Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Sandisw]

How would this work when resort owners are supposed to have at least 1 month home resort advantage over non-owners? Wouldn't this bypass that requirement? Or would it be that the trust owns both resorts and is "sharing" login info as in your example?

It's one thing for a few owners to swap. It's completely different if thousands of owners get to "share" login info.

The DVC membership agreement does currently give those who buy the trust plan owners at CFW that one month. But, if future plans are added, they can amend that to have a reciprocal agreement and nothing would prevent that because both would say that.

Since these RTU plans are no ownership interests in the property, the trust POS and the resurgent use plans are what govern the rules.

My example was just to say that if they want to give those who buy into different plans, assuming they exist in the future, rights to the other resort, then it can be structured that way.

But, I am talking new units added and not ones that have been declared and sold as deeded interests.

Since we don’t know what is going to happen until we get another trust property at a different location added, it’s potential ways DVD is setting this up.

If I had to guess, I lean more to 11 month advantage to one’s own RTU plan resort, 10 month advantage to other trust property and then trading via BVTC to all others…we shall see!

I will add that if they do not add any of Poly tower to this trust and sell it as normal, then I will lean toward status quo for the program in all practical purposes for booking.

 

[DianaMB333]

When are sales expected to start?
Ps. @Sandisw Thanks for the reply before, just catching up with the news here

 

[Jlo85]

The two big questions I'd have for how the Trust will impact CFW is:

1. I think DVC could force incremental purchases of points based on the Trust Agreement. My guess is that each "Vacation Ownership Interest" could be 150 points, and you may be required to purchase in 150 point increments (e.g. you couldn't buy 175 points). I believe this is how Marriott Abound's trust works.
2. Expiration Dates are of interest to me. Yes, the ground lease on CFW expires in 2075. But it hasn't been made clear if the Trust product will. My understanding is most timeshare trusts don't expire. That could be a pretty radical change for DVC. Actually poses some risk if there are concerns dues could spiral on the beach properties...

 

[Brian Noble]

My guess is that each "Vacation Ownership Interest" could be 150 points

I will be very surprised if the "unit size" is 150. For reference, Marriott's chunk size is 250, and a low season studio in Orlando (among their cheaper properties) is 85. If DVC did something similar, the chunk size would be 25-ish. Given DVC's studio-focused nature, I would bet on an even smaller chunk size than one that is proportional to Marriott---something like 5 or 10. And that's if they have a minimum increment at all.

If they wanted to restrict the increment, they could just do that now by refusing to write contracts that aren't, say, a multiple of 5, 10 or whatever. They already have the power to do that.

Chunk sizes also play havoc with fixed weeks, which is another reason they might not bother.

 

[Jlo85]

I will be very surprised if the "unit size" is 150. For reference, Marriott's chunk size is 250, and a low season studio in Orlando (among their cheaper properties) is 85. If DVC did something similar, the chunk size would be 25-ish. Given DVC's studio-focused nature, I would bet on an even smaller chunk size than one that is proportional to Marriott---something like 5 or 10. And that's if they have a minimum increment at all.

If they wanted to restrict the increment, they could just do that now by refusing to write contracts that aren't, say, a multiple of 5, 10 or whatever. They already have the power to do that.

Chunk sizes also play havoc with fixed weeks, which is another reason they might not bother.

Wouldn’t 150 be about perfect if the cabins average to 21 points/night? One week would be 147. Kind of seems intentional almost….

 

[bama_ed]

The DVC membership agreement does currently give those who buy the trust plan owners at CFW that one month. But, if future plans are added, they can amend that to have a reciprocal agreement and nothing would prevent that because both would say that.

Am I mis-reading this from the doc that the reference to the 1 month is the minimum advance period but they are (for now) giving CFW owners a 4 month advance period (much like the current 11 month/7 month standard?



Bama Ed

 

[Genie+]

I think CCV was simply used as an example of a resort with very popular room categories (BWV Boardwalk View could be another, or AKV value rooms) that, if introduced into the trust, either as a partially sold-out resort (like RR or AUL), or a future new resort (Poly tower (?), etc.), could introduce an imbalance if all trust members have equal footing to book within the same reservation windows.

