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

[muppets3d]

I agree and disagree with your post. I've owned at BWV since 2000, 25 years now.

BWV was not as popular when I bought. Friends tried to talk me out of it. OKW was the one they loved at WDW.

I did not start having trouble with getting 'exactly' what I wanted at BWV until closer to 2018. I always get something. It would be dishonest to say I've been locked out. I'm fortunate to have enough points to book all 3 categories of studios or any larger room.

I would have to pick up my nights from walkers. Deciding to walk didn't help with an October use year for Fall Frenzy. But, up until just the last two years I would get my days within at least a week of trying. Now the days aren't there for resort view. Moved to preferred views. May have moved to a one bedroom but I did a two bedroom for another reservation and sapped up too many of my BW points.

My observation is that commercial renting is playing a major role. Like others, I've been all around the web and see what's out there.

If you own at BWV you really have to be on the ball to be able to use your points at 11 months for the less expensive option.

Also, I don't see AKV's value and CL level quests as comparable. Those are like looking for a needle in a haystack. Still think CR's are making it difficult to get them. At least BW starts out with a decent inventory of what people want.

When there are as many spec rentals for these hard to get rooms on broker sites as there are, I don't see how anyone could seriously believe it's not an issue.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I have a fundamental question/speculation for the group. Actually. it's a speculation wrapped in a hypothetical question.

I fundamentally believe that 'spec rentals' are by far and away the largest contributor to the effect to 'normal' owners. If DVD could figure out a way to prevent spec rentals, wouldn't this solve the vast majority of problems? Is it even possible to do this?

There has been a great amount of speculation and intellectual one-upsmanship banter in this thread, and I've enjoyed reading most of it, but you gotta simplify this thing for my simple mind. Isn't spec renting the real problem here on a fundamental level?

 

[muppets3d]

I have a fundamental question/speculation for the group. Actually. it's a speculation wrapped in a hypothetical question.

I fundamentally believe that 'spec rentals' are by far and away the largest contributor to the effect to 'normal' owners. If DVD could figure out a way to prevent spec rentals, wouldn't this solve the vast majority of problems? Is it even possible to do this?

There has been a great amount of speculation and intellectual one-upsmanship banter in this thread, and I've enjoyed reading most of it, but you gotta simplify this thing for my simple mind. Isn't spec renting the real problem here on a fundamental level?

I think it is yes. Really all Disney has to do is cancel a few dozen spec rental bookings. The ripple effect of that would end the process almost overnight.

The concern is what happens if that isn't enough, Disney may go down the line and start going after "regular" members who rent "frequently or regularly" (but refuse to admit they do). That would mean the closure of this site's rentals board, for one thing. And probably the collapse of the DVC rental market altogether.

We're divided on whether or not that would be a good thing.

Personally I think it is a good thing because DVC is not a speculator's product. It was designed and should remain a way for people to book vacations for themselves and their families.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

And in the "oh, and one more thing." category...

Has the ownership of The Dis changed and I missed it? There was an inuendo a couple of pages back that the one of the major board sponsors now owns The Dis. Is that true? Last I knew, they were just that. A sponsor, and Pete and The Dis was still fully owned and controlled by Pete and his company, Dreams Unlimited Travel.

 

[muppets3d]

And in the "oh, and one more thing." category...

Has the ownership of The Dis changed and I missed it? There was an inuendo a couple of pages back that the one of the major board sponsors now owns The Dis. Is that true? Last I knew, they were just that. A sponsor, and Pete and The Dis was still fully owned and controlled by Pete and his company, Dreams Unlimited Travel.

I didn't think we talked about the P name anymore.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I think it is yes. Really all Disney has to do is cancel a few dozen spec rental bookings. The ripple effect of that would end the process almost overnight.

Yes. The onerous thing about spec rental bookings is that they take availability offline for others. I'll never understand why "regular" DVC owners would think that practice is a good thing.

The concern is what happens if that isn't enough, Disney may go down the line and start going after "regular" members who rent "frequently or regularly" (but refuse to admit they do). That would mean the closure of this site's rentals board, for one thing. And probably the collapse of the DVC rental market altogether.

We're divided on whether or not that would be a good thing.

