greenban POLL: How do the recent rental changes make you feel?

[greenban]

Given the sweeping nature of recent MS Policy Implementations, the notice (or lack there of) and the rapidness of multiple Policy Implementations, what are you fealing, as a DVC Owner.

Please note that this is a multiple choice poll, please feel free to choose more than one answer!

Also, this poll expires in 60 days. (I like check boxes, what can I say?)

-Tony

PLEASE: If you post a reply, list you PRIMARY DVC Resort Location/Membership

 

[bobbiwoz]

I am satisfied, and I think that it will help our family's use of our DVC points.
I read the documents when we bought in, and I had a idea of what it was saying. I come to these boards and am impressed with all of the interpretations that people have given the documents, but I was dismayed at all of the loopholes that people find. I think that these implementations help the average owner.

We own at least 150 points at BWV, VWL and VB, same UY 1 contract.

Bobbi

 

[RobDoc]

Given the sweeping nature of recent MS Policy Implementations, the notice (or lack there of) and the rapidness of multiple Policy Implementations, what are you fealing, as a DVC Owner.

First of all, these are NOT "sweeping" implementations or "multiple Policy Implementations", IMO. In fact, the only written modification regarding the POS is the reintroduction of the finite limit of "one transfer" to the policy regarding point transfers. For most members, this was merely a reitteration of the written policy included in the POS until just recently. DVC has also informed members thru the email of yesterday about the concerns and what they intend to enforce - thus meeting the promise to inform members thru publication. The other change, reported on this site but not mentioned in the email, is that MS is limited to a service for Members and non-members will apparently not have access to the service paid for by members. I don't recall any written policy regarding that in the past, so it's hardly a new policy implementation - just a clarification of the actual intended use of that service. As for other possible future modifications, the original POS did not allow banking or borrowing of transferred points. I realize that has also been relaxed in more recent POS documents, but it might be reasonable to anticipate a return to that posture if necessary due to rental activity of a few.

For the record, I own at OKW and HH- four different contracts (one purchased thru DVC with add-ons and the other three by resale thru TTS), four different Use Years and have never transferred points to another member, from another member or between my own contracts. I have also never rented but have provided numerous reservations for family and friends over the years and fully intend to continue to do so. I have also overseen thousands of successful rentals thru our Rent/Trade Board and have no issue with renting per se since it is clearly allowed in our documents and has specific language permitting renting included in the POS.

.02

 

[greenban]

First of all, these are NOT "sweeping" implementations or "multiple Policy Implementations", IMO. In fact, the only written modification regarding the POS is the reintroduction of the finite limit of "one transfer" to the policy regarding point transfers. For most members, this was merely a reitteration of the written policy included in the POS until just recently. DVC has also informed members thru the email of yesterday about the concerns and what they intend to enforce - thus meeting the promise to inform members thru publication. The other change, reported on this site but not mentioned in the email, is that MS is limited to a service for Members and non-members will apparently not have access to the service paid for by members. I don't recall any written policy regarding that in the past, so it's hardly a new policy implementation - just a clarification of the actual intended use of that service. As for other possible future modifications, the original POS did not allow banking or borrowing of transferred points. I realize that has also been relaxed in more recent POS documents, but it might be reasonable to anticipate a return to that posture if necessary due to rental activity of a few.

For the record, I own at OKW and HH- four different contracts (one purchased thru DVC with add-ons and the other three by resale thru TTS), four different Use Years and have never transferred points to another member, from another member or between my own contracts. I have also never rented but have provided numerous reservations for family and friends over the years and fully intend to continue to do so. I have also overseen thousands of successful rentals thru our Rent/Trade Board and have no issue with renting per se since it is clearly allowed in our documents and has specific language permitting renting included in the POS.

.02

Hi Doc:

I probably didn't word my poll well (another suprise, eh?).

I too don't consider these changes significant in the individual, or of a magnitude requiring notification.

What the poll is meant to ask, is, given the number of existing policies suddenly inforced, the rapid number (seemingly, one after another) how does that make you feel.

In the POS the DVD can sell any DVC resort at anytime, our vote is NOT required. While I don't expect that, just like I didn't expect 5 to be allowed in a 1 Bedroom Villa, I also never expected to have MS-Advisors tell me to have my guests call and provide the DMEinfo directly.

Given how all these changes came and went, I no longer blindly accept that the DVD will not sell a resort for financial reasons only.

This is what I personally find unsettling, I was polling to see if others suddenly now had misgivings (real or imagined, right or wrong) from these recent changes.

