DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss!

[Cyberc1978]

I'm very interested in how our rental forum here addresses this situation.

It’s already been mentioned in this thread. No worries as I understand

 

[Sandisw]

I'm very interested in how our rental forum here addresses this situation.

At this time, there is no plan to change the process.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

At this time, there is no plan to change the process.

Not even a warning to prospective renters about Disney reserving the right to cancel commercial reservations?

 

[Cyberc1978]

Not even a warning to prospective renters about Disney reserving the right to cancel commercial reservations?

Owners are allowed to rent and board will not get involved.

 

[muppets3d]

Not even a warning to prospective renters about Disney reserving the right to cancel commercial reservations?

That's always been the case hasn't it?

 

[Cyberc1978]

That's always been the case hasn't it?

Correct. Nothing has changed in that regards.

 

[mkatsy]

I’m in the members only section of TUG where we have a sightings board where the II DVC exchanges are posted and monitored very closely. (Not for commercial use to help other members find trades for personal use). There is absolutely no unusual activity. Current inventory drops by DVC fit well into historical patterns.

Also this is not DVC inventory that Disney is "dumping." Every single one of those exchanges represents points that were deposited to II by a DVC member to trade out into another hotel. The people in your facebook group are extremely misinformed.

Well, I’ve been there a whole of two weeks so that’s quite possible

 

[Mouseforward]

Low points cost rooms are some of the most popular for mega-renters. The profit margins are higher. May is extremely cheap points-wise. Lot of profit to be made.

If you charged by the point that’s not accurate. Your profit margin is the same.

What is true- more people are looking for studios and they want a good price, it’s a supply and demand not a profit margin thing.

Here’s the core issue - there is simply a stronger demand either owners or renters for studios. This means that studios will always be the hard one to get. If every single commercial renter was forced to sell their contract and it was purchased by individuals
you’d still have let’s say 25 different people clicking the button at 8 AM for a studio versa commercial renter who’s hired 25 people to click the button at 8 AM for the studio.

As I said in the prior post - some years, you’re still not gonna get your cookie

 

[Brian Noble]

There are zero signs they are trying to crash the market like Wyndham. There are clear signs that they are going after commercial renters.

The problem is: solving this from the supply side does. not. work. At least, no one has effectively done it yet.

But attacking it from the demand side absolutely does.

I mean, I could be wrong, and Disney could be planning something completely different from the path that several other developers have shown works. And, they may not be ready to walk that path today. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet they get there envetually. This is not rocket science.

But, it's good that someone who rents thousands of points every year for the past many years is confident that they will be fine. I'll not be continuing this conversation with you, so if you'd like the last word, you can have it.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

It’s already been mentioned in this thread. No worries as I understand

Thanks. Saw that post.
I remain interested.

 

[Genie+]

I'm worried about enforcement mechanisms in the absence of perfect knowledge. If a few high-profile examples (pour encourager les autres) eliminates a decent portion of commercial renting, I'd much prefer that to heavy-handed double-checking of every reservation.

DVC doesn’t need to scrutinize every booking made in a non-owner’s name or spend significant time/money investigating. “Pattern of activity” is mentioned in our contracts regarding commercial use and many clues besides lead guest are right at the surface for DVC to analyze. They can look at a whole range of things together, and use that in an automated system. I suspect they’ll avoid making it overly sensitive. Only when certain thresholds are passed and a total combined number is hit would the system kick it up the chain for closer look.

 

[Sandisw]

DVC doesn’t need to scrutinize every booking made in a non-owner’s name or spend significant time/money investigating. “Pattern of activity” is mentioned in our contracts regarding commercial use and many clues besides lead guest are right at the surface for DVC to analyze. They can look at a whole range of things together, and use that in an automated system. I suspect they’ll avoid making it overly sensitive. Only when certain thresholds are passed and a total combined number is hit does the system kick it up the chain for closer look.

That is one rumor that was posted the other day. That they have set up some level of automated system to flag when a certain % of reservations not in the names of owners happens.

Given all the updates and some of the major issues we’ve seen in the past month or two, it seems plausible that something technical may have been interferaced.

 

[DonMacGregor]

That is one rumor that was posted the other day. That they have set up some level of automated system to flag when a certain % of reservations not in the names of owners happens.

Given all the updates and some of the major issues we’ve seen in the past month or two, it seems plausible that something technical may have been interferaced.

Say what you will about Disney IT (most of it well-deserved), but when it comes to data collection, no one does it better than Disney. That's one reason why I wouldn't be overly confident that Disney has some hard deck, points-based threshold for enforcement, under which you can still operate with impunity. There's no downside or disincentive to casting as wide of a net as they want.

