DVC Survey

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

If I recall correctly DVC is explicitly excluded from the commercial renting rule in the POS.

Yeah, they are allowed to be a commercial enterprise and rent their own points for profit, but a surprising number of people can’t believe they aren’t treated exactly like buyer-owners.

 

[Cfabar1]

It’s been speculated how a trust model could work, one possibility being by selling separately declared inventory. I dunno but with Lakeshore coming along, it’s possible sales could open within a year. Riviera opened Dec 2019 but sales started March 2019. I’m going to wildly speculate What if LSL had an option to buy under a trust model, where they also put currently undeclared inventory at PVB, CFW and VDH, plus whatever they’re thinking to do with HHI?

This came up when the trust was first discovered... many of us wondered if they were going to put the RIV inventory that was undeclared into it.... That seems unlikely now...

Seems to me VDH owners would win in that situation - they'd have the inventory already declared preferentially available for them, and it would create a smaller resort for them...

There's also the question of how booking would work - could you seamlessly book trust and non-trust inventory at the same time? And if so, at what period? 7 months?

I tend to think the trust model will be additive with new resorts - at least until 2041 or so...

 

[atthebeachclub]

This came up when the trust was first discovered... many of us wondered if they were going to put the RIV inventory that was undeclared into it.... That seems unlikely now...

Seems to me VDH owners would win in that situation - they'd have the inventory already declared preferentially available for them, and it would create a smaller resort for them...

I’m not sure if that would be beneficial or not? Also, could they put resorts from different states in the same trust? I’m not clear on what you own if you own in a trust, and whether or not it can be resold?

I also wonder if pre-trust owners would even be able to book within the trust.

 

[Cfabar1]

I also wonder if pre-trust owners would even be able to book within the trust.

They likely would not, but they'd be competing for whatever was declared with each other.

Then at 7 months they would probably be able to book trust inventory.

That would be my guess.

 

[xdan0920]

I’m old enough to remember when DVC launched MMB and I was assured that it wasn’t a slippery slope and it was actually good for members and actually DVC was doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure if that would be beneficial or not? Also, could they put resorts from different states in the same trust? I’m not clear on what you own if you own in a trust, and whether or not it can be resold?

I also wonder if pre-trust owners would even be able to book within the trust.

They can add any component sites to the trust.

Once they add inventory, then they create a RTU plan for that inventory.

Two options exist. .activate it into a current RTU plan in existence or make it its own.

In terms of booking by owners who don’t buy a resort in the RTU plan, it all is based, like all the resorts, on how the DVc resort agreement is worded.

Right now, the CFW plan has just cabins, has a one month guarantee for home resort, and trades into BVTC.

If they decided to add more resorts to the trust, how it will work will really depend on how they structure it.

A few differences…they can reallocate and balance points across all inventory in the same RTU plan..

There is also language that says the initial point structure must be in play for the first two years and after that, it can be amended. That reads to me that future declarations can be at a different point level.

 

[atthebeachclub]

They can add any component sites to the trust.

Once they add inventory, then they create a RTU plan for that inventory.

Two options exist. .activate it into a current RTU plan in existence or make it its own.

In terms of booking by owners who don’t buy a resort in the RTU plan, it all is based, like all the resorts, on how the DVc resort agreement is worded.

Right now, the CFW plan has just cabins, has a one month guarantee for home resort, and trades into BVTC.

If they decided to add more resorts to the trust, how it will work will really depend on how they structure it.

A few differences…they can reallocate and balance points across all inventory in the same RTU plan..

There is also language that says the initial point structure must be in play for the first two years and after that, it can be amended. That reads to me that future declarations can be at a different point level.

Could they split a resort into trust and not trust, as hypothesized?

 

[Girlstar30]

They can add any component sites to the trust.

Once they add inventory, then they create a RTU plan for that inventory.

Two options exist. .activate it into a current RTU plan in existence or make it its own.

In terms of booking by owners who don’t buy a resort in the RTU plan, it all is based, like all the resorts, on how the DVc resort agreement is worded.

Right now, the CFW plan has just cabins, has a one month guarantee for home resort, and trades into BVTC.

If they decided to add more resorts to the trust, how it will work will really depend on how they structure it.

A few differences…they can reallocate and balance points across all inventory in the same RTU plan..

There is also language that says the initial point structure must be in play for the first two years and after that, it can be amended. That reads to me that future declarations can be at a different point level.

