DVDMC files amendments to separate use year from unit #

[crvetter]

And I've been told that initially banking was limited to 50% no matte when it was done. So they've done 2 changes to banking rules.

Yeah they have. Though the banking rules and borrowing rules do not reside in the POS, fairy certain. They are simply rules that DVCMC sets in place from time to time in the Home Resort Rules and Regulations, https://disneyvacationclub.disney.g...lations/Home-Resort-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf. So those don't actually go through a formal amendment process. This is the same document that outlines the cancellation guidelines, Home Resort Priority Period (though the POS says it must be 1 month minimum).

 

[bwvBound]

A magnet is nice but food is where it's at. Give us a cookie!

Bill

But with a magnet they've actually hit both at once. Where will the magnet go in most homes? On the refrigerator. So, each time you reach into that revered appliance to prepare a proper meal, a snack, a cold beverage ... you will see the magnet and associate Disney with a food reward.

 

[Spartan86]

-

 

[BillPA]

But with a magnet they've actually hit both at once. Where will the magnet go in most homes? On the refrigerator. So, each time you reach into that revered appliance to prepare a proper meal, a snack, a cold beverage ... you will see the magnet and associate Disney with a food reward.

Our magnets now stick on the side of the trash bin.

 

[Spartan86]

I own at AKV. and both the Component Site and Multi-site POS definitions of Use Year expressly state: "All ownership interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year." So the language exists later than SSR and I cannot conceive of any way DVD can argue that unambiguous definition says it can change the use years of ownership interests in a Unit.

We bought a SSR add on in July, 2017 by which we received a Component and Multi-Site POS. My Multi-Site is revised 8-26-2016 and in the first section definitions states:



Then in the Multi-Site BVTC disclosure document:



Then in the Multi-Site Home Resort Rules section:




My Component Site document revised 12/20/2016 in the first section definitions states, the same as yours:



Whereas the included DVC Membership Agreement revised 04/10/2004, states:



Obviously inconsistent.

 

[LAX]

Does this change allow DVD to do this? DVD ROFRs a Dec UY contract with no 2018 points left. Can this contract be "brought" forward to a Mar (or any earlier) UY?

LAX

 

[hakepb]

Seems obvious to me, I brought this up over a year ago, DVC considers resale their enemy.

Bill

I get the car salesman-like “if they bought from me, I’d get them to pay more”. From that perspective, a resale purchase takes away a direct opportunity.

But....they treat selling “sold out” resorts as a pain. They have never wanted to play in the old resort market. They just go with the bare minimum staff to push the resale paperwork.

New resorts are “priced to sell”
Old resorts are “priced to never sell”

Legally they have to manage all resorts they sold. What do they expect to happen when there’s ownership turnover?

 

[ScubaCat]

Does this change allow DVD to do this? DVD ROFRs a Dec UY contract with no 2018 points left. Can this contract be "brought" forward to a Mar (or any earlier) UY?

LAX

Only when sold to a new purchaser.

 

[disneynutz]

I get the car salesman-like “if they bought from me, I’d get them to pay more”. From that perspective, a resale purchase takes away a direct opportunity.

But....they treat selling “sold out” resorts as a pain. They have never wanted to play in the old resort market. They just go with the bare minimum staff to push the resale paperwork.

New resorts are “priced to sell”
Old resorts are “priced to never sell”

Legally they have to manage all resorts they sold. What do they expect to happen when there’s ownership turnover?

Think about it, Disney doing resales was a pain for them and wasn't profitable enough so they only exercised ROFR if the numbers were right. Trying to ROFR contracts that matched waitlisted requested UY's was a roadblock. The number of resale companies has increased and probably the number of resales has also.

Now they can fill all waitlists no matter what the UY is, increase the number of ROFR's, and increase their profit. They don't care about ownership turnover, one owner leaves and another takes their place.

Bill

 

[Bearval]

Thinking about this from DVC's perspective, I think this will help them in two ways from a sold out resort perspective. One of the variables we could never see in passing rofr was how many points in a specific UY DVC was sitting on and what their demand for that specific UY was. This could explain the "drunkin monkey" behavior. Historically, they may have passed on a $100 per point contract on the same day they took a $105 point contract, just because of the UY. With this change, they can optimize which contracts they claim. Additionally, they could of had a buyer on a wait list for Feb UY without any points to sell while they sat on a pile of Sept UY points, so they would have had to sit on that Sept inventory until a buyer came along and possible paid a premium for Feb points to meet that buyers need.

