DVC resale changes coming!?!

[Sammie]

The difference is that currently you can book at any resort, so even if a resale owner's resort is booked up, they can book elsewhere.

Ok, I thought you were talking about how it would affect direct buyers. Yes at 7 months, if a resale owner waits and does not book prior to that, they could find nothing available at their home resorts, certainly for specific time periods.

 

[DougEMG]

This is an interesting idea & if it comes to pass, it wouldn't drive me to buy direct... it would drive me to not buy at all. I think with these restrictions, we'll find that rental points will become cheaper as more & more points will come on the market with rental restrictions for use at one resort only. Renting these restricted points will become much more affordable.

That could indeed happen and make it even harder for Disney to rent out rooms at their rack rates.

With any change you always need to look at what the unintended consequences are. Sometimes they are worst than the original problem.

So what is the problem that Disney wants to solve?
(1) Hitting their direct sales targets?
(2) Rentals taking away from their rack rate bookings?

 

[JimMIA]

Two thoughts:

1: Based on what I've read here and elsewhere, my understanding is that "Club" is a property of the home resort, not the specific deed.

I'm not a lawyer -- not even a "jailhouse lawyer" -- but I agree with Brian on this. The language I've always heard is something like "...as long as the resort is a member of the Club, owners will be able to use points at all Club resorts."

And, not for nothin', creating a "new club" would hurt members of the new club more than it would hurt members of the old club. If members can't use their points at X resort, then obviously owners of X resort - being a member of a different club -- can't use their points at the ten resorts currently in DVC #1. So they could possibly create a new "club" for VGF and Poly, but those owners would not be able to use their points anywhere else.

Who would buy that? Nobody in their right mind.

The other thought I'd offer here is that IF DVC did impose "resale = home resort only" restrictions, CAN YOU IMAGINE how devalued a direct purchase would become at the instant of closing???

A direct purchaser would be buying something that had virtually no value on resale.

Frankly, a purchase in that context would be a "natural selection" fail...one of those "There's a sucker born every minute" kinds of things.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

That could indeed happen and make it even harder for Disney to rent out rooms at their rack rates.

With any change you always need to look at what the unintended consequences are. Sometimes they are worst than the original problem.

So what is the problem that Disney wants to solve?
(1) Hitting their direct sales targets?
(2) Rentals taking away from their rack rate bookings?

Could be both and more.

 

[z28wiz]

I'm not a lawyer -- not even a "jailhouse lawyer" -- but I agree with Brian on this. The language I've always heard is something like "...as long as the resort is a member of the Club, owners will be able to use points at all Club resorts."

And, not for nothin', creating a "new club" would hurt members of the new club more than it would hurt members of the old club. If members can't use their points at X resort, then obviously owners of X resort - being a member of a different club -- can't use their points at the ten resorts currently in DVC #1. So they could possibly create a new "club" for VGF and Poly, but those owners would not be able to use their points anywhere else.

Who would buy that? Nobody in their right mind.

The other thought I'd offer here is that IF DVC did impose "resale = home resort only" restrictions, CAN YOU IMAGINE how devalued a direct purchase would become at the instant of closing???

A direct purchaser would be buying something that had virtually no value on resale.

Frankly, a purchase in that context would be a "natural selection" fail...one of those "There's a sucker born every minute" kinds of things.

Or they can give the new club the ability to book the old club. But not the other way around unless its a direct purchase.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'm not a lawyer -- not even a "jailhouse lawyer" -- but I agree with Brian on this. The language I've always heard is something like "...as long as the resort is a member of the Club, owners will be able to use points at all Club resorts."

And, not for nothin', creating a "new club" would hurt members of the new club more than it would hurt members of the old club. If members can't use their points at X resort, then obviously owners of X resort - being a member of a different club -- can't use their points at the ten resorts currently in DVC #1. So they could possibly create a new "club" for VGF and Poly, but those owners would not be able to use their points anywhere else.

Who would buy that? Nobody in their right mind.

The other thought I'd offer here is that IF DVC did impose "resale = home resort only" restrictions, CAN YOU IMAGINE how devalued a direct purchase would become at the instant of closing???