YRMV

-Tony

 

[BEACHCLUBVILLAS]

I thought DVC used to allow multiple transfers but one way. Meaning, that in a year, if you transfer points out, you can only transfer out, you can't transfer points in during that year. If you transfer in, you can't transfer out. Did I dream that up?

 

[Chuck S]

I thought DVC used to allow multiple transfers but one way. Meaning, that in a year, if you transfer points out, you can only transfer out, you can't transfer points in during that year. If you transfer in, you can't transfer out. Did I dream that up?

You weren't dreaming, but it was never "official" policy. The POS, even when OKW was the only resort, stated one transfer per use year.

 

[Caskbill]

I thought DVC used to allow multiple transfers but one way. Meaning, that in a year, if you transfer points out, you can only transfer out, you can't transfer points in during that year. If you transfer in, you can't transfer out. Did I dream that up?

No, you didn't dream that up. They were allowing that for awhile, but now have reverted back to the original requirements.

Some of it was really getting abused, mostly by some of the commercial renters, who would buy points from people at $9.00-$10, have them transferred in, and then make reservations and rent them at much higher rates. This definitely fit the definition of a pattern or rental.

You may recall a specific individual who did this on a regular basis, but would originally post asking to purchase points for lowball amounts by giving sob stories about her kids have never been, or they could only 'afford' to pay $8/point, or some other story, then got lots of points transferred in from lots of members, used the points to make reservations, and then rented them out at much higher rates.

 

[LisaS]

I'm fine with the recent announcements. Before buying, I did a very careful analysis of how we would use our DVC points looking out over the next 10 years. I used that data to calculate the number of points we would need so that we could always cover our trips with our own points, yet not have so many that I would ever need to rent/transfer out points in a year we only went once. I own two resorts: BWV and VWL, but the VWL was an add-on so I can combine points without transferring.

So I don't anticipate transferring points, other than in very rare situations (one time trip with lots of relatives, for example). Yes things could change in the future and I might find myself needing to unload some points, but through a combination of my one transfer and one or more rentals I think I could unload any points I might otherwise lose.

I do like the idea that this should help put the point morphers out of business. Yes there are other ways DVC could do that, but this can be implemented immediately. A software change could take months.

 

[rascalmom]

We haven't been members that long, so I'm not sure how, or if, these recent clarifications will effect my family.

I do wish they had allowed an exception to the "one transfer" rule for very small amount of points. I can see members getting stuck with small amounts of extra points because it will be more difficult (or risky) for both sides to use their one transfer limit on a small amount of points.

A few little orphan points to fill out someone's ressie isn't going to support a rental industry, but I suppose it does cut down on MS's work. I also think it may make getting ressies at a non-home resort more difficult for those who were using transfers to accomplish that at the 11 month mark.

Our home resort is SSR (150 + 120 add-on), purchased in March 2005.

 

[DebbieB]

I am concerned with the transfer policy. I've transferred points with friends so that we could combine points for a group trip, this makes it a little more difficult. I can see how they are trying to prevent people who transfer their points for profit but it is also hurting someone who is trying to gather points for a large family reunion or someone who just needs a couple points to complete a reservation.

 

[spiceycat]

PLEASE: If you post a reply, list you PRIMARY DVC Resort Location/Membership

OKW 240/BWV 50/VWL 60 - June use year - 1993

I think it might be a good thing - however - being able to transfer was one of the things my guide also remarked on for those big family reunions.... yea right -

he didn't know my family. a bunch of studios (okay maybe 1 or 2 - one bedrooms) - work much better.

in that situation I would make as many reservations as I could using my points - then I would get the next person to make as many as they could.

then I would link the reservations - I think you can do this - doesn't matter who make the reservations.

the only problem would be when one person was making the first 3 days and the other person the last 4 days - everyone would have to make sure he/she make the reservations using the same name.

ex
someone couldn't make part of the reservations in Cathy smith - then the next person Katherine Smith - but that is minor.

 

[kimberh]

I own 250 VWl oct uy/
190 BWV Apr Uy
My pos does not say ONE transfer, so I have having a problem with why it was allowed on 7/31 and not on 8/1.

 

[CarolA]

Where's the "don't really care, but enjoying the show option"

OKW 200
BCV 150
SSR 100
HH 50
(Two different use years)

 

[Beca]

390 BCV

I don't like the changes. I don't think DVC is being honest with us....I think they are using renters as scapegoats (and no...I am not a habitual renter).

