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

[DonMacGregor]

The reason I say that is those point would be sold to someone else. I can see that a regular DVC owner would probably trade out some of their points therefore book less rooms at boardwalk but it would be a fraction less than an owner booking. So if commercial renters are booking 50 rooms in May. The new owners would maybe book 45.

I'm not suggesting you are making a straw man argument, but I do think there's a little more nuance to the discussion.

Only the most naive member would believe the flood gates will open with rooms available weeks out across every resort, particularly in the high-demand categories. As you said, the points are still out there, still owned by someone, and still being used to make reservations. People complain about the lack of availability for specific room types, dates, etc. which logically means the popularity and desirability of those rooms will remain. They're popular for a reason and it will still be difficult to book them, regardless of who owns the points.

However, (and you do touch upon this) instead of one "mega renter" owning dozens of contracts all for commercial use, targeting and reserving the same lucrative room types (studios, for example) during high demand weeks, and making numerous reservations, you'll see a more natural distribution as now dozens of discrete owners, with their own travel plans, preferred or needed room types, and travel calendars, will be using those points in a more organic fashion and not necessarily targeting peak travel periods.

It's a statistical improbability that the multiple (dozens, hundreds?) owners who will replace the mega renters will all seek out and rent the exact same rooms, at the exact same times, in the exact same numbers, for the same duration, as the mega renters. No amount of pretzel logic or rationalization will improve that improbability.

If, say, 100,000 points are unloaded by mega-renters (I mean, that's only ten people/entities at 10,000 points each), with the average size of a DVC resale contract being 150 points, then that 100,000 point tranche equates to the possibility of redistributing those points to as many as 650 new owners (allowing of course for the likelihood that some number of the 100,000 points are locked into larger contracts, and that new buyers may purchase more than one resale contract). Even if you get really conservative and assume only 500 new owners of those points (because again, the average contract size is still 150), that's still 500 new owners with distinct travel plans, preferred or needed room types, and travel calendars, versus 10 mega-renters all looking to gobble up only the most lucrative reservations. That's some serious dilution. And that's only 10 mega-renters. With a couple of hours of sleuthing, you could easily find that many people renting out point totals in the 10K range with little to no effort.

To put it another way, if you average a studio at +/- 20 points per night, that equates to +/- 5,000 room nights that aren't absolutely being tied to high-value rooms. 100,000 points out of millions seems de minimis, but injecting 5,000 room nights worth of points back into the system for a more organic distribution might actually be perceivable. Make the average point value 50 points (two bedroom), and you're still at 2,000 room nights (but I think I read you and a few other folks arguing that the studios are where everyone wants to be, so we'll stick with the 20-point number)

Many folks will still use their points during peak periods, and that's to be expected. And why shouldn't they? They own the points and that is their right. However, the points are distributed/diluted across numerous members who won't all want to go on vacation all during the same travel periods.

 

[Mouseforward]

I'm just not sure of the impact. I can't go to a broker's site and see Aunt Erma's long weekend booked at Beach Club in case her niece can get off work, but I can see the 50 or so Boardwalk view rooms the commercial renter is hogging.

And if you think about it if you had 4000 points and as the account owner was trying to book 50 boardwalk view Studios throughout the year. I bet you would be successful with actually getting less than 10. That’s why I think Disney could have a great effect if they put in the widely available anti-bot measures.

I would go so far to say it would put the mega commercial renters out of business if they had to hire people to do all the clicking.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Would having the DVC points in a trust prevent this ie the marital asset, crazy in-law?

An irrevocable trust. Which has to have its own tax ID and ongoing cost structure every year. Expensive….

 

[Sandisw]

But the "cash" stays are coming out of DVC inventory in this case since that's where the points originated from.

And I'm not sure competing with DVC for inventory is better than competing with commercial renters' bots.

This not true when it comes to trades. If an owner uses points for a cruise or to buy the AP, DVC takes a room from inventory using that owner’s points and rents it for cash for them to pay for the trade.

They do not use their own points for this. Sure, some cash rooms come from points they own.

They can’t legally leave rooms in inventory when the points have been traded.

The issue is that the more points that owners trade, the more rooms go to DVC to rent.

The effect is fewer rooms for owners to book.

 

[Mouseforward]

I'm not suggesting you are making a straw man argument, but I do think there's a little more nuance to the discussion.

Only the most naive member would believe the flood gates will open with rooms available weeks out across every resort, particularly in the high-demand categories. As you said, the points are still out there, still owned by someone, and still being used to make reservations. People complain about the lack of availability for specific room types, dates, etc. which logically means the popularity and desirability of those rooms will remain. They're popular for a reason and it will still be difficult to book them, regardless of who owns the points.

