Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Grumpy by Birth]

Thanks everyone, for the earlier clarification (even if speculative) about future "trust" resorts trading into legacy BVTC resorts at 7 months. I do still have some angst over the possibility that availability for trust-based future properties may be worse at 7 months than it would have been with a traditional "home resort" approach.

Given the popularity of a new resort, it might still have limited availability at 7 months regardless of how its sales are structured. But I do fear that this trust concept will increase competition, especially if they give 11-month advantage at all resorts in the trust, rather than having a home resort within the trust and having to wait until 7 months to book other resorts in the trust.

One other factor (probably won't affect me because I don't think I'll be buying any "trust" points): If trust owners DO get 11-month advantage at all resorts in the trust, that's going to be a major part of the sales pitch. However, that means a lot of people buying into the trust will be doing so with the intent of staying at Resort X. But because the number of points sold will also be based on the inventory for Resort Y and Cabins Z that are part of the trust, there are would likely be a lot of disappointed owners who can only get availability in the Cabins, when they really bought to stay at Resort X.

If they maintain some sort of "home resort" system within the trust, with the same 11/7 rules as the legacy system, this would be a moot point I suppose. But if they go with all trust resorts being available to all trust owners at 11 months, there are bound to be a lot of unhappy guests not staying where they want because they didn't have the option of "buying where they want to stay."

 

[DaveNan]

I think the benefit for direct trust buyers having access to (future) trust properties comes in selling direct points. Remember "buy where you want to stay". If I am not sure I want to stay at the cabins every year, selling members on "and you will have 11 months at future resorts even if you don't want to stay in the cabins every year....." is a huge selling point. If direct points get access to the home resort and the trust, but resale only have home resort access, you are taking resale restrictions to the next level. Today, at RIV (with restrictions) direct buyers get RIV at 11 and all other at 7 months, and resale buyers get RIV at 11. In the future with the trust... Direct buyers would get 11 months at home resort, 11 months at the trust portion of all trust resorts, and 7 months for all other. Future resale buyers get 11 months at home resort.
They are really amping up the benefits of direct and making it not specific resort based. The question of "should I buy at resort X or wait for resort Y because I might want my 11 month benefit there" is gone. Imagine they put this trust in place years ago when AUL went for sale. And VGF, Poly, CC, RIV, DHV were all in the trust with AUL. AUL portion of the trust would be sold out! The cabins might not appeal to many buyers and they might sell slowly (like SSR), but if I am in the trust, hesitancy gone!
I believe this model will make the most desirable resorts, categories, and season very difficult to book. 11 months will be tough long term at the trust resorts. I would not want to be resale in the trust at the most desirable resort. But we all know when selling points Disney represents availability as fine. They still have signs up stating you can stay in AKV for 7 points a night with your RIV points in the kiosks in the parks (* if available in tiny font). "You can stay at any of the resorts with your points". Never pointing out - fat chance of any real studio availability at 7 months at VCG, any epcot resort, any monorail loop resort, or the low point categories anywhere. You might get lucky parts of the year....... The "popular" trust resort studios will be like the hunger games at 11 months, same as AKV value and club are today, and Disney doesn't care. They are all "if available" and "all members had equal opportunities".

 

[DaveNan]

Further thoughts..... I am not sure on the specifics, but I seem to recall when I looked at buying some resale points in the Mariott system I could (or would need to) pay Mariott a fee per point to be able to get the full use of the point? Could the trust set up a fee to covert "resale" trust points into "direct" trust points. This process may kill the value of resale points, but unlike some, I don't think Disney supports resale prices via ROFR. Guides do not tell buyers, don't worry about the long-term commitment, DVC points maintain their value and you can't go to the resale market. I think driving down the resale market price and potentially collecting fees from resale buyers to put resale points "in the trust", might fill a revenue gap for them. They may be nearing saturation on DVC properties in Orlando, either by shear volume or by building sites. Filling the 16 year gap between 2026ish when the currently planned properties sell out and 2042 with flipped resale contracts and "upgrading" resale points fees makes total sense for me. The sold-out resort point cost, upgrade fee, and difference in resale vs direct point usefulness set the resale market price. The lower that price, the more money Disney makes. They might not totally stop new builds, but they might slow down and focus on flipping.

