Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[aceshigh73]

Ive been quiet on this and mostly just enjoying the analysis of the Trust setup. But man, I cant help but think the sales people are gonna have a hard time explaining this to the simpletons (and even the brainiacs that over analyze everything) a trust with PVB and the CFW, etc. Im sure they have a hard time explaining Use Years still (and myself having an issue trying to get family, young and old alike to understand) as well as restrictions, etc. Most sales people will tell you they dont want 2 or more products to sell because it causes people to over analyze, and the last thing they want to hear is "Let me think about it..." Now they will have home resorts to sell (Legacy) as well as a trust system.
Will the Trust System have UY's ? or will it be calendar based?

Good luck to the guides.

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

I personally think it’s going to end up in the trust as part of that association and not end up part of PVB.

But, lots are still focused on on what was said at the meeting…which I can’t seem to get DVC to answer…thst it sparked my interest in whether both could end up true.

DVD wasn’t going to tip its hand at the meeting about the trust so maybe that is why they said what they did?

Maybe they needed to make sure the trust was ready to go and could work?

I find it hard to believe DIsney is just winging it and didn’t already have this all worked out. I guess if Yvonne Chang “decides to leave Disney to spend more time with her family”that might give us some insight.

 

[Jlo85]

That is what I believe as well. I just posted above but the law requires equal access to any inventory considered part of a home resort no matter how you purchase.

So, either all PvB points will work at the tower during home resort or none will…it can’t be both ways

Restrictions can only happen because it’s a function of exchanging into a non home resort.

Of course, all this is speculation and conjecture. For all we know, they will do the same old things with Poly tower and sell it as a leasehold condominium deeded like they have with everything else! Lol

Yeah, I guess in theory DVC could restrict access via units OR restrict via a pool of points for non-trust vs trust points. IANAL but I don’t see how either of those arrangement legally would impact owners today, it would basically be status quo. Practically, it could if trust-owners take up all the longhouses, but DVC doesn’t care about that risk, as evidenced by VGF2.

Just a hypothetical. It’s probably more likely to me because is easier that they will all have the same access to PVB. It will be one association just half of it has a trust association operating within it.

 

[Jlo85]

So I'm curious why DVC (and Disney) continues with this all in a race to the bottom. To my understanding, most traditional timeshares are nowhere near as successful as DVC, so why is DVC trying to emulate these other systems?

I don’t really get the doomsday on the trust. Disney has always been about selling Disney. Selling individual resorts was never their brand. To me the trust is more Disney than what they’re doing today.

 

[tidefan]

That is what I believe as well. I just posted above but the law requires equal access to any inventory considered part of a home resort no matter how you purchase.

So, either all PvB points will work at the tower during home resort or none will…it can’t be both ways

Restrictions can only happen because it’s a function of exchanging into a non home resort.

Of course, all this is speculation and conjecture. For all we know, they will do the same old things with Poly tower and sell it as a leasehold condominium deeded like they have with everything else! Lol

Couldn't they enact a reciprocity agreement between units in the Tower and the Longhouses?

I think that if they do what you are saying and add to the PVB association, but do not offer anything to existing members of the association except for subsidizing the dues of the new Tower members, I have a hard time with that, and I suspect that if they did that, there could be some legal scrutiny by existing members against the new dues structure.

Either make it a new association or don't.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah, I guess in theory DVC could restrict access via units OR restrict via a pool of points for non-trust vs trust points. IANAL but I don’t see how either of those arrangement legally would impact owners today, it would basically be status quo. Practically, it could if trust-owners take up all the longhouses, but DVC doesn’t care about that risk, as evidenced by VGF2.

Just a hypothetical. It’s probably more likely to me because is easier that they will all have the same access to PVB. It will be one association just half of it has a trust association operating within it.

Maybe that is why we see things a bit differently. It’s about the inventory and not points…points are meaningless without the rooms…so, in order to give anyone home resort booking privileges to units, they have to be part of that association.

IANAL either, but it seems like it’s would be the same concept as being a RIV owner and getting access to PVB inventory…because DVC decides to just add access to those rooms via the RIV association since it is an owner of points there.

This is also why I don’t think…take Poly tower out of the discussion…they can’t add rooms from sold out resorts to the trust association because those units are already owned and declared elsewhere.

Points, without inventory, have no value.

 

[Sandisw]

Couldn't they enact a reciprocity agreement between units in the Tower and the Longhouses?