I tend to think that DVC will address these "regular" members, whose rental activity aligns with their definition of frequent or regular, regardless of the number of points the member owns. It may start with something as simple as a warning letter. I think it is both hopeful and naive to assume that DVC will continue to ignore "regular" members who frequently rent while focusing on mega-renters, as many have suggested in this thread.

 

[muppets3d]

Yes. The onerous thing about spec rental bookings is that they take availability offline for others. I'll never understand why "regular" DVC owners would think that practice is a good thing.


I tend to think that DVC will address these "regular" members, whose rental activity aligns with their definition of frequent or regular, regardless of the number of points the member owns. It may start with something as simple as a warning letter. I think it is both hopeful and naive to assume that DVC will continue to ignore "regular" members who frequently rent while focusing on mega-renters, as many have suggested in this thread.

So the question is, does DVC want to end the DVC rental market altogether. How far do they want to go. Nobody really knows except them, of course.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Do you have a link to this? Because I had always suspected that they were in fact strip mining contracts, so I’d be curious to see what he had to say. They always seem to have a higher proportion of stripped contracts for sale versus the other major players.

If you watch the video, he very carefully only mentions Rental Store, and makes no reference to Resale Market or the fact that the two companies fall under the same corporate umbrella. All of his representations are specific only to Rental Store.

He makes statements like “We (Rental Store) don’t own any points, we’re just an intermediary”, yet the Resale Market division absolutely owns points through their “Instant Sale” program.

 

[Mouseforward]

If you watch the video, he very carefully only mentions Rental Store, and makes no reference to Resale Market or the fact that the two companies fall under the same corporate umbrella. All of his representations are specific only to Rental Store.

You caught that as well. very careful language

 

[Sandisw]

This will always be the place that we can’t see eye to eye. If you are regularly renting half your points, in order to cover your dues….

You are in violation. And should be stopped.

Your opinion is it should be and DVC should stop it. That is fair.

But, it’s not a fact that it is. And why you are right, we don’t have the same opinion of what should and should not be allowed.

They used the words regularly and frequently but those words mean something different based on context.

If I tell someone I shower regularly, they are not going to assume I mean yearly.

If I tell someone I go to the dentist regularly. They are not going to assume I mean weekly.

If they tell us we can’t rent regularly, they don’t want us to know context….because if they did, they’d have said it.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So the question is, does DVC want to end the DVC rental market altogether. How far do they want to go. Nobody really knows except them, of course.

Very true. Nobody here really does know, and that's the fun of the debate!

I don't see this as an "either/or" proposition for DVC. Their goal doesn't need to be to "end" DVC renting altogether to achieve whatever their objectives may be. Maybe I am too simple-minded, but it doesn't matter to DVC whether a room is rented by a mega business enterprise or Grandma Tuttle from Iowa: the result is the same.

If DVC sends a "cease and desist letter" to both the mega renter and Grandma Tuttle, and they comply, then mission accomplished. If they don't comply, DVC can easily increase enforcement opportunities.

If Grandma Tuttle rents out half her 400 total points every year to help offset annual dues, then she should be concerned.

 

[tx911]

I have a fundamental question/speculation for the group. Actually. it's a speculation wrapped in a hypothetical question.

I fundamentally believe that 'spec rentals' are by far and away the largest contributor to the effect to 'normal' owners. If DVD could figure out a way to prevent spec rentals, wouldn't this solve the vast majority of problems? Is it even possible to do this?

There has been a great amount of speculation and intellectual one-upsmanship banter in this thread, and I've enjoyed reading most of it, but you gotta simplify this thing for my simple mind. Isn't spec renting the real problem here on a fundamental level?

I feel like shutting down the large spec renters is the low-hanging fruit.

Other than that, I think a letter to individual owners who are clearly crossing the line would clean things up a lot.

 

[DonMacGregor]

You caught that as well. very careful language

I added to my post after you quoted me.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I added to my post after you quoted me.

Can you post a link to the video/show?

 

[lowlight]

If you watch the video, he very carefully only mentions Rental Store, and makes no reference to Resale Market or the fact that the two companies fall under the same corporate umbrella. All of his representations are specific only to Rental Store.