 

[zavandor]

Further thoughts..... I am not sure on the specifics, but I seem to recall when I looked at buying some resale points in the Mariott system I could (or would need to) pay Mariott a fee per point to be able to get the full use of the point? Could the trust set up a fee to covert "resale" trust points into "direct" trust points. This process may kill the value of resale points, but unlike some, I don't think Disney supports resale prices via ROFR. Guides do not tell buyers, don't worry about the long-term commitment, DVC points maintain their value and you can't go to the resale market. I think driving down the resale market price and potentially collecting fees from resale buyers to put resale points "in the trust", might fill a revenue gap for them. They may be nearing saturation on DVC properties in Orlando, either by shear volume or by building sites. Filling the 16 year gap between 2026ish when the currently planned properties sell out and 2042 with flipped resale contracts and "upgrading" resale points fees makes total sense for me. The sold-out resort point cost, upgrade fee, and difference in resale vs direct point usefulness set the resale market price. The lower that price, the more money Disney makes. They might not totally stop new builds, but they might slow down and focus on flipping.

I am not an expert on Marriott, but I think the fee is not optional and that once "washed", the Marriott resale points are exactly like direct points.
The DVC Trust documents state they can introduce restrictions on resale points.
So Disney might decide to allow resale points only to book at 9 months instead of 11, even at their home resort. And no access to other resorts at 7 months. This will really kill the resale value. They may then introduce an "upgrade" fee which will be much higher than Marriot's. Something in the region of $80-100 or even more. If the resale price crashes, DVC can ROFR and resell the points for free and for the points that they won't reacquire, they can count on the hefty upgrade fee (because points will be useless without it).

 

[DaveNan]

I am not an expert on Marriott, but I think the fee is not optional and that once "washed", the Marriott resale points are exactly like direct points.
The DVC Trust documents state they can introduce restrictions on resale points.
So Disney might decide to allow resale points only to book at 9 months instead of 11, even at their home resort. And no access to other resorts at 7 months. This will really kill the resale value. They may then introduce an "upgrade" fee which will be much higher than Marriot's. Something in the region of $80-100 or even more. If the resale price crashes, DVC can ROFR and resell the points for free and for the points that they won't reacquire, they can count on the hefty upgrade fee (because points will be useless without it).

I hate to start this entire thought process and I hope this is not where they are headed. I just feel the trust truly sets up DVC 2.0, and they are establishing rules that gives them more freedom in the future. How they use that freedom is TBD.

 

[Sandisw]

To add to some of what @drusba posted..if the new documents allow property located at different locations to be part of the same use plan, maybe this is how they create the less popular resorts and popular ones within the same trust but with different access?

For example, they put some cabins and say AUL together but not Poly tower??

Just random thought??

 

[walt34]

To add to some of what @drusba posted..if the new documents allow property located at different locations to be part of the same use plan, maybe this is how they create the less popular resorts and popular ones within the same trust but with different access?

For example, they put some cabins and say AUL together but not Poly tower??

Wouldn't it be more useful to put CFW and Poly2 together to balance out the cabins with more room types and justify a point price in the 230s or 240s with a broader appeal?

Combining CFW and AUL seems to me to turn an exotic product into an even more exotic product (dog owners who want to go to WDW and AUL regularly?).

 

[Bearval]

I am not an expert on Marriott, but I think the fee is not optional and that once "washed", the Marriott resale points are exactly like direct points.
The DVC Trust documents state they can introduce restrictions on resale points.
So Disney might decide to allow resale points only to book at 9 months instead of 11, even at their home resort. And no access to other resorts at 7 months. This will really kill the resale value. They may then introduce an "upgrade" fee which will be much higher than Marriot's. Something in the region of $80-100 or even more. If the resale price crashes, DVC can ROFR and resell the points for free and for the points that they won't reacquire, they can count on the hefty upgrade fee (because points will be useless without it).

I read a " rumor" where the trust will operate on a rolling window. What this means is if you purchase direct you will get a set amount of years regardless of when you purchase. As an example if you buy in 2024 you get 40 years, someone else buys in 2026 they get 40 years, etc. I have not idea how this would work but I did read an article where it was mentioned.

 

[Sandisw]

Wouldn't it be more useful to put CFW and Poly2 together to balance out the cabins with more room types and justify a point price in the 230s or 240s with a broader appeal?

Combining CFW and AUL seems to me to turn an exotic product into an even more exotic product (dog owners who want to go to WDW and AUL regularly?).

My wonder is about the whole home resort booking and moderate /deluxe differences.

Basically, it sounds like they can set it up to run different tiers.

So, if CFW is your first choice, you’d end up with AUL as a bonus for home resort booking?

 

[walt34]

My wonder is about the whole home resort booking and moderate /deluxe differences.