A direct purchaser would be buying something that had virtually no value on resale.

Frankly, a purchase in that context would be a "natural selection" fail...one of those "There's a sucker born every minute" kinds of things.

Does DVC really Care about the resale markets value? No. Aren't other TS similar in that you pay top dollar direct but then find them cheap as resales on eBay? DVC might just be gravitating to that philosophy.

 

[CaptDadSparrow]

The other thought I'd offer here is that IF DVC did impose "resale = home resort only" restrictions, CAN YOU IMAGINE how devalued a direct purchase would become at the instant of closing???

A direct purchaser would be buying something that had virtually no value on resale.

Frankly, a purchase in that context would be a "natural selection" fail...one of those "There's a sucker born every minute" kinds of things.

Excellent point which should ease concerns of resellers and direct buyers.

One alternative is to grandfather current contract owners the move forward with two tieres of dvc memberships like their base park tickets and their more expensive park hoppers

 

[Sammie]

Ok just for sake of discussion, why would DVC care about the value of a resale, what is in it that for them.

Personally I know many will disagree, we see our DVC similar to renting a luxury car or membership in the local Country Club. I know when I end the lease I am not going to get anything out of it except the use of it when I had it and honestly I don't care.

I can walk away from my points right now, sell them for a $1 on ebay or let Disney take them back and it would be fine with me. When I bought I never expected to make any money on my purchase, just wanted to save some money over paying rack rate for two bedroom villas, and we have done that.

 

[CaptDadSparrow]

Ok just for sake of discussion, why would DVC care about the value of a resale, what is in it that for them.

Personally I know many will disagree, we see our DVC similar to renting a luxury car. I know when I end the lease I am not going to get anything out of it except the use of it when I had it and honestly I don't care.

I can walk away from my points right now, sell them for a $1 on ebay or let Disney take them back and it would be fine with me.

Because the resale value is a huge objection reps deal with. They need to be able to ease new buyers concerns by saying to them, "n case of hardship they can always sell or rent to prevent foreclosure. No further damage to people's credit .

Though I agree with your luxury car lease analogy. We are essentially doing as the timeshare rep said, locking in today's rates on trips from future price increases.

 

[KingRichard]

Ok just for sake of discussion, why would DVC care about the value of a resale, what is in it that for them.

Personally I know many will disagree, we see our DVC similar to renting a luxury car. I know when I end the lease I am not going to get anything out of it except the use of it when I had it and honestly I don't care.

I can walk away from my points right now, sell them for a $1 on ebay or let Disney take them back and it would be fine with me.

I will be happy to take them off your hands and pay closing and 2013 fees. lol

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Because the resale value is a huge objection reps deal with. They need to be able to ease new buyers concerns by saying to them, "n case of hardship they can always sell or rent to prevent foreclosure. No further damage to people's credit .

Though I agree with your luxury car lease analogy. We are essentially doing as the timeshare rep said, locking in today's rates on trips from future price increases.

That model is changing. As the ppt continues to increase especially new resorts, the break even point is increasing. At what point does the break even point become too long?

 

[Sammie]

Not true. Everyone has a preference and it's rarely the same. More importantly there are enough Disney vacationers with enough varried interest to retain value.

This I totally agree with, the preferences for particular resorts of DISers is not reflective of the total buying market.

We would gladly stay at any of the DVC resorts and not have a problem with that at all. As long as we are on Disney property we are happy.

 

[disneynutz]

I'm not a lawyer -- not even a "jailhouse lawyer" -- but I agree with Brian on this. The language I've always heard is something like "...as long as the resort is a member of the Club, owners will be able to use points at all Club resorts."

And, not for nothin', creating a "new club" would hurt members of the new club more than it would hurt members of the old club. If members can't use their points at X resort, then obviously owners of X resort - being a member of a different club -- can't use their points at the ten resorts currently in DVC #1. So they could possibly create a new "club" for VGF and Poly, but those owners would not be able to use their points anywhere else.

Who would buy that? Nobody in their right mind.

The other thought I'd offer here is that IF DVC did impose "resale = home resort only" restrictions, CAN YOU IMAGINE how devalued a direct purchase would become at the instant of closing???