Once they have the data and run the script, it doesn't cost a penny more or less to go after a member with 10,000 points versus one with 1,000. There really isn't an "it's not worth their time" component to it. The old Commodore 64 identifies all members satisfying whatever criteria the analysis is based on, creates a naughty list, and spits out the Nasty Grams.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I wouldn't be surprised if some commercial renters are starting to dump contracts on the market to get out ahead of the hammer being dropped. You have to figure it can't be long before something happens on Disney's end. What do you think, less than 6 months?

They still need to wait for the current renters to complete their stays.

 

[matt_in_nh]

It is definitely a different situation but put yourself in DVCs shoes.

When they look at a membership, all they know is reservations are booked in the names of others.

They don’t know whether it’s a rental or a free gift to someone…so, they are going to have to decide what number or percent of points/reservations they want to consider could be fmsilt/friends vs rentals?

They can assume all are rentals, all are family/friends or something in between.

They could require owners to submit rental contracts…they could decide to require owners to send guests with a guest certificate

But, do they want to go to that degree? Or, do you think they will find a way to deal with commercial renters in the easiest and cost effective way?

I really think it is super easy to find the targets. They own thousands of points and make reservations for randos and rarely of never actually go themselves. Joe blow who rents 150 points is not a problem.

 

[muppets3d]

They still need to wait for the current renters to complete their stays.

Not really, they haven't changed anything with the terms really (and even if they did, the new terms are already effective as of June 1 for new or existing reservations). They could cancel someone's room tomorrow if they wanted to.

oh nevermind you were talking about them selling their contracts. forgive me i misread.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I wouldn't be surprised if some commercial renters are starting to dump contracts on the market to get out ahead of the hammer being dropped. You have to figure it can't be long before something happens on Disney's end. What do you think, less than 6 months?

It won't be very easy for a commercial renter to just up and liquidate. I mean, the whole model exists to rent points and rent them all, all of the time. That means countless existing reservations, likely with many of them months and months out, and all through the holidays.

Resale contracts can't close with pending reservations, so a seller would have to either cancel any and all pending reservations outright (pissing off all their renters and coughing up serious refund cash), let them fall off organically as the stays are completed, or price the contract so low as to make it appealing to a purchaser willing to go with a months-long delayed close (again, until after all stays are completed).

The only way a commercial renter could have listed a contract today is if there are no pending stays using the points, or the sale is identified as a delayed close (until after all stays are completed).

Not so simple.

 

[muppets3d]

It won't be very easy for a commercial renter to just up and liquidate. I mean, the whole model exists to rent points and rent them all, all of the time. That means countless existing reservations, likely with many of them months and months out, and all through the holidays.

Resale contracts can't close with pending reservations, so a seller would have to either cancel any and all pending reservations outright (pissing off all their renters and coughing up serious refund cash), let them fall off organically as the stays are completed, or price the contract so low as to make it appealing to a purchaser willing to go with a months-long delayed close (again, until after all stays are completed).

Not so simple.

This could end up being a real bloodbath. It all depends on how Disney chooses to play it.

 

[matt_in_nh]

Say what you will about Disney IT (most of it well-deserved), but when it comes to data collection, no one does it better than Disney. That's one reason why I wouldn't be overly confident that Disney has some hard deck, points-based threshold for enforcement, under which you can still operate with impunity. There's no downside or disincentive to casting as wide of a net as they want.

Once they have the data and run the script, it doesn't cost a penny more or less to go after a member with 10,000 points versus one with 1,000. There really isn't an "it's not worth their time" component to it. The old Commodore 64 identifies all members satisfying whatever criteria the analysis is based on, creates a naughty list, and spits out the Nasty Grams.

Agree 100% Disney would have little problems finding all of the people who are renting. It’s an easy thing, but is it worth doing that? what is in it for Disney to go after the little guy? What are they actually going after they’ve said it pretty clearly they’re looking for commercial renters people who are doing this as a business. They have specifically said you are allowed to rent some of your points. What is the problem that they’re trying to solve? I would argue it is availability on the website. It is probably hurting their ability to sell new contracts because people read online that they can’t get the rooms that are available at their resort The way to attack that is to find the people with the bots with 8000 point contracts who never go to Disney themselves

 

[DonMacGregor]

Agree 100% Disney would have little problems finding all of the people who are renting. It’s an easy thing, but is it worth doing that? what is in it for Disney to go after the little guy?

I'm not sure what it's "worth" as it doesn't cost them a penny more, but its "value" (going after a few "small fries") just reminds everyone that no one is safe, and it keeps people guessing as to what the real lower threshold is.

Again, my point simply was that all the chatter about who is "safe" and how Disney won't go after smaller renters, even if they are renting commercially, solely due to the point volumes, isn't based on any facts and it certainly isn't based on what it would cost Disney, time and resource-wise. That's all.