I think that if they do what you are saying and add to the PVB association, but do not offer anything to existing members of the association except for subsidizing the dues of the new Tower members, I have a hard time with that, and I suspect that if they did that, there could be some legal scrutiny by existing members against the new dues structure.

Either make it a new association or don't.

That is why I am leaning that it’s going to go into the trust and not to PVB…regardless of the statement at the meeting….because I think the plan at that time was the trust, but since it wasn’t finalized, the back up plan was PVB. I could end up 100% wrong.

Even CFW is not going to be its own. association. The trust is the association and CFW cabins are simply the resort property that is in the trust


So, technically, Poly tower would not be a new association IF they add it to the trust…it would simply become a second resort property with this one association.

Maybe that is why they had been so vague for the past almost two years about the tower project?

But, could they decide to make a reciprocal agreement between the trust association and PVB owners for equal access to all DVC located at Poly resort? My guess is only with the approval and vote of current owners who’d have to agree to let the trust members have access to their property.

And, with this discussion about PVB longhouses, tower, and new vacation plan part of PVB, it’s really about the bigger picture in terms of what it can do with units at sold out resorts.

I see it as the same…if they can’t add partial units at sold out resorts so trust owners have access…and I don’t think the law allows that…I don’t think the longhouses and bungalows at PVB get to be treated differently, just because they built the tower at the same WDW resort.

 

[New Mouse]

I don’t really get the doomsday on the trust. Disney has always been about selling Disney. Selling individual resorts was never their brand. To me the trust is more Disney than what they’re doing today.

It's moreso that what they've been doing has been working compared to most other offerings out there, so why try to be more like those that aren't working?

Generally speaking, most decisions Disney had made in recent years has not led to good results.

 

[Genie+]

So I'm curious why DVC (and Disney) continues with this all in a race to the bottom. To my understanding, most traditional timeshares are nowhere near as successful as DVC, so why is DVC trying to emulate these other systems?

I think because historically DVD’s only profit stream was selling direct. That was it. These changes not only increase direct sales and profits by making direct more desirable compared to alternative, they opened ways to profit during transfer (resale). For that second part nothing existed previously.

Resale transactions that happened on legacy DVC did zip bupkis for DVD - brokers got their sweet commission and buyers got 100% of the sellers’ rights and ownership. DVD got nothing. In 2016 resale stopped allowing transfer of direct benefits. In 2019 resale restrictions on use began.

Right now there’s over $50,000,000 worth of resale contracts on the market. $4,000,000 in commissions just for a snapshot of today’s if they were sold, nevermind all of 2023 or 2024. Tens of millions commission yearly.

No longer leaving all that money on the table, restrictions open an extra path to profit. Sell back full rights on resale.

It may look risky to us owners. We worry what may happen to the DVC product and resale values. But that perspective is skewed. DVD is all about direct and for those buyers using their contract, the world is their oyster. That is enough to carry DVD and DVC.

 

[tidefan]

I think because historically DVD’s only profit stream was selling direct. That was it. These changes not only increase direct sales and profits by making direct more desirable compared to alternative, they opened ways to profit during transfer (resale). For that second part nothing existed previously.

Resale transactions that happened on legacy DVC did zip bupkis for DVD - brokers got their sweet commission and buyers got 100% of the sellers’ rights and ownership. DVD got nothing. In 2016 resale stopped allowing transfer of direct benefits. In 2019 resale restrictions on use began.

Right now there’s over $50,000,000 worth of resale contracts on the market. $4,000,000 in commissions just for a snapshot of today’s if they were sold, nevermind all of 2023 or 2024. Tens of millions commission yearly.

No longer leaving all that money on the table, restrictions open an extra path to profit. Sell back full rights on resale.

It may look risky to us owners. We worry what may happen to the DVC product and resale values. But that perspective is skewed. DVD is all about direct and for those buyers using their contract, the world is their oyster. That is enough to carry DVD and DVC.

True, but carrying a resale value has always been a HUGE selling point of DVC. If not, most people would just be buying resale Wyndham over at Bonnet Creek (which, BTW, many do).

In a way, your numbers reinforce the point. There are a lot of owners that need to, for whatever reason, move on from their DVC property. If this residual value is greatly diminished, why would I purchase it in the first place?

 

[Cfabar1]

x

Also wouldn’t make sense for DVD.