I just think the balance of properties is wrong, and the imbalance is getting DVC a LOT of complaints from SSR members (and, possibly future EP members) about not being able to book other resorts. DVC can't possibly come out to the membership and say, "Ooops...we were greedy and wanted to build one BIG resort that does not have direct access to a park, and it has made reservations at other resorts within seven months difficult to get, so we are going to limit everyone's flexibility to open the system back up a bit." So, instead they say..."Those evil renters....they are the cause of everyone's problem. Unfortunately, this means everyone will lose some flexibility....too bad, too sad."

Who should be the MOST angry right now is pro-renters, and anyone who has recently paid BIG BUCKS to get the home resort advantage of BCV. $95 per point, based on getting a home advantage....then having the management company alter the rules so everyone has a better shot of staying in that resort..... . I'm sure there are a few people who wish they had purchased at SSR now for the 12 extra years....probably what DVC management intended in the first place!

So, who benefits from this change? SSR and OKW owners who bought there because of ease of purchase, or cheaper point prices (as well as those who bought at HH or VB for the same reasons) who DO really want to stay at other resorts.....and, BWV owners. Due to the standard view points, and BWV options....those rooms just officially became the toughest rooms to get, as getting into BCV just got much easier (not to mention NOT worth $95 per point).

I'm just waiting to see what change takes place next. I do not like the direction that DVC is going!!! The next resort better be small, and connected to a park!!



Beca

 

[TammyAlphabet]

On the one hand, it might be better because the owners probably (and I say this with a grain of salt) take better care of the place while there and reduce our cost to maintain the property.

If renting excessively (whatever that means) is eliminated, then the cost of large contracts on the resale market would decrease dramatically, maybe.

On the other hand, Every single DVC vacation that I have taken, I have heard at least one person say "Disney must be crazy if they think they can get 15000 out of ME when i can just rent the points so easily". I would think that if this policy is enforced, and it is not clear what exactly type of system would be used to enforce this policy, then the price per point of a rental is going to have to go up. Which is good for the owners, but bad for the renters. I don't have anything against renters, I have rented more than once, even as an owner, but, I think the "gravy train" is coming to an abrupt halt.

For the large point owners depending on those rentals, I can see Grand villas at the BWV being rented on a regular basis. They sure use up alot of points.

I own at the Boardwalk, 150 points and I am constantly in point debt. I have 5 points in 2007 use year and the 2006 doesn't start until september. I was planning on getting points transferred in as needed, but, I guess one transfer is all I will be allowed for the 2006 use year and one for the 2007 use year. So, even as a small owner, these rule enforcements are not particularly beneficial to me.

I think it is too early to predict exactly what the consequences will be and how material they will be.

 

[tomandrobin]

SSR - 330

I don't see a problem with them enforcing the rules that are suppose to be already in place. One transfer in a year period does not seem extreme. If I was to transfer points in or out, I would think it would only happen once in a year anyway.

Beca - I'm not sure I understand your post on how it benifits SSR and OKW. Does the change effect HH, VB, BWV, BCV and VWL in a bad way? I am also not sure of the "big bucks" quote, considering the current SSR pricing is higher now then any of the previous resorts. Most of the other resorts were sold for less, especially if bought resell, like form our sponser. I do agree that the big renters are the ones who will hurt the most from this, but they aren't suppose to be in the "DVC" rental business anyway. I'm also not sure why you think this change has devalued BCV. Has it devalued any of the other resorts too, or just yours? I don't understand. The resort is still small and in a desireable location. The number of rooms has not changed. The 11 month window is still there for the home resort owners.

 

[Beca]

SSR - 330

I don't see a problem with them enforcing the rules that are suppose to be already in place. One transfer in a year period does not seem extreme. If I was to transfer points in or out, I would think it would only happen once in a year anyway.

Beca - I'm not sure I understand your post on how it benifits SSR and OKW. Does the change effect HH, VB, BWV, BCV and VWL in a bad way? I am also not sure of the "big bucks" quote, considering the current SSR pricing is higher now then any of the previous resorts. Most of the other resorts were sold for less, especially if bought resell, like form our sponser. I do agree that the big renters are the ones who will hurt the most from this, but they aren't suppose to be in the "DVC" rental business anyway. I'm also not sure why you think this change has devalued BCV. Has it devalued any of the other resorts too, or just yours? I don't understand. The resort is still small and in a desireable location. The number of rooms has not changed. The 11 month window is still there for the home resort owners.