Are the cabins the first ones to be put into this trust and the only ones so far?

Based on what you know (your personal opinion) would you buy a property that you really liked that falls into this trust?

 

[Sandisw]

Could they split a resort into trust and not trust, as hypothesized?

Technically, yes, but it would be different associations and no longer the same home resort.

Inventory can’t exist in two different associations. So, the inventory added to the trust association can’t sit in another association, based on how the current trust has been set up.

For example, the inventory that has been declared into the RIv association can’t then be also put into the trust and then resold again to others.

 

[Sandisw]

Are the cabins the first ones to be put into this trust and the only ones so far?

Based on what you know (your personal opinion) would you buy a property that you really liked that falls into this trust?

They are and yes, I would have no problem because I buy the resort where I want to be and trading out is a bonus for us, not a big component of it.

But, just like when I bought my current resorts, I made sure I understood exactly what I was buying and what I was not.

 

[Girlstar30]

They are and yes, I would have no problem because I buy the resort where I want to be and trading out is a bonus for us, not a big component of it.

But, just like when I bought my current resorts, I made sure I understood exactly what I was buying and what I was not.

So im thinking maybe a person that values greater flexibility should think twice

I will admit sometimes when you talk about the trust, I dont understand, a little advanced for me haha but I understood that they can reallocate points among different resorts which I guess could be upsetting if a favorite resort is reallocated to having more points.

This affects everyone not just the trust owners tho, so I guess that shouldnt really matter unless I only wanted to stay at said resort thats at risk of being more "expensive" at any given time

 

[Tatebeck]

The suggestion that DVC could allow members to use points to reserve rooms in undeclared units at 12-months out may be something DVD could create as rules for not yet existing DVC Resorts, but not likely under current rules for existing resorts. The current rules actually allow rooms in undeclared units to be reserved by, and assigned to, club members via points reservations along with rooms in declared units. But the rules expressly provide that for any given day, the combined total of such rooms assigned to club member reservations can never be greater than the total number of rooms already dedicated to the DVC Resort. See Membership Agreements provision "Reciprocal Use by DVD and Club Members," §3.8 in the BWV agreement..

Example: assume 50% of all the units/rooms have been declared into a DVC Resort. When a club member goes to reserve with points, that member can actually be assigned either a dedicated room or undedicated room. However, the number of total rooms reserved for any given day can never be more than the total of already dedicated rooms in the resort. Thus, if DVC were to create a rule that members, for an additional fee, could reserve undedicated rooms using points at 12-months out, such reservations would necessarily decrease the number of rooms any other member can get for the same days starting at 11-months out. In other words, for that extra fee, enough members could make reservations at 12-months for 50% of the total rooms in the resort and all other members would be able to get nothing at 11-months out. The current rules prohibit that.

That seems to suggest an exercise in semantics. The existing rule provides that if a club member makes a reservation for a room using points and is assigned an undeclared room, that reservation counts toward the total reservations allowed for declared rooms. So all DVD and the member have to do to get around that rule is to just have the member transfer points to DVD, with the promise that DVD will then make a reservation equalling what the member could get for the points, and then call the reservation a rental for cash (in what dollar amount one can only speculate; and how much would be the required state and local sales taxes that DVD would need to pay?).

DVD can use the Disney Central Reservation system for its hotels to rent undeclared DVC rooms for cash and those do not count toward the allowed percentage of DVC reservations, but that system cannot be used to make point reservations. The existing rule is designed to allow both dedicated and undedicated rooms to be reserved via the use of points but limits the total number of reservations that can possibly be made using that method. The creation of a transfer/call-it-cash rule would just be creating a rule designed simply to circumvent the existing rule, which I doubt can be done.

Simply put the reciprocal use clause just splits reservations into 2 types, normal Club Member reservations and then DVC's cash rental + "other" reservations and says that they cannot let members make more normal reservations than dvc members collectively own and that DVC itself cannot rent for cash more rooms than they currently own, but while still letting individuals on reservations to be moved between the two room types if needed for availability, reducing waste via check-in or check out dates of various reservations, etc.

So I agree with @BrianLa and @Sandisw
I do not see how it would in any way stop them from offering a different program (separate from normal DVC bookings) that would allow them to offer up their own undeclared inventory for another program similar to welcome home stays or world collection stays.