Basically, it sounds like they can set it up to run different tiers.

So, if CFW is your first choice, you’d end up with AUL as a bonus for home resort booking?

But this would devalue AUL on one side (it's an add-on) and probably not convince many hesitant buyers, who might be worried that the cabins as the only type of accommodation might be a bit limiting for the next 50 years.

I'm pretty convinced, DVD will try their best to sell CFW as up to DVC standards.

If they combine CFW and Poly2, they can defacto sell CFW points to different groups: People who are interested in CFW because they like the cabins or want to occasionally bring their dog and also to people who actually want Poly2 (but will take CFW points with the same home resort priority at Poly 2). It basically creates more points for Poly2, which - let's be honest - will basically sell itself in any scenario. I've written elsewhere that, in another universe - if Reflections had happened, they would combine Reflections and CFW for the same purpose. They might would not have needed the trust, because the locations would have been next to each other.

It's a little bit like you see the BPK addition to VGF (selling resort studios to people who actually want deluxe studios or 1- or 2BR). I don't quite see it like that, because I myself do not fit the pattern, but it would follow in the same pattern for DVD.

 

[Sandisw]

But this would devalue AUL on one side (it's an add-on) and probably not convince many hesitant buyers, who might be worried that the cabins as the only type of accommodation might be a bit limiting for the next 50 years.

I'm pretty convinced, DVD will try their best to sell CFW as up to DVC standards.

If they combine CFW and Poly2, they can defacto sell CFW points to different groups: People who are interested in CFW because they like the cabins or want to occasionally bring their dog and also to people who actually want Poly2 (but will take CFW points with the same home resort priority at Poly 2). It basically creates more points for Poly2, which - let's be honest - will basically sell itself in any scenario. I've written elsewhere that, in another universe - if Reflections had happened, they would combine Reflections and CFW for the same purpose. They might would not have needed the trust, because the locations would have been next to each other.

It's a little bit like you see the BPK addition to VGF (selling resort studios to people who actually want deluxe studios or 1- or 2BR). I don't quite see it like that, because I myself do not fit the pattern, but it would follow in the same pattern for DVD.

I am not saying they won’t do that, but saying I can see them try to package things in a way that make people choose a package that fits better for home resort.

For all we know, current resorts, including AUL, RIV, and VDH won’t ever add any property to the trust.

DVD does what DVd wants for sales…the reactions of owners is not important to them if the info they have supports it will sell well.

The started this resale restrictions 4 years ago…and stuck with it for VDH and CFW..brand new builds. So, that appears to be a big element for them.

It is still hard for me to believe they are going to abandon for the tower. And, with PVB being sold out, it will be easy to sell the tower as a trust product being in the same location.

 

[walt34]

I am not saying they won’t do that, but saying I can see them try to package things in a way that make people choose a package that fits better for home resort.

If they are focusing purely on sales (which they probably will), combining a less attractive offering with a more attractive offering while blurring the 11 month availability seems to be the most profitable move. I guess we can agree that Poly2 will be one of if the not the most attractive offering for the foreseeable future. The question is how many harder-to-sell points can you put into the trust together with Poly2, before a bad booking experience at 11 months starts to haunt you even into the next sales meeting. That's when they'll need more prime resorts in the trust.

 

[New Mouse]

hey you can stay schnazzy campground when the Polynesian isn't available when you want it .

I can't imagine that moves the needle for many. And even more so, dvc sales are likely to become more deceptive to cover up that fact.

 

[drusba]

As I noted before , DVD can create a trust system, but under the Florida timeshare statute it is required to put in complete accommodations (units) into such a trust. DVD appears to understand that issue because the plan it has created states that what it may add to the trust in the future is "accommodations." That should rule out putting any sold out resorts into the trust system since DVD cannot put just partial ownership interests it has in any of the units into the trust, e.g., it cannot stick partial ownership interests in a unit that it acquires via right of first refusal or foreclosures into the trust.

As to what will actually happen with Poly, the issue is still up in the air, but if it makes Poly a trust plan resort, it will not necessarily be stuck with trying to sell a joint trust plan that would include only Poly and CFW. It can also put into the trust, in creating a new trust use plan, units that it has not yet put into other existing resorts, and it appears that may include Aul and the more modern DVC resorts such as VDH, Riviera, VGF (resort studios), and possibly CCV. For example, it could put some units from each of those resorts, along with CFW and Poly, into the trust, call that group its own trust use plan/DVC Resort, and sell beneficial interests that will give the purchasers the ability to reserve any of those resorts at 11-months out and others at 7-months out. The limitation is that those trust purchasers will not be able to make more reservations than the total that could be made with total interests/points applicable to the limited number of units for any particular resort put into the trust. Thus, in the near future, DVD could create new trust plans/DVC Resorts that many may purchase.

