DVC Survey

[boiseflyfisher]

Curious if you just noticed it this morning or if it actually was sent this morning. If sent this morning this gives me hope more of us will get one.

I got mine this morning, so it must be round two.

 

[boiseflyfisher]

Curious if you just noticed it this morning or if it actually was sent this morning. If sent this morning this gives me hope more of us will get one.

I got mine this morning, so it must be round two.

 

[Cfabar1]

One transfer in and out would def provide more flexibility and still be a restriction, I think thats a good compromise, its too harsh right now imo

Especially for members juggling multiple UY...

I travel typically in the following months for longer trips:

November
December
March
May
June
July

I'd be open to a 2nd UY... but 1 transfer per year makes it very tricky!

DEC UY works very well for me overall, other than those November trips... I don't want to book a week at HHI and have to cancel and be out a week worth of points!

But, I'd like to not have to manage that November trip exclusively with a different contract....

So I have only 1 UY, and deal with the consequences....

 

[Cfabar1]

If anyone has screenshots, would be terrific to see the full survey...

 

[Girlstar30]

Especially for members juggling multiple UY...

I travel typically in the following months for longer trips:

November
December
March
May
June
July

I'd be open to a 2nd UY... but 1 transfer per year makes it very tricky!

DEC UY works very well for me overall, other than those November trips... I don't want to book a week at HHI and have to cancel and be out a week worth of points!

But, I'd like to not have to manage that November trip exclusively with a different contract....

So I have only 1 UY, and deal with the consequences....

The only advantage i see for the multiple memberships for me are the waitlists. I wouldn't be able to have 6 of them with one uy.

Now we will see how effective that works as ive never had 6 at a time

The one transfer and three memberships makes it near impossible for you not to have to buy otup or beg them to let you transfer again, especially if you're on borrowed points like me and cant bank. Ive had to do both to make this work.

 

[DMPicone]

Looking over this survey it seems like it could only apply to the purchase of new points at new resorts within the new trust model. I think we will hear more about this when Lakeside opens since it will likely be the first time two resorts are in the trust. Since your contract doesn't attach you to a room anymore, I wonder if it really even attaches you to a resort. Perhaps they are going to give trust members access to all trust resorts with priority access based on trust points owned. I'm not sure of the legality, I think it's legal from what I've read, but DVC could stop selling direct to existing resorts and instead sell those contracts to the trust allowing them to charge trust members a fee to access the home resort priority of the points owned by the trust. The 7 months would still be open to any direct member.

I'm not sure how much can or will really change with the existing resorts, but I think a lot could change for future resorts and as resorts get more contract turnover. The big question mark everyone has is what happens after 50 years, it seems like if the trust doesn't have any attached resorts it solves that problem by allowing them to kill the cabins early if they don't sell well and shifting those trusted points to the vacated Saratoga Resort when the deeded contracts end. They can sell 50 year contracts every day and they always have full value with complete flexibility as long as DVC can provide rooms to back the points.

 

[J-Dog]

Looking over this survey it seems like it could only apply to the purchase of new points at new resorts within the new trust model. I think we will hear more about this when Lakeside opens since it will likely be the first time two resorts are in the trust. Since your contract doesn't attach you to a room anymore, I wonder if it really even attaches you to a resort. Perhaps they are going to give trust members access to all trust resorts with priority access based on trust points owned. I'm not sure of the legality, I think it's legal from what I've read, but DVC could stop selling direct to existing resorts and instead sell those contracts to the trust allowing them to charge trust members a fee to access the home resort priority of the points owned by the trust. The 7 months would still be open to any direct member.

I'm not sure how much can or will really change with the existing resorts, but I think a lot could change for future resorts and as resorts get more contract turnover. The big question mark everyone has is what happens after 50 years, it seems like if the trust doesn't have any attached resorts it solves that problem by allowing them to kill the cabins early if they don't sell well and shifting those trusted points to the vacated Saratoga Resort when the deeded contracts end. They can sell 50 year contracts every day and they always have full value with complete flexibility as long as DVC can provide rooms to back the points.