However, (and you do touch upon this) instead of one "mega renter" owning dozens of contracts all for commercial use, targeting and reserving the same lucrative room types (studios, for example) during high demand weeks, and making numerous reservations, you'll see a more natural distribution as now dozens of discrete owners, with their own travel plans, preferred or needed room types, and travel calendars, will be using those points in a more organic fashion and not necessarily targeting peak travel periods.

It's a statistical improbability that the multiple (dozens, hundreds?) owners who will replace the mega renters will all seek out and rent the exact same rooms, at the exact same times, in the exact same numbers, for the same duration, as the mega renters. No amount of pretzel logic or rationalization will improve that improbability.

If, say, 100,000 points are unloaded by mega-renters (I mean, that's only ten people/entities at 10,000 points each), with the average size of a DVC resale contract being 150 points, then that 100,000 point tranche equates to the possibility of redistributing those points to as many as 650 new owners (allowing of course for the likelihood that some number of the 100,000 points are locked into larger contracts, and that new buyers may purchase more than one resale contract). Even if you get really conservative and assume only 500 new owners of those points (because again, the average contract size is still 150), that's still 500 new owners with distinct travel plans, preferred or needed room types, and travel calendars, versus 10 mega-renters all looking to gobble up only the most lucrative reservations. That's some serious dilution. And that's only 10 mega-renters. With a couple of hours of sleuthing, you could easily find that many people renting out point totals in the 10K range with little to no effort.

To put it another way, if you average a studio at +/- 20 points per night, that equates to +/- 5,000 room nights that aren't absolutely being tied to high-value rooms. 100,000 points out of millions seems de minimis, but injecting 5,000 room nights worth of points back into the system for a more organic distribution might actually be perceivable. Make the average point value 50 points (two bedroom), and you're still at 2,000 room nights (but I think I read you and a few other folks arguing that the studios are where everyone wants to be, so we'll stick with the 20-point number)

Many folks will still use their points during peak periods, and that's to be expected. And why shouldn't they? They own the points and that is their right. However, the points are distributed/diluted across numerous members who won't all want to go on vacation all during the same travel periods.

I agree, mostly with what you’re saying, However , new owners who buy boardwalk resale contracts are going to use it at Boardwalk for the first couple years.

New Boardwalk resale contracts are used at Boardwalk almost exclusively since it’s 30% cheaper to buy an SSR contract that will have a longer length and be just as effective at seven months.

So I think I just estimate the percentage to be a lot less that will trade out points than you do.

 

[Mouseforward]

An irrevocable trust. Which has to have its own tax ID and ongoing cost structure every year. Expensive….

I don’t think those people understand the amount of paperwork that’s involved that’s ongoing. I think trusts are a great money, making opportunity for law firms and accountants. Unless you want the privacy where no one knows how your assets were distributed. For the average Joe they’re usually not worth it.

And they also don’t realize that if their kids don’t really want a timeshare. ( I’m thinking more of the Wyndham zero dollar value timeshare) putting it in a trust, can make it harder to reject.

 

[Genie+]

But we’re getting lost into how much people are charging per point I’m guessing that to the person who lost out in the room you don’t care if they got $15 a point or if they got 35 you still lost your room.

I don’t think so. The game changed in stages. First came the increase in online traffic and tools. As the years went by more owners joined in, which still wasn’t too bad because more points/resorts were also added in and most of the activity remained traditional renting. Then covid came, even more people jumped into the rental game and the normalization of confirmed reservations happened.

In recent years the amount of points used to explicitly target only the highest value bookings available has exploded. That makes a huge difference. There is a high enough ratio of this activity that it puts constant pressure on availability options. The sole purpose of these points are to be used in the most profitable ways. They hold the advantage of scooping the cream as it pops up, because they have the entire public to find a use. The ease to use the entirety of points on the ‘best value’ bookings is quite different than how it works for personal use members, and even tradition renters.

If it really made no difference, why did brokers have policies in place specifically against these types of listings? It was recognized long ago to be detrimental to the ‘club’.

The big question is why are people wheeling and dealing in confirmed reservations. Is that in anyway way defendable as personal use? At some point there is no way to explain it as anything other than commercial use when it’s clearly targeting profit potential and not used for much else.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree, mostly with what you’re saying, However , new owners who buy boardwalk resale contracts are going to use it at Boardwalk for the first couple years.

New Boardwalk resale contracts are used at Boardwalk almost exclusively since it’s 30% cheaper to buy an SSR contract that will have a longer length and be just as effective at seven months.

So I think I just estimate the percentage to be a lot less that will trade out points than you do.

And even with the point chart adjustements thar have been done in recent years to make Fall more and summer less, it still remains popular.