A direct purchaser would be buying something that had virtually no value on resale.

Frankly, a purchase in that context would be a "natural selection" fail...one of those "There's a sucker born every minute" kinds of things.

Our rights are spelled out in the HOME RESORT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

"The following rules and regulations have been designed to provide Club Members with information on the use and operation of the Home Resort Reservation Component at each DVC Resort. This Guide will be amended from time to time, as necessary."

The last paragraph reads:

"DVC Operator reserves the right to amend these Rules and Regulations, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange and rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Member Services publications. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these Rules and Regulations."

Bottom line is that Disney can do what ever they want, when they want.

Bill

 

[JimMIA]

Or they can give the new club the ability to book the old club. But not the other way around unless its a direct purchase.

I don't think they could do that, because booking at the "old club" resorts is determined by the POS' of those resorts -- not by some new entity which is created.

In addition, booking at non-home resorts is actually an exchange within the DVC system. Because there has to be a one-for-one exchange, each non-home booking depends on the ability of owners of that home resort to book at other resorts. Otherwise, DVC would be selling points that do not exist...which would be illegal in the criminal meaning of the word.

There are some cute things DVC could do -- like giving certain purchasers a leg up on non-home resort bookings. For example, if you buy X resort direct, you can book non-home at 8 months instead of 7 months. Or, if you own 1,000 points purchased direct, you can book non-home at 8 months.

 

[Sammie]

I will be happy to take them off your hands and pay closing and 2013 fees. lol

Not ready to turn in the keys of the luxury car or membership to the country club yet, but making a profit or even making my initial purchase cost was never in our plan.

 

[bwang123]

Because the resale value is a huge objection reps deal with. They need to be able to ease new buyers concerns by saying to them, "n case of hardship they can always sell or rent to prevent foreclosure. No further damage to people's credit .

Though I agree with your luxury car lease analogy. We are essentially doing as the timeshare rep said, locking in today's rates on trips from future price increases.

incorrect. the disney reps do not mention resale at all as an out and also make sure you know they dont report it on your credit.

 

[Sammie]

Our rights are spelled out in the HOME RESORT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

"The following rules and regulations have been designed to provide Club Members with information on the use and operation of the Home Resort Reservation Component at each DVC Resort. This Guide will be amended from time to time, as necessary."

The last paragraph reads:

"DVC Operator reserves the right to amend these Rules and Regulations, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange and rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Member Services publications. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these Rules and Regulations."

Bottom line is that Disney can do what ever they want, when they want.

Bill

Yep and if we had all read the POS we all agreed to that also.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...There are some cute things DVC could do -- like giving certain purchasers a leg up on non-home resort bookings. For example, if you buy X resort direct, you can book non-home at 8 months instead of 7 months. Or, if you own 1,000 points purchased direct, you can book non-home at 8 months.

That's what I was thinking. They could change the non-home resort booking time frame to less than the direct purchase non-home resort booking time frame. Your purchase is direct, you can book non-home at 7 months out. Your purchase is resale, you can book non-home at 5 months out.

 

[bighoo93]

Yep and if we had all read the POS we all agreed to that also.

Of course we did. So if Disney decided that the new rules were that your points expired last week, you'd be cool with that? Because, hey, we agreed that they have the right to change the rules anytime. ;-) Of course not, I'm only joking.

Most people would probably be pretty steamed. Just like most people would care if their $10,000 asset were turned into $1 overnight by a rule change. The point is that the question of what Disney can do legally is not the same as what they should do. And they know this. They are a very customer-oriented brand. They may not be legally bound, but peeing on their most devoted customers isn't necessarily in their best interest long term.

 

[bighoo93]

That's what I was thinking. They could change the non-home resort booking time frame to less than the direct purchase non-home resort booking time frame. Your purchase is direct, you can book non-home at 7 months out. Your purchase is resale, you can book non-home at 5 months out.

Except again, it looks a lot better to add something of value to direct purchase customers (like giving them an extra month booking window) than to take something away from resale customers ( like drop their window to 5 months, making the entire trip harder to plan). Even if it has the same effect, it is a worse way to do it.