I don't know about anyone else, and no offense intended, but based on the thread from last year in which 100's of pages of brainstorming about the trust turned out to be much ado about nothing, I'll believe anything related to this new trust when it's announced by Disney, and not before.

 

[lowlight]

I think it's legal from what I've read, but DVC could stop selling direct to existing resorts and instead sell those contracts to the trust allowing them to charge trust members a fee to access the home resort priority of the points owned by the trust. The 7 months would still be open to any direct member.

I know you’re just being hypothetical, but that would be bad. You want to piss off a large percentage of owners? Because that’s how you piss off a large percentage of owners.

 

[baloocrew]

I received a DVC survey today asking what additional benefits would impact my decision to purchase DVC. Two of the options posted concerned me as current owner.
1 - early booking for a fee. Which would allow booking 12 months in advance
2 - booking based on number of points owned
I am noy happy with either potential option as both take away the even playing field for all owners.
Did anyone else receive this survey?

And that's when I sell.

 

[Sandisw]

Looking over this survey it seems like it could only apply to the purchase of new points at new resorts within the new trust model. I think we will hear more about this when Lakeside opens since it will likely be the first time two resorts are in the trust. Since your contract doesn't attach you to a room anymore, I wonder if it really even attaches you to a resort. Perhaps they are going to give trust members access to all trust resorts with priority access based on trust points owned. I'm not sure of the legality, I think it's legal from what I've read, but DVC could stop selling direct to existing resorts and instead sell those contracts to the trust allowing them to charge trust members a fee to access the home resort priority of the points owned by the trust. The 7 months would still be open to any direct member.

I'm not sure how much can or will really change with the existing resorts, but I think a lot could change for future resorts and as resorts get more contract turnover. The big question mark everyone has is what happens after 50 years, it seems like if the trust doesn't have any attached resorts it solves that problem by allowing them to kill the cabins early if they don't sell well and shifting those trusted points to the vacated Saratoga Resort when the deeded contracts end. They can sell 50 year contracts every day and they always have full value with complete flexibility as long as DVC can provide rooms to back the points.

The way the trust is set up is that they add inventory to it.

Right now, it’s the CFW cabins. Once there is inventory, DVD creates a RTU plan and then activates inventory into that plan.

They can hafe mulple RTU plans, each with its own inventory or combined.

They can set up trading any way they want for whatever rules they put in place.

The trust allows them to activate inventory from different component sites in the same RTU plan. All those rooms become an owner’s home resort.

They can also activate new resorts into their own RTU plan and set it up for trading with other trust property at a different time than when one could trade to current properties via BVTC.

There is a lot more they can do with the trust model.

The biggest piece though is they can sell under a trust model with RTU so that use is the same as it always has been when it comes to home resort and booking.

Each resort put into the trust and sold RTU can be independent of the rest and booking remains like it is now.

 

[PolyRob]

I know you’re just being hypothetical, but that would be bad. You want to piss off a large percentage of owners? Because that’s how you piss off a large percentage of owners.

I may be misremembering, but wouldn't they need to put existing resort inventory into the trust as entire units? Seems very difficult to get every single point back within a unit unless Disney gave incentives to owners to buy them out?

 

[Sandisw]

I may be misremembering, but wouldn't they need to put existing resort inventory into the trust as entire units? Seems very difficult to get every single point back within a unit unless Disney gave incentives to owners to buy them out?

That is correct. DVD has to add inventory and they must be the owner.

I don’t know how other developers set up their trust but based on the way DVCs seems to be done they can’t add current inventory.

Units can’t exist in two associations at the same time so declared units in a current resort can’t also be part of the trust association.

This type of trust is not the same kind that an individual can set up to hold their assets.

Only units not declared to an association could be added…but, it would make little sense to do that

My guess is that LSL will be sold RTU in the trust. Split on whether it will be sold in its own plan, or added to the current CFW plan.

 

[zavandor]

That is correct. DVD has to add inventory and they must be the owner.

I don’t know how other developers set up their trust but based on the way DVCs seems to be done they can’t add current inventory.

Units can’t exist in two associations at the same time so declared units in a current resort can’t also be part of the trust association.

This type of trust is not the same kind that an individual can set up to hold their assets.