Now they can claim points at the lowest price independent of UY, they only have to hold one inventory pool per resort (not 8?), and they should sell quicker. They have lower cost of goods sold, lower inventory, and faster turns. (Sorry for the business terms, but this is what they accomplished). As far as how this hurts owners? I don't see how it hurts owners, but it may make DVC a little more active in the rofr market and may take away some of the "deals" that buyers got because inefficiencies in the previous model.

Thinking about this from DVC's perspective, I think this will help them in two ways from a sold out resort perspective. One of the variables we could never see in passing rofr was how many points in a specific UY DVC was sitting on and what their demand for that specific UY was. This could explain the "drunkin monkey" behavior. Historically, they may have passed on a $100 per point contract on the same day they took a $105 point contract, just because of the UY. With this change, they can optimize which contracts they claim. Additionally, they could of had a buyer on a wait list for Feb UY without any points to sell while they sat on a pile of Sept UY points, so they would have had to sit on that Sept inventory until a buyer came along and possible paid a premium for Feb points to meet that buyers need.

Now they can claim points at the lowest price independent of UY, they only have to hold one inventory pool per resort (not 8?), and they should sell quicker. They have lower cost of goods sold, lower inventory, and faster turns. (Sorry for the business terms, but this is what they accomplished). As far as how this hurts owners? I don't see how it hurts owners, but it may make DVC a little more active in the rofr market and may take away some of the "deals" that buyers got because inefficiencies in the previous model.

i feel that this goes hand in hand with DVC trying to drive down the value of resale. If someone what’s to buy direct for benefits for a particular UY DVC has got them covered by buying the cheapest contract.

 

[Katie L]

How are they addressing existing or not existing points. Are points just magically available? June becomes April and poof you have those April points again.

 

[crvetter]

How are they addressing existing or not existing points. Are points just magically available? June becomes April and poof you have those April points again.

They aren’t created out of thin air those points existed prior they just were released delayed. So instead of the points being valid June to June they are bumped up to being valid April to April. It didn’t create points out of o where because each calendar year the points are released into the resort but the Use Year controls when they are available to the member and when they expire, need to be banned, etc. So changing the use year doesn’t recreate points only changes their active period.

Now when it comes to stripped contracts DVC either waits to resell the points or reloads it with developer points.

 

[SL6827]

So this action will help Disney with taking back more contracts on the market that go up for resale. So it might be even harder now to get that BCV or BWV resale contract? I wonder if they will have a preference of what size of contracts they want. Will they target some resorts more than others?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So this action will help Disney with taking back more contracts on the market that go up for resale. So it might be even harder now to get that BCV or BWV resale contract? I wonder if they will have a preference of what size of contracts they want. Will they target some resorts more than others?

They still need a margin that makes it worthwhile for them and with the Wait list they had especially for BCV I think they could have ROFRd most every contract no matter the use year if that is what they really wanted to do. They really want to sell the new resorts though. That's where the money is for them.

 

[Katie L]

They still need a margin that makes it worthwhile for them and with the Wait list they had especially for BCV I think they could have ROFRd most every contract no matter the use year if that is what they really wanted to do. They really want to sell the new resorts though. That's where the money is for them.

Not for long. This is definitely being seen as a new true profit option.

 

[Chuck S]

They still need a margin that makes it worthwhile for them and with the Wait list they had especially for BCV I think they could have ROFRd most every contract no matter the use year if that is what they really wanted to do. They really want to sell the new resorts though. That's where the money is for them.

True, but if you have a customer that wants a direct add-on at a sold out resort, it will be much easier for them to fulfill the request. And it may not be as profitable as selling new resorts, but profit IS after all, still profit, and some profit is better than letting a customer walk away.

 

[Madame]

I think many that were already on WL are now saying « no thx » due to ridiculous direct pricing. DVC could end up with a bunch of unsellable inventory.

 

[1SickPupe]

I would like to see a national publication or world wide news site collect all the changes DVD made to to DVC over the years and compile it into a easy to read article so the general public could see how Disney operates. Those who read these boards pick up on little bits and pieces as time goes by but for the general public is unaware of their practices.
It appears Disney takes full advantage of their product when things are going their way. I believe while the market is strong like it is now Disney will take full advantage and see how far they can push.

 

[cm8]

A magnet is nice but food is where it's at. Give us a cookie!

Bill

If you give a mouse a cookie ......

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think many that were already on WL are now saying « no thx » due to ridiculous direct pricing. DVC could end up with a bunch of unsellable inventory.

I was supposed to be on a BLT waitlist but with 2 large increases since that time I never even bothered following up. If by some crazy chance I did get the call I'd laugh and decline.