Certain times will remain popular. However, since they reduced May, it’s become much harder to book then it did when it was more

People who can flex their vacations a bit shift to lower point times.

 

[muppets3d]

But the buyer is paying because they aren’t due yet. The actual cost of the dues also isn’t always determined. That’s why it can be negotiated

Yes the buyer is putting in their credit card number in DVC's system, but the buyer received a credit at closing for the estimated dues and if the actual dues are different then the contract typically allows them to go back to the seller and get an adjustment.

 

[Sykes]

I agree, mostly with what you’re saying, However , new owners who buy boardwalk resale contracts are going to use it at Boardwalk for the first couple years.

I assume that you have some data to back such a broad characterization?

My experience is quite different. In my observations, 1) most new owners are unwilling to wait 11 months to use their shiny new membership so they are very often not booking at their home resort (I did my first stay in SSR, as I suspect many new members do), and 2) new owners are on average far less savvy and consequently tend to be less able to book the high-demand rooms.

Sure, some new owners are going to use their new membership as optimally as possible, but when the points are spread across dozens or hundreds of owners they will be used far far far less optimally than they would when concentrated under a single entity doing it for a living to maximize profit.

 

[DanCali]

This not true when it comes to trades. If an owner uses points for a cruise or to buy the AP, DVC takes a room from inventory using that owner’s points and rents it for cash for them to pay for the trade.

They do not use their own points for this. Sure, some cash rooms come from points they own.

They can’t legally leave rooms in inventory when the points have been traded.

The issue is that the more points that owners trade, the more rooms go to DVC to rent.

The effect is fewer rooms for owners to book.

That's actually the point I was making, just misphrased it. When I said cruise/AP points are coming "out of DVC inventory" I meant our DVC owner inventory as opposed to the DVD cash inventory. And we both agree there will be fewer rooms for owners to book as a result.

So how is competing against the Disney room grabbing bots better than the commercial renter bots?

 

[Mouseforward]

I assume that you have some data to back such a broad characterization?

My experience is quite different. In my observations, 1) most new owners are unwilling to wait 11 months to use their shiny new membership so they are very often not booking at their home resort (I did my first stay in SSR, as I suspect many new members do), and 2) new owners are on average far less savvy and consequently tend to be less able to book the high-demand rooms.

Sure, some new owners are going to use their new membership as optimally as possible, but when the points are spread across dozens or hundreds of owners they will be used far far far less optimally than they would when concentrated under a single entity doing it for a living to maximize profit.

It could happen that the first booking is an SSR. But like I said for the first five years, it’s it’s gonna be boardwalk. Buying a resale boardwalk, is almost as bad of a financial decision as buying a resale beach club. You don’t do it to save money you do it cause you wanna stay at the resort and get that studio at 11 months.

 

[muppets3d]

I assume that you have some data to back such a broad characterization?

My experience is quite different. In my observations, 1) most new owners are unwilling to wait 11 months to use their shiny new membership so they are very often not booking at their home resort (I did my first stay in SSR, as I suspect many new members do), and 2) new owners are on average far less savvy and consequently tend to be less able to book the high-demand rooms.

Sure, some new owners are going to use their new membership as optimally as possible, but when the points are spread across dozens or hundreds of owners they will be used far far far less optimally than they would when concentrated under a single entity doing it for a living to maximize profit.

Why would someone buying resale buy Boardwalk at a higher point cost unless they planned to stay at Boardwalk? If you are buying resale, you've done a decent amount of homework already - you're not going to pay more for a shorter deed at Boardwalk unless you plan to use at least the majority of those points at Boardwalk.

 

[Mouseforward]

And even with the point chart adjustements thar have been done in recent years to make Fall more and summer less, it still remains popular.

Certain times will remain popular. However, since they reduced May, it’s become much harder to book then it did when it was more

People who can flex their vacations a bit shift to lower point times.

The point distribution is a huge factor. And I don’t want this to happen as a boardwalk owner. But if they took some points from one bedrooms and made studios more expensive. At least get them close to the point value versus Disney rack rate value as a resort such as poly. It would fix some of the problem.

Edit - I would still rather they fixed bots and left the point where they are. I like my cheap points.

 

[Sykes]

It could happen that the first booking is an SSR. But like I said for the first five years, it’s it’s gonna be boardwalk. Buying a resale boardwalk, is almost as bad of a financial decision as buying a resale beach club. You don’t do it to save money you do it cause you wanna stay at the resort and get that studio at 11 months.

Why would someone buying resale buy Boardwalk at a higher point cost unless they planned to stay at Boardwalk? If you are buying resale, you've done a decent amount of homework already - you're not going to pay more for a shorter deed at Boardwalk unless you plan to use at least the majority of those points at Boardwalk.

