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

[xdan0920]

I did too and don’t rent.

But the contract you bought gives you and all owners the right to rent, under the terms DVC decides are appropriate, whether you choose to or not.

Full stop.

Not frequently and regularly. Anymore.

 

[Mouseforward]

I said this before and I'll say it again....sharing a bedroom with my kids is not my idea of a vacation. The vast majority of my points have been used for a One Bedroom and larger. I choose 7 nights in a 1B over 14 nights in a studio ALL THE TIME. And there are many other owners who do the same. Maybe you and your circle of friends only use points for Studios. That's fine. There are others out feel differently. Trust me.

The majority still booked Studios and the only issue with reservations are with Studios. You’re just bringing up a different point because you if there’s still more people who want the cheap studio Studios then there are cheap Studios.

 

[disneylandtour]

An unusual number of stripped contracts just hit the market from one broker.....

Over on the "Purchasing" forum, we've been following this for about nine months, since Oct, I believe. There's been a definite uptick in stripped contracts, particularly for AUL, but also some from SSR and BWV. And it's the same set of players over and over.

 

[Kingkonig]

So when someone says they’re ok with their contracts being valued at $0, I see it as they’re saying “I’m ok if these changes cause devaluation of what I own because the others doing things I don’t like will be having a worse time than me”.

See, I think that’s just the difference in views in somebody who views DVC as an asset vs somebody who views it as a purchase.

Somebody who purchases it to USE it to its fullest isn’t going to care about what the valuation of it is - kinda like how I bought a car, but won’t ever really care about the resale price. If I sell this car, I have to buy another - if I sold my DVC, I’d have to spend money on vacations in another way.

Somebody who views DVC as a speculative asset or investment (whether it legally is or not) will absolutely care about the resale market and value, because they know at some point they’re going to either try to, succeed in, or consider leaving the market. Ease of renting points, even if a broker takes 8-12% helps resale value because it increases the number of people interested in buying the product to profit off of. This makes it harder for members who are just using it since the profit motive increases the incentive to book all the “best” rooms that owners want as well.

Booking rooms is a zero sum game - when one person wins, another loses. If everyone is on even footing (see: booking opens at 8am, nobody has bots), then there’s an element of ‘fairness’. If groups with large financial backing (and high incentive to get exactly what they want no matter what), then there isn’t that element of fairness, as they will pour resources: bots, bodies, marketing, etc into ensuring they get it. So in this case, lowering the value of a resale could actually benefit active members rather than those who are trying to exit - since it would force/encourage those large players out. Not exactly how I personally feel, and I think a low resale market and/or inactive ROFR from Disney is actually harmful to the long term health of the program, but I 100% understand peoples gripes. As I said earlier in this thread, I had to buy double the points I actually wanted, because I knew that the rooms I would prefer were actually going to be taken by rental companies long before I had a chance to grab them.

 

[AstroBlasters]

You bought a points-based timeshare. Nobody ever told you it would be worth a dime when/if you choose to resell. Resale values have been dropping precipitously for years now and doesn't really show signs of stopping. Sorry, but it's not really a club, despite the name - it's just a timeshare.

Cool.

 

[tjkraz]

The majority still booked Studios and the only issue with reservations are with Studios. You’re just bringing up a different point because you if there’s still more people who want the cheap studio Studios then there are cheap Studios.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here but here's the bottom line:

- Percent of professional renter points earmarked for Studio rooms, cheap views and seasons: 99%

- Percent of everyday owner points earmarked for Studios rooms, cheap views and seasons: something less than 99%. Significantly less.

I really don't understand why people are opposed to stopping the obviously abusive professional renter activity, and putting more of those Studios in the hands of everyday owners. But if that's the hill someone wants to die on...

 

[muppets3d]

So will the cost of the rental. Historically at a similar rate. If you're suggesting that renting will cost less than owning in the long run, feel free to share specific projections to back it up.