 

[Brian Noble]

I think the fee is not optional and that once "washed", the Marriott resale points are exactly like direct points.

That is correct.

 

[walt34]

It can also put into the trust, in creating a new trust use plan, units that it has not yet put into other existing resorts, and it appears that may include Aul and the more modern DVC resorts such as VDH, Riviera, VGF (resort studios), and possibly CCV.

I thought VGF (and probably CCV - but not Riviera and VDH) is fully declared with all units? Or do you mean DVD could convert additional hotel rooms into more resort studios and declare those units into the trust?

 

[drusba]

I thought VGF (and probably CCV - but not Riviera and VDH) is fully declared with all units? Or do you mean DVD could convert additional hotel rooms into more resort studios and declare those units into the trust?

I know all the resort units in the original VGF were put into the DVC Resort. I thought there were still units in the new studios building that have not yet been declared into the VGF resort. If they have, then DVD will not be able to put in undeclared units from VGF into the trust. It could turn other VGF hotel buildings into a DVC Resort that is included in the trust, but that would be a separate DVC Resort from the existing VGF DVC Resort, e.g., like CCV is separate from BRV. The same issue may exist with CCV -- it all units have been declared into it then DVD does not have CCV related units to put into a trust.

 

[Jlo85]

In theory, DVC could create different trust "collections." For example, Marriot has a "Luxury" collection (with the Ritz properties), though technically it's all still in the same trust.

But I've changed my tune and think this trust was made specifically for CFW because of the Mobile Home issue.

I think a trust makes a lot of sense for Disney, but I think they would be implementing it differently (with different branding) if that was their intent.

 

[drusba]

In theory, DVC could create different trust "collections." For example, Marriot has a "Luxury" collection (with the Ritz properties), though technically it's all still in the same trust.

But I've changed my tune and think this trust was made specifically for CFW because of the Mobile Home issue.

I think a trust makes a lot of sense for Disney, but I think they would be implementing it differently (with different branding) if that was their intent.

There are other possibilities but I doubt this is just a one-off trust created because the cabins are trailers; if so why would DVD create a POS for CFW declaring that future trust use plans could be created with cabins and units from other DVC resorts being part of the same trust plan.

Maybe the plan is to create the trust system for only moderate resorts, like the cabins, and DVD is really intending to create a whole new category of moderate resort DVCs that will be subject to the trust DVC system by later converting rooms in Caribbean, Coronado and Port Orleans into a trust plan that combines those with Fort Wilderness. However, I doubt that is what is going on. The DVC survey that was provided to a number of current DVC owners asked the question if members would like to have a system under which they would be able to reserve multiple resorts at 11-months out and I doubt that would have been sent to existing members if the plan was not to put at least some units from some existing resorts into a new trust plan. That concept is also supported by the fact that they are making the CFW Trust Plan a "DVC Resort" that allows owners to reserve any other existing DVC Resorts at 7-months out and owners of those other resorts reserve CFW cabins at 7-months out.

 

[Jlo85]

There are other possibilities but I doubt this is just a one-off trust created because the cabins are trailers; if so why would DVD create a POS for CFW declaring that future trust use plans could be created with cabins and units from other DVC resorts being part of the same trust plan.

Maybe the plan is to create the trust system for only moderate resorts, like the cabins, and DVD is really intending to create a whole new category of moderate resort DVCs that will be subject to the trust DVC system by later converting rooms in Caribbean, Coronado and Port Orleans into a trust plan that combines those with Fort Wilderness. However, I doubt that is what is going on. The DVC survey that was provided to a number of current DVC owners asked the question if members would like to have a system under which they would be able to reserve multiple resorts at 11-months out and I doubt that would have been sent to existing members if the plan was not to put at least some units from some existing resorts into a new trust plan.

I guess what throws me is that Marriot setup their trust Timeshare Plan as "Marriot Vacation Club Destinations" and the Trust Association as "MVC Trust." Disney setup the Timeshare Plan as "Cabins at Fort Wilderness Lodge Use Plan" and the Trust Association as "Palmetto Trust." It just seems like very odd branding and setup for Disney if they intend to expand the trust in a meaningful way to be a collection of resorts. My guess is that the expansion opportunity could be limited to the Reflections area next door.