The "big bucks" I was referring to was people have purchased BCV recently at the $95-$97 pt price (plus closing costs), which usually bring the price up to $100-105 per point price. Include the struggle to find a contract (usually stripped), and 12 fewer years, and these people are probably pretty upset that DVC is trying to make the home resort advantage unnecessary. BCV is priced usually even around $10 per point OVER BWV, which also has the same location....only because availability is tough within the 7 month window. If DVC takes steps to ensure availability within the 7 month window, the price of BCV will immediately drop to that of BWV....which right now is about a $10 per point devaluation.

I actually think this change makes HH and VB BETTER places to own. If availability opens up, people should now be able to get VB at $68 per point, and use it to stay at BCV,VWL, or BWV. This change most benefits anyone who owns at the larger resorts, and therefore negatively affects the resale value of the smaller resorts. Devaluing my property so that others can benefit makes me mad!

However, the other "wrinkle" in this is that we might actually see BWV increasing a bit because of the SV and BW view options. No matter how much "tweaking" DVC does to the system, those views will stay primarily an "owner's perk", which might make them the most hard-to-come-by rooms in the system...which just might help to offset, and stabilize BWV's price per point.

Every "crack down" in the rules, or "tightening of flexibility" makes more room "in the system" at the smaller resorts. If that is the case, and DVC continues to build larger resorts in lieu of smaller ones, I would expect that we will see further reductions in our flexibility to make room for the members who have yet to join (i.e. as DVC expands, more limitations will be placed on everyone's usage so EVERYONE can get to stay at the smaller DVC properties, which are not expanding).

I hope that helps to clarify my position. I know it is actually confusing to understand, but there are economic equations which can express the "system" of DVC. As flexibility in the ways you can use your DVC goes up, availability at the smaller resorts goes down. The opposite is also true, as you restrict flexibility in usage, availability at the smaller resorts goes up.

The same equations hold true for the size of the resorts....the three smaller resorts (with a fewer total number of rooms to add to the equation) bring more money than the larger ones (SSR is different because it adds in 12 extra years). If DVC announced a 600 room expansion of BCV, the price of BCV would drop in the resale market. Another equation (with some variation for location, amenities, etc) is that as size increases, price goes down.

Another economic equation that has held true, to a degree is location...the onsite properties have brought more than the offsite ones (HH and VB), and the resorts connected to a park seem to do better than those which are not (including return on initial investment, and time spent on the resale boards).

So, I do not see DVC's move today as a move to stop renting, as they have always said in the past that they really don't care about members who rent. I do see the move as one that restores balance to a system that became unbalanced when SSR was added. Restoring this balance also will serve to even out the value of the properties....that devalues mine.

If I am correct, then as more properties are added, they can either (by their characteristics) help to restore balance to the system (a smaller resort, connected to a deluxe hotel also connected to a park would help RESTORE the balance), or further destablize the system (something that another 800 unit, cond-style resort would do). That is why I suspect that if EP is added, we will see more restrictions in our flexibility (it will just be interesting to see who DVC blames next time)...probably a reduction in the time that an owner has exclusive access to their home resort.



Beca

 

[jdg345]

Where's the "don't really care, but enjoying the show option"

OKW 200
BCV 150
SSR 100
HH 50
(Two different use years)

Yah, I want that option too ... I guess I missed an email because I don't even know what changes are being discussed?

 

[RobDoc]

The "big bucks" I was referring to was people have purchased BCV recently at the $95-$97 pt price (plus closing costs), which usually bring the price up to $100-105 per point price. Include the struggle to find a contract (usually stripped), and 12 fewer years, and these people are probably pretty upset that DVC is trying to make the home resort advantage unnecessary. ...

How do you figure this makes home resort advantage unnecessary? The only reason BCV owners could have difficulty reserving prior to 7 months is that other BCV owners have reserved all of the villas.

These changes will not free up more BCV villas at 7 months unless the majority of those villas have been reserved by commercial renters (and if DVC is actually willing to take action against those members). If that is the reason BCV villas are in short supply are you then condoning commercial renting? You can't have it both ways. I fail to see how DVC benefits in either case and I do believe this is in response to complaints by members unable to make home resort reservations prior to 7 months.

 

[Plutofan]

Personally I think one of the main problems is MS can not track transfered points. For a company that can create so many magical experiences can't they invest in some software that could track transfers. Just have a pop up message if someone uses transfered points to check the notes. This would solve a lot of problems instead of sending an email to all members with language that is open to interpratation.