I’m assuming people think bungalow points are too high. To use the new tower to reallocate those points would mean LESS points for DVD to sell. If they took 10pts/nt off each bungalow, that would cost the tower 67,000 points! (10pts x 20 bungalows x 365 days). The result would mean 67,000 less points to sell on the tower. At $200/pt that is $13.4m vanishing. Even if they cared (likely don’t), for sure they don’t care to the tune of giving up $13,400,000.

Not necessarily.... They can sell now, and then reallocate later, and raise the price of the studios per night...

 

[Sandisw]

True, but carrying a resale value has always been a HUGE selling point of DVC. If not, most people would just be buying resale Wyndham over at Bonnet Creek (which, BTW, many do).

In a way, your numbers reinforce the point. There are a lot of owners that need to, for whatever reason, move on from their DVC property. If this residual value is greatly diminished, why would I purchase it in the first place?

I am not so sure this is true in the sense that people know it ahead of time, but learn about it later as a big plus.

I’d bet most direct buyers have no clue about its resale value when they purchase…it’s just once they become owners and learn about the product, they find out that it held decent value in comparison to other timeshares.

 

[Sandisw]

x

Not necessarily.... They can sell now, and then reallocate later, and raise the price of the studios per night...

My guess is that any meaningful change to the bungalows would create studio pricing that could not be justified by demand and DVC has the right to take that into consideration.

Doesn’t matter how many points go to the bungalows…there are only 12…so, if 6 get booked on a regular basis by DVc owners, it’s still a 50% booking rate.

 

[Jlo85]

It's moreso that what they've been doing has been working compared to most other offerings out there, so why try to be more like those that aren't working?

Generally speaking, most decisions Disney had made in recent years has not led to good results.

I think the real hurt if Disney moves to a trust model with a collection of their resorts will be for those people who exclusively visit WDW. I am not in that camp, but I know there is a big contingent of annual pass holders that will be mad if they can’t get a reservation at WDW. Hypothetical, and a long ways away, but that to me would be the big hellraiser if DVC moves to this model.

 

[Doberge]

I'm surprised by the utter lack of any sort of closets - other than for the water heater. Hopefully there will be free-standing wardrobes for hanging clothes, etc.

I'm expecting free standing and built in stuff. For example, the wall in the bedroom across from foot of the bed is perfect for this with the clestory windows above. Plus likely under bed storage, maybe similar to Poly with drawer storage or just fully empty underneath for many large bags.

 

[Doberge]

My guess is that any meaningful change to the bungalows would create studio pricing that could not be justified by demand and DVC has the right to take that into consideration.

Doesn’t matter how many points go to the bungalows…there are only 12…so, if 6 get booked on a regular basis by DVc owners, it’s still a 50% booking rate.

Yes, I'd agree with all that. I'm not really sure why Disney would want to reallocate with bungalows. The points are sold the money comes in for dues whether or not used, and Disney makes more money booking for cash and has fewer expenses cleaning when unused. And, yeah, I can't see Disney raising like 300 studio room requirements over a few bungalows.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, I'd agree with all that. I'm not really sure why Disney would want to reallocate with bungalows. The points are sold the money comes in for dues whether or not used, and Disney makes more money booking for cash and has fewer expenses cleaning when unused. And, yeah, I can't see Disney raising like 300 studio room requirements over a few bungalows.

I agree…I really don’t think DVD sees it as a problem…and because they built them to begin with and set up the point structure as they did, they had to know going in that occupancy was going to be much lower than the studios and even GV at other places.

 

[New Mouse]

I am one of the many that never would have purchased DVC if the resale value sucked. The same reason I've never purchased a different timeshare before or after.

It's a very short sighted move if they make it, that let's face it none of the people making the decisions will be around to see the consequences.

 

[Genie+]

If this residual value is greatly diminished, why would I purchase it in the first place?

DVD is likely looking at the net results. Profit gains offsetting losses. Direct contracts being more desirable, profit on transfer, and profit on upgrades can offset loss of some sales if they are able to protect the direct experience and upgrade experience. Most buyers are not deciding to purchase on potential future resale value alone. In the past it has worked out well but still - was never 100% dependable.

I think as long as they protect the experience where the strong profits are being made, that’s what ultimately matters. It’s not like ways to make a bad DVC purchase decision don’t already exist. So far even with all that has transpired and been speculated, there remains plenty of good paths to successful ownership. Demand is not drying up yet, and now they have more cards to play if DVC moves to that direction.

 

[New Mouse]

I'd also add that as someone who bought direct originally, I would completely avoid it in the future if all these steps basically devalue through 11/7 window.