Only units not declared to an association could be added…but, it would make little sense to do that

My guess is that LSL will be sold RTU in the trust. Split on whether it will be sold in its own plan, or added to the current CFW plan.

But, what if they just create a new trading option in the BVTC?
Let's say we have the option to enroll our points into the Buena Vista Trust Exchange (BVTX). We still keep 11 months priority for our home resort. But at 7 months we get to exchange into any other Trust resort or any other resort up to the availability enrolled in the BVTC.
For example, if 1,000,000 BWV points are enrolled in the BVTX, then:
- BWV owners can book at 11 months potentially 100% of nights
- any owner of enrolled points can book BWV at 10 months up to 1,000,000 points (minus enrolled points used at 11 months)
- any owner can book at 7 months any resort (with resale restrictions applying).

DVC could ask for a fee to enroll points.
Future Trust resorts may be automatically enrolled in the BVTX.

So basically, DVC would not declare units into the trust, but individual owners can enroll in the new programme.

This may or may not combine with Trust priorities. For example, points in a Trust Use Plan can book any resort declared into the same Use Plan. Then at 10 months they can book BVTX points. At 7 months any other resort.

I think legally it would work.

Disclaimer: this is not a rumor or anything, just a thought experiment

 

[Cfabar1]

But, what if they just create a new trading option in the BVTC?
Let's say we have the option to enroll our points into the Buena Vista Trust Exchange (BVTX). We still keep 11 months priority for our home resort. But at 7 months we get to exchange into any other Trust resort or any other resort up to the availability enrolled in the BVTC.
For example, if 1,000,000 BWV points are enrolled in the BVTX, then:
- BWV owners can book at 11 months potentially 100% of nights
- any owner of enrolled points can book BWV at 10 months up to 1,000,000 points (minus enrolled points used at 11 months)
- any owner can book at 7 months any resort (with resale restrictions applying).

DVC could ask for a fee to enroll points.
Future Trust resorts may be automatically enrolled in the BVTX.

So basically, DVC would not declare units into the trust, but individual owners can enroll in the new programme.

This may or may not combine with Trust priorities. For example, points in a Trust Use Plan can book any resort declared into the same Use Plan. Then at 10 months they can book BVTX points. At 7 months any other resort.

I think legally it would work.

Disclaimer: this is not a rumor or anything, just a thought experiment

I believe the issue is each ownership is not reflected as a unit. That said, this is how other timeshares have done it. They have been eager to convert fixed week deeds into trust points for example.

 

[zavandor]

I believe the issue is each ownership is not reflected as a unit. That said, this is how other timeshares have done it. They have been eager to convert fixed week deeds into trust points for example.

If those are deeded weeks, they would have had the same problem (unless they enroll all 51 weeks for the same unit). But what I wrote would avoid that problem, because it's an exchange option, not a move into the Trust

 

[Sandisw]

But, what if they just create a new trading option in the BVTC?
Let's say we have the option to enroll our points into the Buena Vista Trust Exchange (BVTX). We still keep 11 months priority for our home resort. But at 7 months we get to exchange into any other Trust resort or any other resort up to the availability enrolled in the BVTC.
For example, if 1,000,000 BWV points are enrolled in the BVTX, then:
- BWV owners can book at 11 months potentially 100% of nights
- any owner of enrolled points can book BWV at 10 months up to 1,000,000 points (minus enrolled points used at 11 months)
- any owner can book at 7 months any resort (with resale restrictions applying).

DVC could ask for a fee to enroll points.
Future Trust resorts may be automatically enrolled in the BVTX.

So basically, DVC would not declare units into the trust, but individual owners can enroll in the new programme.

This may or may not combine with Trust priorities. For example, points in a Trust Use Plan can book any resort declared into the same Use Plan. Then at 10 months they can book BVTX points. At 7 months any other resort.

I think legally it would work.

Disclaimer: this is not a rumor or anything, just a thought experiment

The trading via BVTC can change rule based on an update to the DVC resort agreement.

Right now, CFW has the same rules as the other non trust resorts. Trades in and out of it happen after the home resort period which currently is 4 months, but must be one.

What I was referring to was the notion that DVD could add points they own at sold out resorts or that is tied to declared inventory.

