Is now the time to buy Poly resale?

[mkatsy]

Again, I'd call that splitting hairs. I was in the room. I heard the question and the answer. It was pretty obvious to me (and seemingly many others) what was being said, even if the exact phrasing doesn't line up with what some others wanted to read. People have shared their email correspondence from DVC guides which clearly says "same association."


Here I definitely agree.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that people run out and buy Poly resale points assuming they will have free and clear access to the tower. There are many, many things which could be revealed in the coming months which run counter to people's expectations. That was true of Grand Floridian when things like the points charts were unknown until days before sales opened.

I still think the prevailing narrative that "she said 'resort' not 'association'" is silly. And the fact that Chang included verbal disclaimers during one on one conversations is not the least bit surprising.

Both of these things CAN be true:
- The tower is part of the PVB association
- Certain elements of booking or staying at the tower do not exactly align with what DVC has done in the past.

since you were in the room, as was I, did you happen to notice the body language of the board during that last question? they did not clap or cheer ... they had the "shut the f&ck up Yvonne" look on their face. This is the single most important detail that is missing from every account that I have read of that day. Did you notice the stark difference in the tone and body language of Yvonne Chang as she answered that final question? It was not in keeping with the way she conducted herself earlier in the meeting. She made eye contact with the board, some message was instantly conveyed to her, she began to unravel, and I could no longer hear her in the back of the room. That's when the riddle came out. It was so noticeable that some of the folks in California (who had audio but not video) later asked what happened because her voiced sounded weird.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

since you were in the room, as was I, did you happen to notice the body language of the board during that last question? they did not clap or cheer ... they had the "shut the f&ck up Yvonne" look on their face. This is the single most important detail that is missing from every account that I have read of that day. Did you notice the stark difference in the tone and body language of Yvonne Chang as she answered that final question? It was not in keeping with the way she conducted herself earlier in the meeting. She made eye contact with the board, some message was instantly conveyed to her, she began to unravel, and I could no longer hear her in the back of the room. That's when the riddle came out. It was so noticeable that some of the folks in California (who had audio but not video) later asked what happened because her voiced sounded weird.

So are you saying the Mouse is going to have her neck in a trap for telling tails,
Or WHAT?

The ***, **** look can either mean you don't know what you are talking about or you're giving away trade secrets. Either way, it doesn't move the needle.

 

[mkatsy]

So are you saying the Mouse is going to have her neck in a trap for telling tails,
Or WHAT?

The ***, **** look can either mean you don't know what you are talking about or you're giving away trade secrets. Either way, it doesn't move the needle.

at the moment the question was asked, 7- ish people knew about the trust, the rest of us didn't. I'm sure the preferred answer would have been "we have no comment at this time" from the moderator. but Ms. Chang blurted "Oh, I can answer that." and got the death stare from the rest of the board.

 

[tjkraz]

since you were in the room, as was I, did you happen to notice the body language of the board during that last question? they did not clap or cheer ... they had the "shut the f&ck up Yvonne" look on their face.

That was not the impression I got at all, in the moment. My impression was that board members were all rather satisified to have delivered news that was well received by the audience. Someone referred to the question about Poly as having been "planted" by DVC. If not precisely that, I suspect DVC was filtering the questions and reserved that one for last, to help conclude on a high note. The last two DVC condo meetings turned adversarial rather quickly. Execs were dogged by questions relating to the Covid shutdown, rising dues, Cast Member wages, no annual passes, need for theme park reservations, etc.

This meeting was, by far, the smoothest and least confrontational of the three hosted by Bill Diercksen.

Unfortunately I can't go back and relive the moment, but at the time I didn't get any sense of ******* or disagreement from the group. And the emails from guides confirming the one association seem to support it's the path they have chosen.

If we go back 4-5 years, resale restrictions were clearly something DVC viewed as a useful sales tool. And just 2 years ago, they may have intended on keeping Poly separate. But if they're now going down this road with a trust--something that will presumably require a direct purchase, at least in the near term--resale restrictions suddenly don't seem so valuable.

 

[mkatsy]

That was not the impression I got at all, in the moment. My impression was that board members were all rather satisified to have delivered news that was well received by the audience. Someone referred to the question about Poly as having been "planted" by DVC. If not precisely that, I suspect DVC was filtering the questions and reserved that one for last, to help conclude on a high note. The last two DVC condo meetings turned adversarial rather quickly. Execs were dogged by questions relating to the Covid shutdown, rising dues, Cast Member wages, no annual passes, need for theme park reservations, etc.

This meeting was, by far, the smoothest and least confrontational of the three hosted by Bill Diercksen.

Unfortunately I can't go back and relive the moment, but at the time I didn't get any sense of ******* or disagreement from the group. And the emails from guides confirming the one association seem to support it's the path they have chosen.

If we go back 4-5 years, resale restrictions were clearly something DVC viewed as a useful sales tool. And just 2 years ago, they may have intended on keeping Poly separate. But if they're now going down this road with a trust--something that will presumably require a direct purchase, at least in the near term--resale restrictions suddenly don't seem so valuable.

fair enough ... everyone's perception is their reality. Let me ask you this. She is a very talented engaging speaker. Did you feel that she answered that question with the same enthusiasm and energy that she had given to her earlier speaking.