You buy Boardwalk points because over the life of the contract you intend to stay at Boardwalk more often than other resorts, but people do not act as monolithic entities making precisely the optimal choice every time. Personally, I've owned at VDH since the day it opened but I have yet to book a single VDH trip because it just hasn't made sense yet. I bought VDH because I know that over the life of the contract I'll want to stay at VDH enough to make it worth paying the premium. Similarly, I've owned at PVB for almost 10 years and have done a grand total of two stays there.

 

[Mouseforward]

You buy Boardwalk points because over the life of the contract you intend to stay at Boardwalk more often than other resorts, but people are not monolithic and make the precisely optimal choice every time. Personally, I've owned at VDH since the day it opened but I have yet to book a single VDH trip because it just hasn't made sense yet. I bought VDH because I know that over the life of the contract I'll want to stay at VDH enough to make it worth paying the premium.

California’s apples and oranges to Walt Disney World. You just don’t have the choices out there and if you wanna stay out there, you need to own.

You have so many better choices than buying Boardwalk at Walt Disney World if you’re gonna stay elsewhere.

And I’m not saying that they’re gonna stay exclusively at boardwalk I’m saying that the point trade out is gonna be very low. So the benefits of commercial renters contracts being sold to regular owners isn’t gonna be a windfall.

 

[muppets3d]

You buy Boardwalk points because over the life of the contract you intend to stay at Boardwalk more often than other resorts, but people are not monolithic and make the precisely optimal choice every time. Personally, I've owned at VDH since the day it opened but I have yet to book a single VDH trip because it just hasn't made sense yet. I bought VDH because I know that over the life of the contract I'll want to stay at VDH enough to make it worth paying the premium. Similarly, I've owned at PVB for at least 10 years and have done a grand total of two stays there.

Obviously some people will trade out at 7 months but if people are buying resale with the intention of mostly booking 7 month stays, they're not going to pay more for a Boardwalk contract. They're going to buy Saratoga, Boulder Ridge, etc.

 

[Sandisw]

That's actually the point I was making, just misphrased it. When I said cruise/AP points are coming "out of DVC inventory" I meant our DVC owner inventory as opposed to the DVD cash inventory. And we both agree there will be fewer rooms for owners to book as a result.

So how is competing against the Disney room grabbing bots better than the commercial renter bots?

That wasn’t in relation to bots. It was the notion that DVC giving owners an opportunity to use points for an AP, means that we may see fewer rentals on the open market but now you will see them on the Disney website.

So, if an owner today is renting 150 of their 300 points yearly, but now trade 150 points for APs, is it really any different in terms of its impact?

They are still renting…just now using Disney to do which means it doesn’t count.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that the transfer rule changes and this came out at the same time they were getting complaints to do something about the rental market.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I agree, mostly with what you’re saying, However , new owners who buy boardwalk resale contracts are going to use it at Boardwalk for the first couple years.

New Boardwalk resale contracts are used at Boardwalk almost exclusively since it’s 30% cheaper to buy an SSR contract that will have a longer length and be just as effective at seven months.

So I think I just estimate the percentage to be a lot less that will trade out points than you do.

I don't disagree that the model has plenty of moving parts, but at the end of the day you're still left with a measurably larger distribution. I'm not even suggesting the points will be traded out, I'm just saying that a mega-renter is going to do everything in their power to snag those prime dates. Full stop. First week of December, Christmas to New Years, Easter, Run Disney Weekends, etc.

If those points are owned by a hundred new owners, a significant number of those people will have travel preferences during the other 48 or so weeks every year. Heck, we own nearly 400 points at BRV, a ridiculously popular holiday resort, and we we've only done two holiday trips to WL. We LOVE the holidays and the Lodge, but wow the crowds just kill you.

By the way, I 100% agree (unlike others) that people buy Boardwalk because they want to use the points at Boardwalk as their primary resort. It's a 2042 resort, so you can get points cheaper at BRV if you really only want to visit BWV occasionally. I just don't believe that 100% of them buy with the end goal of a Boardwalk view studio, the first week in December, every year.

 

[Sandisw]

The point distribution is a huge factor. And I don’t want this to happen as a boardwalk owner. But if they took some points from one bedrooms and made studios more expensive. At least get them close to the point value versus Disney rack rate value as a resort such as poly. It would fix some of the problem.

Edit - I would still rather they fixed bots and left the point where they are. I like my cheap points.

Or make RV and PV closer. As you say, the low cost rooms are popular…which is why commercial renters target them.

But, if the concern is availability, then I think that making the views closer in cost would have a much greater impact on the satisfaction of owners when it comes to booking.

I agree that if owners, any owners , are using bots then DVC should work to address that because it is against Disneys policy.