I guess the hypothetical would be what if, in an alternate Marvel universe, they were actually building Boardwalk tomorrow, and introducing a resort with a hugely popular room category, but everyone who "currently" owns at CFW also has the same 11-month booking advantage to grab those sweet sweet boardwalk views as all of the new Boardwalk owners.

We’re yet to see what properties go into the Trust portfolio. To balance demand they could use a 2 part strategy that involves the point charts and resort choices.

In the current DVC point system there are demand imbalances. Ask anybody the difference between a 9 or 10pt BW standard studio and the 15pt P/G view and most will say only meaningful difference is the need to own to book standard. RIV, BLT and others less drastic but similar. OKW HH booking no point difference - just an advantage to home priority. To some extent intentional under legacy DVC - home resort advantage built in to the point charts. And I don’t think they intentionally balance demand across resorts, that’s why we can book BCV for 17pts/nt on a Fri in May when SSR is 18pts. IF the Trust ends up including multiple resorts, they might be much more precise balancing points and demand within a resort and especially across the Trust.

iirc legacy DVC only requires home chart to balance demand. Could the Trust balance demand of the whole portfolio?

Part 2 could be the mix of resorts. CFW and AUL could spark strong rotational interest. AUL, VDH, CFW and RIV look great for an infrequent use of my points, but none repeatedly. This quality might be a great fit for both buyer interest and Trust functionality. Personally I’m intrigued about a mix of resorts we’d likely want to visit yet only occasionally, and the ability to rotate without losing home priority. That aspect helps sell. Also helps the system work. Every time an owner books a specific home priority resort, more availability remains across the others. Owners rotating selection eases competition at any one resort. In combination with balancing demand via point costs, this system might work out.

Maybe the Trust avoids what we see with BW, or CCV over the holidays, etc. Beside balancing point costs across the system it could also lean on resorts that owners typically intend to mix up over the years. Take VDH. I can’t see buying there (east coaster) but would like to book infrequently. I’m suited for Trust points if there’s other choices we like as well. A buyer mostly wanting the same resort repeatedly will unlikely buy into the Trust as long as better options exist for them.

Yes I think it will increase pressure for those popular rooms at popular times in the trust. But that is still less people fighting for a room than currently at 7-months. I like the game of booking at 8 am exactly at 7-months to compete with people and I waitlist and check availability constantly after 7-month window to see what opens up. I am flexible in when I can travel in the summer so I can always decide when to go according to availability. The trust product just made it easier for me to plan my vacation as I used to compete with people at 7-months and now I would be competing with less people at 11-months and then have another opportunity to compete with more people at 7-months.

This is all based on speculations of the new booking rules for resorts in the trust though.

All speculation but you have a great point. If the Trust is only trading amongst itself in the home priority window, I think it likely has much better availability for flexible owners than the traditional 7 month window (that has a lopsided amount of owners wanting to trade out), especially if point costs balance demand across the Trust system.

 

[Sandisw]

Am I mis-reading this from the doc that the reference to the 1 month is the minimum advance period but they are (for now) giving CFW owners a 4 month advance period (much like the current 11 month/7 month standard?

View attachment 822985

Bama Ed

Yes, they have currently kept it as four months which makes sense since it is the only property being activated into the trust.

I think they could amend it later, if they wanted to, because the resorts stay owned by the trust when new ones are added.

But, until that actually happens, all we can do is read and see what potential options they gave themselves. There is something I remember reading…I will try find again…that lead me to believe that having a reciprocal agreements is possible.

 

[Sandisw]

We’re yet to see what properties go into the Trust portfolio. To balance demand they could use a 2 part strategy that involves the point charts and resort choices.

In the current DVC point system there are demand imbalances. Ask anybody the difference between a 9 or 10pt BW standard studio and the 15pt P/G view and most will say only meaningful difference is the need to own to book standard. RIV, BLT and others less drastic but similar. OKW HH booking no point difference - just an advantage to home priority. To some extent intentional under legacy DVC - home resort advantage built in to the point charts. And I don’t think they intentionally balance demand across resorts, that’s why we can book BCV for 17pts/nt on a Fri in May when SSR is 18pts. IF the Trust ends up including multiple resorts, they might be much more precise balancing points and demand within a resort and especially across the Trust.

iirc legacy DVC only requires home chart to balance demand. Could the Trust balance demand of the whole portfolio?