 

[tjkraz]

fair enough ... everyone's perception is their reality. Let me ask you this. She is a very talented engaging speaker. Did you feel that she answered that question with the same enthusiasm and energy that she had given to her earlier speaking.

My recollection is that the question very clear when asked. That the questioner used words to this effect: for two years, everyone has been wondering if the Poly tower will be part of the existing association and available to current owners at 11 months, or if it will be a separate entity. Are you able to confirm one way or the other for us?

As people in the audience realized what was being asked, there was an audible rumble as others added their voices to the question.

And without missing much of a beat, Chang spoke up to answer the question affirmatively. I think she stumbled over the wording a bit, saying "same resort" instead of "same association." But again, given the way the question was phrased, the clear affirmative response, and the subsequent cheers & applause from the audience, I didn't get any sense of *******. In fact, it felt like the note DVC specifically WANTED the meeting to end on.

Clearly 90% of the meeting is scripted and rehearsed. They all do pretty well reading from the prompter, but not so much when speaking off-the-cuff. This exchange didn't feel any different to me. And I never noticed any glares from other board members or tension among the group as the statement was made.

 

[mkatsy]

My recollection is that the question very clear when asked. That the questioner used words to this effect: for two years, everyone has been wondering if the Poly tower will be part of the existing association and available to current owners at 11 months, or if it will be a separate entity. Are you able to confirm one way or the other for us?

As people in the audience realized what was being asked, there was an audible rumble as others added their voices to the question.

And without missing much of a beat, Chang spoke up to answer the question affirmatively. I think she stumbled over the wording a bit, saying "same resort" instead of "same association." But again, given the way the question was phrased, the clear affirmative response, and the subsequent cheers & applause from the audience, I didn't get any sense of *******. In fact, it felt like the note DVC specifically WANTED the meeting to end on.

Clearly 90% of the meeting is scripted and rehearsed. They all do pretty well reading from the prompter, but not so much when speaking off-the-cuff. This exchange didn't feel any different to me. And I never noticed any glares from other board members or tension among the group as the statement was made.

that's how I heard the question asked as well. Although I heard her clearly all afternoon, I couldn't hear her actual answer to the question, but after the ball room broke out in thunderous applause. She said "so, that's happy news .....right?" it just struck me as such an odd thing to say to a room full of jubilant people. IDK ... obviously, everyone, myself included, sees things through their own filter. For me, the entire program seemed very cookie cutter, and rehearsed, until that last question.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

resale restrictions suddenly don't seem so valuable.

I’m just not sure this is true. And, in fairness, there’s always time to change things, but they just added VDH with restrictions this year. If it didn’t seem valuable they could have not added them to VDH and removed them from RIV, but they’ve semi-doubled down on them, and very recently at that.

For me, the entire program seemed very cookie cutter, and rehearsed, until that last question.

I think a lot of their weirdness and slight ambiguity might have to do with what they decide to do with the trust. And they might not even know yet. I was very sure the tower was going to be its own association but I think it would be difficult to walk back saying it’s the same association even if it was a wishy-washy response.

Saying Poly is the same association is a technicality they can fall back on, it’s a win for members and gives DVD a little boost for “doing the right thing” but if they introduce the trust, add the Poly tower to it (assuming the POS allows the tower to be in the trust while the original PVB is technically not?) it’s not as simple of an answer to say the poly tower will be part of the same association if it’s part of something much bigger, even if technically it is. So maybe that explains the stilted, ambiguous answer?

 

[Robbie Cottam]

at the moment the question was asked, 7- ish people knew about the trust, the rest of us didn't. I'm sure the preferred answer would have been "we have no comment at this time" from the moderator. but Ms. Chang blurted "Oh, I can answer that." and got the death stare from the rest of the board.

that’s never a good thing,

 

[HairyChest]

caveat emptor

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus

Wrong theme park

 

[Nabas]

No speculation here, it will be. With that being said, I am still waiting because it won’t even go on sale for another year so I have 12 months of potential dips I can take advantage of if I decide to buy into Poly.

I’ve been watching PVB very closely. It looks like PVB resale prices have already popped up - anyone who hasn’t already had an offer accepted on a contract is already paying an inflated price.

As you suggest, there probably will be some dips before Poly Tower direct is offered for sale.

 

[tjkraz]

I’m just not sure this is true. And, in fairness, there’s always time to change things, but they just added VDH with restrictions this year. If it didn’t seem valuable they could have not added them to VDH and removed them from RIV, but they’ve semi-doubled down on them, and very recently at that.

I didn't mean to suggest that the resale restrictions were valueless. Obviously it's something DVC feels yields favorable results. In the case of new resorts where they are creating a new association, there's no reason NOT to include the restrictions.