And then sell it under a new RTU plan. That they can’t do because the inventory is already part of another association and they don’t own whole units.

They can’t make home resort priority different for owners of the same resort. Meaning all inventory must be available for BWV owners if it is a home resort period.

So, they can’t charge owners for a better home resort booking. Owners can’t take their ownership interests and the inventory it goes with to away from others who own that resort.

Now, they might be able to make trading into trust properties fee based and to access them via BVTC, an owner has to pay.

But, the rules for trading are resort specific and the terms of the DVC Resort agreement for that specific resort.

If I am a BWV owner, I am entitled to access all the declared inventory at BWV during whatever term the homes resort booking period is and once that period ends, my points are good to trade out since others can trade in.

Where they can trade is based on the other resorts DVC resort agreement.

 

[Genie+]

One thing I’ve wondered about… how is it that a restricted resort may trade into a resort where some of those owners are unable to reciprocate?

Take Beach Club resale owners. It’s a small resort of only around 2 million points. Some portion owners cannot trade into RIV, yet everybody who can trade at RIV can do so with BCV.

On some level how can someone own inventory that they must share with a resort that they are not allowed reciprocal inventory access?

Like what is the technical reason for this? Does inventory less than 7 months no longer belong to the home association owners?

 

[BrianLa]

One thing I’ve wondered about… how is it that a restricted resort may trade into a resort where some of those owners are unable to reciprocate?

Take Beach Club resale owners. It’s a small resort of only around 2 million points. Some portion owners cannot trade into RIV, yet everybody who can trade at RIV can do so with BCV.

On some level how can someone own inventory that they must share with a resort that they are not allowed reciprocal inventory access?

Like what is the technical reason for this? Does inventory less than 7 months no longer belong to the home association owners?

I’ve had the same thought. I think there is another thread that went into some detail on percentages of restricted resale points at each resort and how that will impact bookings as we get closer to 2042. This will be messy with limited opportunities to book at 7 months as the points to book “at” vs points to book “with” will be significantly imbalanced.

 

[Sandisw]

One thing I’ve wondered about… how is it that a restricted resort may trade into a resort where some of those owners are unable to reciprocate?

Take Beach Club resale owners. It’s a small resort of only around 2 million points. Some portion owners cannot trade into RIV, yet everybody who can trade at RIV can do so with BCV.

On some level how can someone own inventory that they must share with a resort that they are not allowed reciprocal inventory access?

Like what is the technical reason for this? Does inventory less than 7 months no longer belong to the home association owners?

When a resort enters BVTC, it enters with its own trading rules.

RIV and the other restricted resorts entered with the agreement that their resale owners would be blocked from trading into the other resorts DVC resort in exchange for the resorts resale owners, post 2019 from trading in.

It was a reciprocal agreement. And, the fee for being part of BVTC changed for those resorts. They pay a straight fee..$25k..vs the older resorts that pay a $1 per owner for trading.

The number of rooms at each resort doesn’t matter because trading is based only on what home resort owners didn’t book during home resort periods.

So opportunities to trade won’t be the same, but they don’t have to be…the only thing that matters is the inventory, not how many points are competing.


ETA: Some believe that the rules that RIV entered under should not have been allowed, but they grandfathered owners and trading rules changed

 

[airjay75]

There are some old threads on this topic. I delved into them not too long ago. I didn’t get too deep, but my reaction was that there was a plausible legal argument that the terms governing the O14 resorts were violated by the admission of RIV/CFW/VDH into BVTC. But, any purchaser of direct or resale since the restrictions were introduced have implicitly agreed to this change so I don’t think they’d have any legal standing to challenge it. If someone had the legal standing to challenge it, I think it would be a pre-restriction direct purchaser or a grandfathered resale owner. And the argument they would basically be making is, kick RIV/CFW/VDH out - they should never have been allowed entrance to BVTC. And why would any of them want to make that argument? Would they no longer want the ability to trade into those resorts? And, what damages have they suffered to argue for such a result? Decline of resale value for their own contracts? What evidence do they have of that?

So, even if there is a plausible legal argument somewhere in there, a lot of hurdles to ever successfully making a case.