If not, what are we doing here?

There's an excel sheet on this site somewhere that does exactly what you're asking. But I don't know where it is right now. If someone knows, holler.

 

[AstroBlasters]

You would not have.

But it's reasonable to assume that lots of people would have, because plenty of timeshare developers are able to sell timeshares at similar prices to DVC's wtih zero resale value. Is it a little harder? Sure. But it is definitely not impossible, or even prohibitively difficult.

I think a majority of resale owners would not have because very few will hold until expiration.

 

[Sandisw]

That's not what I'm saying. But I think you accidentally said out loud now what the intent of DVC's rental provision really is. It is really intended to be a rare feature of the product. Perhaps we should laminate this post?

That’s why I asked for clarification before assuming.

That is definitely a situation that should be allowed.

But, here is another one. Owner can’t travel this year, banks 400 points, now can’t travel year two due to medical, so books some home resort rooms and offfers them.

Or, I am going rent a few reservations every year because I just can’t go as often because I’m now elderly.

All these are reasonable and all things many of us are okay with.

 

[Mouseforward]

Please, share specifics on how renting will be cheaper over the next 40 years rather than buying Riviera or Poly points.

Sure look at the red and yellow resorts in the cost per point table nicely provided by this article- that alone proves the point.

Now the table did not factor in TVM on your 30- 100k you could be getting a return on….. That takes all the green off the table

There are really no resorts worth buying if rents stay as low as they are. That is why DVC is now after 20 years going after renters.

https://dvcfieldguide.com/dvcfieldguideindex/may-2025-dvc-field-guide-resale-index

 

[muppets3d]

That’s why I asked for clarification before assuming.

That is definitely a situation that should be allowed.

But, here is another one. Owner can’t travel this year, banks 400 points, now can’t travel year two due to medical, so books some home resort rooms and offfers them.

Or, I am going rent a few reservations every year because I just can’t go as often because I’m now elderly.

All these are reasonable and all things many of us are okay with.

It doesn't matter if you or I are okay with it, what matters is what will Disney be okay with.

 

[matt_in_nh]

Over on the "Purchasing" forum, we've been following this for about nine months, since Oct, I believe. There's been a definite uptick in stripped contracts, particularly for AUL, but also some from SSR and BWV. And it's the same set of players over and over.

14 showed up today from one broker and a variety of resorts....I think we know why....

 

[Sandisw]

Not frequently and regularly. Anymore.

And my definition of that is not the same as yours.

Guess what? Doesn’t matter because it’s DVC interpretation that does.

 

[Sandisw]

It doesn't matter if you or I are okay with it, what matters is what will Disney be okay with.

That is the whole point many of us have said. . Nothing DVC has ever done, said or implied recently. including in the contract, that their goals is anything but stopping large point owners renting for commercial reasons.

DVC, if they do what they are supposed to do for those who own pre RIv contracts s is come up with reasonable definitions on what makes the membership commercial. And in line with FL laws about right to rent.

IMO, that is what we will see.

 

[Brian Noble]

I think a majority of resale owners would not have because very few will hold until expiration.

Disney does not particularly care about this.

Though I would definitley agree that if the resale market collapses, there is no resale market.

There's an excel sheet on this site somewhere that does exactly what you're asking. But I don't know where it is right now. If someone knows, holler.

I like the MouseSavers one. The assumptions they use are overly-favorable to buying vs. renting (they have the purchase price at $210 and rental rates at $23) but the underlying spreadsheet can be modified to something more reasonable.

https://www.mousesavers.com/other-disney-vacations/disney-vacation-club/#opportunity

 

[muppets3d]

That the whole point. Nothing DVC has ever done, said or implied recently. including in the contract, that these situations are not in line with FL law and our right to rent.

I think some think that frequent or regularly means DVC has automatically decided that one rental a year is a violation.