He makes statements like “We (Rental Store) don’t own any points, we’re just an intermediary”, yet the Resale Market division absolutely owns points through their “Instant Sale” program.

I imagine if a company that big were doing this at scale (and I do believe they were), would it make sense to set up an unaffiliated LLC to dump the points into from the strip and flips?

 

[Bearval]

I have a fundamental question/speculation for the group. Actually. it's a speculation wrapped in a hypothetical question.

I fundamentally believe that 'spec rentals' are by far and away the largest contributor to the effect to 'normal' owners. If DVD could figure out a way to prevent spec rentals, wouldn't this solve the vast majority of problems? Is it even possible to do this?

There has been a great amount of speculation and intellectual one-upsmanship banter in this thread, and I've enjoyed reading most of it, but you gotta simplify this thing for my simple mind. Isn't spec renting the real problem here on a fundamental level?

DVC can stop the "spec rentals" in their tracks especially from the commercial sites. All they have to do is "book" a confirmed reservation then cancel it on the owner then demand a refund from the commercial site. If the commercial site states they have a "no refund" policy but gives them a voucher for a "new" rental then book the "new rental" then cancel that reservation on the owner. Pretty much keep "rinsing and repeating". This would pretty much crush those commercial sites especially if DVC cancels the rooms on the owners under 30 days and forces the points into "holding".

 

[matt_in_nh]

I would have expected a lot more if it was a rush to the gates.

If a commercial renter owns 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 points then I would have expected a lot more contracts each day.

Lets see when the week is over how the world looks.

I would expect incremental increases in contract sales. I am willing to bet a whole bunch of those 17 is one person and

The question though is what is frequently and regularly. The dictionary definition of frequently is " often; many times; at short intervals."

What is a short interval, once a week, once a month, once a year, once every 5 years. I have no idea. Everyone here has a different idea.

disney gets to decide that. I really think know DVC rentals is not a business you get your source of income from you do t have much to be worried about.

 

[Sandisw]

When there are as many spec rentals for these hard to get rooms on broker sites as there are, I don't see how anyone could seriously believe it's not an issue.

For the same reason that some don’t believe that demand plays a huge role in this.

If you look at how many they have for different check in dates, and count them together, yes, it adds up.

Most owners aren’t trying to book every day. They have a specific day or window they want to check in.

If you look at BWV or RiV right now, there are plenty of times within the 11 month window that owners can still get those low cost rooms.

Meaning, even the commercial renters aren’t taking them every day from your average owner.


If you have hundreds of owners trying for less than 20 rooms, commercial renters or not, someone is going to continue to be frustrated

Nothing is ever impossible and we know that because the bots do not beat everyone.

And I am not saying that DVC should not enforce the commercial purposes clause for those owners who are renting a lot of reservations, whether they are hard to get or your random easy to get SSR ones.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Can you post a link to the video/show?

It’s on the DVC Fan YouTube channel under “Podcasts”.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that anyone in that organization is doing anything underhanded or nefarious. I have no knowledge or empirical data to suggest that. Just an observation that there appears to be some very carefully chosen words (probably a prudent practice for anyone or any organization even tangentially involved in the greater DVC rental universe) in there.

 

[Judique]

When there are as many spec rentals for these hard to get rooms on broker sites as there are, I don't see how anyone could seriously believe it's not an issue.

That line is pushed by many of the people feeling uncomfortable about their current renting situation.

Disney has made even the little guys feel threatened. The bigger point renters on Disboards such as the ones listed by a previous poster a few hundred posts back are probably quaking in their boots because it will mean possibly losing a lifestyle they've come to enjoy - not talking about people with 600 or 800 points who rent a quarter or a half to help cover the dues, but the ones with 8000 to 16000 or more points, who've boosted their yearly 200k plus income up to maybe 300k with this little enterprise. (Numbers are conjecture and probably higher but I live a fairly modest life.)

No boss and no oversight up until now - what a deal! One of those started posting earlier in the discussion and quickly backed away as they realized they had brought attention to themselves.

These are still 'little guys' in the financial world who've temporarily found something less risky than the stock market, haha!

Then you have the broker companies on top of these.

No wonder Disney is watching a profit stream being drained away before their eyes! It's a wonder they haven't reacted sooner.