Part 2 could be the mix of resorts. CFW and AUL could spark strong rotational interest. AUL, VDH, CFW and RIV look great for an infrequent use of my points, but none repeatedly. This quality might be a great fit for both buyer interest and Trust functionality. Personally I’m intrigued about a mix of resorts we’d likely want to visit yet only occasionally, and the ability to rotate without losing home priority. That aspect helps sell. Also helps the system work. Every time an owner books a specific home priority resort, more availability remains across the others. Owners rotating selection eases competition at any one resort. In combination with balancing demand via point costs, this system might work out.

Maybe the Trust avoids what we see with BW, or CCV over the holidays, etc. Beside balancing point costs across the system it could also lean on resorts that owners typically intend to mix up over the years. Take VDH. I can’t see buying there (east coaster) but would like to book infrequently. I’m suited for Trust points if there’s other choices we like as well. A buyer mostly wanting the same resort repeatedly will unlikely buy into the Trust as long as better options exist for them.



All speculation but you have a great point. If the Trust is only trading amongst itself in the home priority window, I think it likely has much better availability for flexible owners than the traditional 7 month window (that has a lopsided amount of owners wanting to trade out), especially if point costs balance demand across the Trust system.

They have activated the 30 cabins at CFW into the trust…so that is what we have but it will be interesting to see when and if they add more down the line.

 

[Genie+]

“In addition, DVCM reserves the right to modify the Home Resort Priority Period for a new DVC Resort during the Opening Priority Period for reservations for, and access to, Vacation Homes at such new DVC Resort to Members with Home Resort Priority at the new DVC Resort. The Opening Priority Period may vary for each new DVC Resort. DVCM, in its discretion, will determine how long the Opening Priority Period…”

Are they saying they could withhold the ability of existing Trust members to book a new Trust resort for some period of time? That is not reciprocal? Is that what ‘Opening Priority Period’ means?

For instance say Poly Tower has 50% put into the Trust. People who buy that could potentially book CFW before owners of CFW RUP can book the new tower with their trust points?

 

[Sykes]

I think they could amend it later, if they wanted to, because the resorts stay owned by the trust when new ones are added.

This is also consistent with the home resort priority period for all of the other resorts--DVC has the right to reduce the home resort priority period to as little as one month at all of the existing resorts as well.

Are they saying they could withhold the ability of existing Trust members to book a new Trust resort for some period of time? That is not reciprocal? Is that what ‘Opening Priority Period’ means?

In the first year of any resort being open DVC gives itself the right to adjust the home resort priority period to favor owners buying at that new resort. In practice this has been used to provide a window (usually around a month?) when only owners may book at the resort before all other members have a bite at the apple.

 

[Genie+]

“In addition, DVCM reserves the right to modify the Home Resort Priority Period for a new DVC Resort during the Opening Priority Period for reservations for, and access to, Vacation Homes at such new DVC Resort to Members with Home Resort Priority at the new DVC Resort. The Opening Priority Period may vary for each new DVC Resort. DVCM, in its discretion, will determine how long the Opening Priority Period…”

Are they saying they could withhold the ability of existing Trust members to book a new Trust resort for some period of time? That is not reciprocal? Is that what ‘Opening Priority Period’ means?

For instance say Poly Tower has 50% put into the Trust. People who buy that could potentially book CFW before owners of CFW RUP can book the new tower with their trust points?

Potentially result - crazy breakage, and increased competition for the ‘not new’ Trust properties.

 

[Sandisw]

“In addition, DVCM reserves the right to modify the Home Resort Priority Period for a new DVC Resort during the Opening Priority Period for reservations for, and access to, Vacation Homes at such new DVC Resort to Members with Home Resort Priority at the new DVC Resort. The Opening Priority Period may vary for each new DVC Resort. DVCM, in its discretion, will determine how long the Opening Priority Period…”

Are they saying they could withhold the ability of existing Trust members to book a new Trust resort for some period of time? That is not reciprocal? Is that what ‘Opening Priority Period’ means?