One rental a year is certainly regular and is a pattern. But I don't know what frequent means to Disney. Is an annual visitor a "frequent" visitor, for example? If so, then an annual rental may be considered both regular and frequent.

That's why coming up with scenarios is a waste of time.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Completely empty threat as there is no “large number” of disgruntled owners. This is a positive change that will benefit the vast majority of DVC owners.

Right? I spend admittedly way too much time looking through various platforms, Reddit, FB, other blogs w/ forums. Almost everyone is happy about this except for a few worry worts who wonder if this totally rare situation of needing to stop going to Disney for xyzzy reason will effect them.

Question- the biggest ‘renter’ is Disney, said to be millions of points a year.
How do they book? Do they have to have someone on the system like us, with no unfair advantage? Anyone ask them? Do they disclose?

If I had a dollar every time I heard this. Yes Disney rents points and they are allowed to. Everyone is aware of that yet bought DVC anyway. How they book is irrelevant

 

[Genie+]

It’s why they stopped the relaxed policy of transferring more than once between ones own membership.

Obviously those owners who relied on this the past 5 years when it started are impacted, but the impact is small.

The one thing I stay hopeful with is that the board seems to really care about optics and doing things that benefit them but can be billed as great for membership and impactful in a negative way to as few owners as possible.

Agreed.

Why I would be surprised to see things like making all cancel or rebook, or limiting name changes, etc.

Far to many average owners, not even aware of the rental concerns, could see that as way to punitive.

Can’t sell someone a $40k timeshare as flexible if it’s not.

I wouldn’t be surprised if DVC is seeing an uptick in new member complaints regarding availability. A quick online search will enlighten them about walking and spec rentals. For all we know they are getting an earful from existing members as well. Maybe even from prospective buyers. After seeing 80% of certain rooms and/or dates inventory ending up on the rental market, I’d guess DVC can see much deeper than me in tracking how the recent increases in this type of activity is negatively impacting the ‘average’ membership experience.

Could they be correcting the ship to protect themselves AND protect the product? One thing is apparent - issues like availability, walking and spec res only seems to get worse over time.

Not sure how average I am as an owner, but only once have I needed to change lead guest name on over 20+ DVC bookings, and that was for my one and only rental - an 18pt spec res lol. It was nice getting $38pp for that, but not a big deal to give up moving forward. I bought my points to use them, and would rather see the membership not crowded out of the best values because nabbing them for commercial use is much easier than trying to land one that works with personal use.

It’s hard to keep selling 5 and 6 digit timeshares for the intended personal use when the commercial users are constantly pulling the cream and reducing the potential experience and value. They have many advantages over the casual for-personal-use owner. If the trajectories are pointing to these issues only increasing, it was inevitable change would come. Not sustainable long term. Maybe the Cabins and Poly Tower helped them see that day has arrived. DVC can watch as availability pops up what percent is hitting the spec res market. That is inventory removed from personal use and reduces the value of the product for its intended use.

 

[tjkraz]

Sure look at the red and yellow resorts in the cost per point table nicely provided by this article- that alone proves the point.

Now the table did not factor in TVM on your 30- 100k you could be getting a return on….. That takes all the green off the table

There are really no resorts worth buying if rents stay as low as they are. That is why DVC is now after 20 years going after renters.

https://dvcfieldguide.com/dvcfieldguideindex/may-2025-dvc-field-guide-resale-index

It seems to "prove the point" that buying Grand Californian for $330 or Beach Club for $275 direct is a poor decision. We didn't need a chart to know that.

I don't see the issue with something like Riviera. Especially since the $235 rate listed ignores current incentives. It's at least $24 per point cheaper on 200 points, before Visa incentive, Magical Beginnings and whatever else they're offering.

 

[xdan0920]

And my definition of that is not the same as yours.

Guess what? Doesn’t matter because it’s DVC interpretation that does.

Fair enough I guess. Regular and frequent aren’t hard to define words though.