s no fee. If it’s dated in 2026, then there’s a fee. Could people try to backdate it? Sure. They will probably be lenient on it, but at some point it will stretch credibility like submitting a contract dated Dec. 31 on Jan. 20.

I believe you've just explained one reason as to why they're trying to cleanly separate the two.

 

[Sandisw]

They don’t need to cleanly delineate it - they’ve already indicated that if theres’s a contract dated in 2025, there’s no fee. If it’s dated in 2026, then there’s a fee. Could people try to backdate it? Sure. They will probably be lenient on it, but at some point it will stretch credibility like submitting a contract dated Dec. 31 on Jan. 20.

I know that some of the brokers have taken the stance that it needs to be signed and submitted to RoFR by end of year.

I do not expect them to make exceptions and I don’t expect any broker to allow contracts to be signed with dates that are not true.

 

[BruinEd03]

I know that some of the brokers have taken the stance that it needs to be signed and submitted to RoFR by end of year.

I do not expect them to make exceptions and I don’t expect any broker to allow contracts to be signed with dates that are not true.

I don't think it's black and white -

• The fee is based on the date the contract is signed, not the date an offer is accepted.
• Contracts signed on or after January 1, 2026 will incur the $500 fee.
• Contracts signed on or before December 31, 2025 will not.

https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blo...esale-fee-begins-january-1-2026-what-to-know/

Obviously this is just paraphrasing from the source. However, contracts signed on or before December 31, does not necessarily mean it will be submitted on December 31. Also, someone could claim they signed in on December 31, and send it to the broker on Jan. 1, 2, or 3. Also, even if the broker receives in on December 31, can they even submit it to DVC after hours? Also, what hour does DVC use?

One way they could get around that is to use a digital signing service, but then the question is what time stamp does it use? Eastern? Pacific? Whatever the local time is?

 

[muppets3d]

I don't think it's black and white -

• The fee is based on the date the contract is signed, not the date an offer is accepted.
• Contracts signed on or after January 1, 2026 will incur the $500 fee.
• Contracts signed on or before December 31, 2025 will not.

https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blo...esale-fee-begins-january-1-2026-what-to-know/

Obviously this is just paraphrasing from the source. However, contracts signed on or before December 31, does not necessarily mean it will be submitted on December 31. Also, someone could claim they signed in on December 31, and send it to the broker on Jan. 1, 2, or 3. Also, even if the broker receives in on December 31, can they even submit it to DVC after hours? Also, what hour does DVC use?

One way they could get around that is to use a digital signing service, but then the question is what time stamp does it use? Eastern? Pacific? Whatever the local time is?

I am not sure that a broker would be willing to harm their reputation with Disney/DVC (as tenuous as it may already be) over a $500 fee so I wouldn't expect any shenanigans here.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think it's black and white -

• The fee is based on the date the contract is signed, not the date an offer is accepted.
• Contracts signed on or after January 1, 2026 will incur the $500 fee.
• Contracts signed on or before December 31, 2025 will not.

https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blo...esale-fee-begins-january-1-2026-what-to-know/

Obviously this is just paraphrasing from the source. However, contracts signed on or before December 31, does not necessarily mean it will be submitted on December 31. Also, someone could claim they signed in on December 31, and send it to the broker on Jan. 1, 2, or 3. Also, even if the broker receives in on December 31, can they even submit it to DVC after hours? Also, what hour does DVC use?

One way they could get around that is to use a digital signing service, but then the question is what time stamp does it use? Eastern? Pacific? Whatever the local time is?

I know when they did the podcast, they mentioned the ROFR piece and the holidays.

So, my sense was that they would not allow contracts to cut it that close…meaning, they’d want to be able to submit by the 31st.

 

[BruinEd03]

I am not sure that a broker would be willing to harm their reputation with Disney/DVC (as tenuous as it may already be) over a $500 fee so I wouldn't expect any shenanigans here.

The scenarios I mentioned aren't shenanigans. Those are actual issues that arise. That's why contest rules or submission limitations usually specifically limit what has to happen at what specific time. Disney hasn't published those limitations, leaving it open to interpretation.

 

[gvel]

They didn’t explicitly say it, but that’s the assumption based on a few observations:

1.) ROFR decisions have accelerated drastically since right before this announcement. To the point some people heard decisions with a few days or the same day. Now that could be because of Christmas, but I think the acceleration has been faster than even in past Christmases.

2.) Prior to this announcement this service was a cost and did not have a supporting revenue source. E.g., the cost was being pushed onto the new sales side. If there was more resale contracts - there was no specific mechanism to justify hiring more staff. More resale volume was not tied to more new sales volume. Now the cost is tied to a specific revenue source - the specific fee that’s tied to resale volume. Thus, it’s much easier to hire more staff based on the revenue from the resale volume. As there are more sales, and more revenue, they can hire staff to keep up with the expanded volume.

I hope you're right, but I doubt it. I believe this is what Disney wants us to believe and ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt. This is exactly what they are hoping for. For the community to justify the expense for the "promise" of better services. There is no guarantee this will be the case. Also, I'm not very optimistic giving Disney's long history of removing "perks" and/or now charging for them while not necessarily providing a better experience (i.e. fast passes, magical express, dining plan changes, package delivery for rooms, new ridiculous shipping fees for park purchases based on price, early entry in DL, etc.).

 

[Patmcpsu]

When buying 150 points direct, the savvy move used to be buying it as two 75 point contracts, and I think that strategy instantly fell part. 150 point contracts will be the standard bearer until Disney raises the blue card minimum beyond 150. If they go crazy and raise the minimum to 200, you would probably see people splitting the purchase into two 100 pointers.

 

[muppets3d]

When buying 150 points direct, the savvy move used to be buying it as two 75 point contracts, and I think that strategy instantly fell part. 150 point contracts will be the standard bearer until Disney raises the blue card minimum beyond 150. If they go crazy and raise the minimum to 200, you would probably see people splitting the purchase into two 100 pointers.

I think in a short period of time this $500 fee will just be accepted as part of buying, like the doc fee a car dealership charges or resort fees in Vegas. It will be accounted for in the price but it will not cause small contracts to be undesirable. I do think that it will erase some of the price premium that small contracts go for though.

 

[airjay75]

My first direct purchase was 2 150-pt contracts, primarily to make it easy to pass on to both my kids should I ever want to and have those contracts continue to eligible for direct benefits. My second direct purchase, I broke up into 2 100-pt and 2 50-pt contracts. No regrets. I originally wanted to do 6 50-pt contracts for that second purchase. Maybe this $500 fee makes me feel a little bit better than I wasn't able to do that, but smaller contracts will still be easier to sell. Maybe they'll continue to fetch a premium, maybe they won't. They'll still be easier to sell, especially at restricted resorts.