If what you say was true, they would be unable to do welcome home stays for members. For a welcome home stay members are giving DVC their normal points, but are receiving a room that is outside of normal booking availability. There are so many examples posted of members getting a reservation in rooms that were unavailable in the booking tool via a welcome home stay when DVC pulls the room from their own inventory. This would be most similar to that, though instead of buying a new contract to get access it could be a yearly fee for a member or a one time fee when booking to access some of that inventory. Because they have done Welcome Home stays and World Collection stays for so long, they obviously feel that things like this are allowed.

 

[Tatebeck]

So im thinking maybe a person that values greater flexibility should think twice

I will admit sometimes when you talk about the trust, I dont understand, a little advanced for me haha but I understood that they can reallocate points among different resorts which I guess could be upsetting if a favorite resort is reallocated to having more points.

This affects everyone not just the trust owners tho, so I guess that shouldnt really matter unless I only wanted to stay at said resort thats at risk of being more "expensive" at any given time

It really depends on what they do with the trust. If they end up adding a bunch of resorts into the trust over time, it could be done in a way that buying into the Trust could me more flexible than buying a home resort (even direct) outside of the trust.

Looking at the survey, yes they could be looking at options for a paid extra membership like MMB, but it could also be that they are looking for ways to get members to keep buying direct by possibly adding extra benefits to members who would buy into a newer resort in the Trust. Access to some undeclared inventory, longer than 7 month booking windows (for the other resorts in the trust), swaps for 11 month booking at non WDW resorts like HHI.

I could see myself buying into a Trust option if the cool extra benefits are there (or if they put an awesome resort, Yacht Club, or a different new Crescent Lake DVC resort ).

 

[Girlstar30]

It really depends on what they do with the trust. If they end up adding a bunch of resorts into the trust over time, it could be done in a way that buying into the Trust could me more flexible than buying a home resort (even direct) outside of the trust.

Looking at the survey, yes they could be looking at options for a paid extra membership like MMB, but it could also be that they are looking for ways to get members to keep buying direct by possibly adding extra benefits to members who would buy into a newer resort in the Trust. Access to some undeclared inventory, longer than 7 month booking windows (for the other resorts in the trust), swaps for 11 month booking at non WDW resorts like HHI.

I could see myself buying into a Trust option if the cool extra benefits are there (or if they put an awesome resort, Yacht Club, or a different new Crescent Lake DVC resort ).

I thought about that too, having home resort advantage at multiple resorts is a huge perk, I just dont want to pay more for that benefit

 

[Brianstl]

Technically, yes, but it would be different associations and no longer the same home resort.

Inventory can’t exist in two different associations. So, the inventory added to the trust association can’t sit in another association, based on how the current trust has been set up.

For example, the inventory that has been declared into the RIv association can’t then be also put into the trust and then resold again to others.

How would maintenance fees be split with association and the trust at the same property? I could see some big issues and game playing coming when it comes to shared facilities.

 

[Tatebeck]

How would maintenance fees be split with association and the trust at the same property? I could see some big issues and game playing coming when it comes to shared facilities.

If a resort is split between the two then I don't think it would likely make any difference. If the number of rooms in the resort stays the same, then the total cost to run it should stay the same. If a resort is say 30% sold normally and 70% added to the trust, then those who bought normally pay 30% and the trust would pay 70% so member dues in either would stay the same.

The only possible think I can think of that may make it weird is if the trust adds multiple resorts into the same associations to give home resort advantage at all of them, then their portion of dues at those resorts would be blended and be different than someone who bought at a single resort. The trust dues would just be the average of all their dues weighted by resort size, while anyone who bought normally would pay just the dues of that resort as normal.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

The more I hear about “the trust” the less I want to own in it.

 

[Tatebeck]

The more I hear about “the trust” the less I want to own in it.

I mean we haven't really heard much of anything about the trust at this point, other than it just being the technical way CFW is being sold. Everything else is

 

[Carouselofplanning]

I mean we haven't really heard much of anything about the trust at this point, other than it just being the technical way CFW is being sold. Everything else is

Fair but the way it’s discussed on this board it’s like “who wants to be jerked around like this by a developer?”

 

[Girlstar30]

Fair but the way it’s discussed on this board it’s like “who wants to be jerked around like this by a developer?”

Its a wait and see for me, more control for them and less for us is not good for consumer.

There's so many og resorts with a lot of years left to choose from that we know the rules, I think id rather stick with good ol trusty (maybe not the best word choice considering lol)