For instance say Poly Tower has 50% put into the Trust. People who buy that could potentially book CFW before owners of CFW RUP can book the new tower with their trust points?

I think they can but we don’t even know if they plan to create reciprocal agreements. That is all speculation at this point

We know that CFW is being given a 4 month priority period like the rest of the resort. We also know that they can create different RTU plans within the trust…they do not all need to be the same.

They could decide to never let the owners who buy into the different trust plans book other trust resorts any sooner than everyone else.

So, they could, as has been mentioned, just keep things status quo for every future resort and just not sell them as deeded by as RTU.

We really wont know anything about their plans moving forward, until they filter document or announce another trust RTU plan tied to units at a different site.

The only thing I think is that if the pass on adding units from Poly tower to the trust…and my guess would be it will be all or none…and sell as deeded, then this trust might br more for the specific nature of CFW or for things down the road.

 

[Cfabar1]

No, we are, and I think that's what will happen. My bet: the mechanics of use will be the same as they are now, but using different legal frameworks.

Couldn't agree with this more.... The more I consider it, if I had to put the chips down, this is where and how the trust will function (for now).

 

[MyDogTink]

I'm on this train too. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but at this point I'm leaning (like 60% confidence) that the trust product will be functionally the same as the existing deeded offerings (to the user/owner) with just a different underlying legal framework.

I’m with you and @Brian Noble and @Sykes. I really think it will function as it does today and just be a different legal framework. You will buy an interest in a resort trust with 11m booking priority and have access to other resort trusts at 7m. This will be confirmed if there is an addition resort (could be Poly 2) with its own resort trust.

How are guides going to sell 2 different products? On the one hand, a deeded ownership in RIV, VDH and AUL. On the other hand, ownership interest in a trust at CFW. I suppose this would work if the difference is just a legal framework and they tell buyers that for all intents and purposes both operate the same way.

 

[Genie+]

I think they can but we don’t even know if they plan to create reciprocal agreements. That is all speculation at this point

We know that CFW is being given a 4 month priority period like the rest of the resort. We also know that they can create different RTU plans within the trust…they do not all need to be the same.

They could decide to never let the owners who buy into the different trust plans book other trust resorts any sooner than everyone else.

So, they could, as has been mentioned, just keep things status quo for every future resort and just not sell them as deeded by as RTU.

We really wont know anything about their plans moving forward, until they filter document or announce another trust RTU plan tied to units at a different site.

The only thing I think is that if the pass on adding units from Poly tower to the trust…and my guess would be it will be all or none…and sell as deeded, then this trust might br more for the specific nature of CFW or for things down the road.

I’m putting the cart before the horse Lol. The possibilities of the Trust as an add-on are intriguing.

 

[Genie+]

The DVC survey regarding multi- home priority seems odd if the Trust’s main purpose was to overcome hurdles of adding CFW to DVC. Or if the plan is to have the user end the same as existing DVC, what does a Trust do that RIV terms could not.

 

[Brian Noble]

How are guides going to sell 2 different products? On the one hand, a deeded ownership in RIV, VDH and AUL. On the other hand, ownership interest in a trust at CFW. I suppose this would work if the difference is just a legal framework and they tell buyers that for all intents and purposes both operate the same way.

It may be even easier. They just tell prospective buyers how it works: You buy points, they can book your home resort at 11 months, and any other at 7. Then, when the prospect decides which resort they want, the draw up Paperwork Package A (Deed) or Paperwork Package B (Trust) and never even have to mention the other.

 

[Sandisw]

The DVC survey regarding multi- home priority seems odd if the Trust’s main purpose was to overcome hurdles of adding CFW to DVC. Or if the plan is to have the user end the same as existing DVC, what does a Trust do that RIV terms could not.

I wasn’t even thinking about the survey anymore but you know what, it does seem like this has to be more than for CFW.

I’m at 50/50 that all Poly tower will be sold via the trust

 

[Brian Noble]

what does a Trust do that RIV terms could not.

Two things. First, it makes it trivial to reclaim points from an owner who falls behind on Dues. Second, it ensures that all voting power of "the property owners" remains with the developer. For DVC, the second isn't very important--owners already don't vote for the Board. However, the first might be useful.