In the case of the poly, imposing resale restrictions is literally the ONLY reason to even consider a second association. Meanwhile, a single association means less administrative overhead, the tower points expire 9 years sooner, perhaps some flexibility to rebalance points for the entire resort down the road. Similar to GF, they may have decided the benefits of a single association outweighed creating a second just to impose the restrictions.

If the trust happens, I suspect they'll keep selling deeded interests. But the push to sell people on the trust product would further blunt the value of resale restrictions.

 

[GoingSince1990]

I didn't mean to suggest that the resale restrictions were valueless. Obviously it's something DVC feels yields favorable results. In the case of new resorts where they are creating a new association, there's no reason NOT to include the restrictions.

In the case of the poly, imposing resale restrictions is literally the ONLY reason to even consider a second association. Meanwhile, a single association means less administrative overhead, the tower points expire 9 years sooner, perhaps some flexibility to rebalance points for the entire resort down the road. Similar to GF, they may have decided the benefits of a single association outweighed creating a second just to impose the restrictions.

If the trust happens, I suspect they'll keep selling deeded interests. But the push to sell people on the trust product would further blunt the value of resale restrictions.

I was always a bit baffled that so many people here were convinced that the tower would be a new association when there were many arguments against this, and the only argument in favor seemed to be “the integrity of the resale restrictions”. All my years in corporate America made it easy for me to visualize this being raised in a meeting to discuss this question. After the “same association” arguments of a simpler product, much better balanced room mix making for an overall more attractive resort, ability to use 11-month access to the bungalows in the sales pitch, and faster-selling contracts with people willing to pay a higher price, the follow-up question to anyone saying “but what about the integrity of the resale restrictions?” would be “well, does that hurt our bottom line anytime soon?” to which the answer would be in the negative. Corporate executives’ bonuses are based off the financial results right now, not the long-term “integrity” of a strategy that is planned to be executed over several decades.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

In the case of the poly, imposing resale restrictions is literally the ONLY reason to even consider a second association. Meanwhile, a single association means less administrative overhead, the tower points expire 9 years sooner, perhaps some flexibility to rebalance points for the entire resort down the road. Similar to GF, they may have decided the benefits of a single association outweighed creating a second just to impose the restrictions.

Yep, I agree and as much as I believed it would be a new association, DVD’s calculations must have seen the weighted value adding it to PVB.

I will say, I think adding restrictions to CFW, even being a new association, will yield way worse results for DVD than VDH or RIV. Unless they make the point charts ridiculously low but I don’t see them doing that. It’ll be interesting how they weigh that decision out.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I was always a bit baffled that so many people here were convinced that the tower would be a new association when there were many arguments against this, and the only argument in favor seemed to be “the integrity of the resale restrictions”. All my years in corporate America made it easy for me to visualize this being raised in a meeting to discuss this question. After the “same association” arguments of a simpler product, much better balanced room mix making for an overall more attractive resort, ability to use 11-month access to the bungalows in the sales pitch, and faster-selling contracts with people willing to pay a higher price, the follow-up question to anyone saying “but what about the integrity of the resale restrictions?” would be “well, does that hurt our bottom line anytime soon?” to which the answer would be in the negative. Corporate executives’ bonuses are based off the financial results right now, not the long-term “integrity” of a strategy that is planning to be executed over several decades.

There were so many arguments against adding restrictions in the first place, and yet Disney did it anyway. They obviously projected that their goal to make resale less appealing was to add restrictions on new resorts. You say that it’s “a strategy that is planning to be executed over several decades” (which I’m not sure is true) and yet it’s hurting their current bottom line which as you’ve noted doesn’t help the corporate executives get their bonuses right now. I’m always baffled that people keep saying adding restrictions to the poly tower was going hurt their bottom line, so of course they wouldn’t add them to the new tower, as if that didn’t happen at RIV and VDH. So why shouldn’t people assume they would do that on their newest and shiniest tower, that frankly would have sold well regardless of restrictions.

The plan of adding restrictions was only ever going to work if they added them to every new resorts, which again, isn’t so baffling to assume they would do. Adding them piecemeal to one or two resorts every few years is definitely a way to push people to resale and avoid and their restricted resorts, which is why they should just call it a failed and deeply unpopular policy and retract them. I’ll have access to the tower with my 150 resale PVB pts and if I find that if I love the tower enough I’ll just add more resale in the near future. I’d only consider direct if I want a fixed week, which isn’t my current plan but I won’t say never.

After the “same association” arguments of a simpler product, much better balanced room mix making for an overall more attractive resort, ability to use 11-month access to the bungalows in the sales pitch, and faster-selling contracts with people willing to pay a higher price

Now I agree with you’ve said here, it’s obviously a winning argument but I don’t think it’s fair to paint those of us who believed the Poly Tower to be a new resort and association as baffling, as if there’s no way that it made any sense, because many clearly think it made sense for DVD, if not for us members. And since corporations are always out to do what’s best for them and their bonuses first, and what’s best for their members/clients second, it’s not so crazy to assume they would have made it a new association, solely for the purpose of restrictions.

 

[mkatsy]

I didn't mean to suggest that the resale restrictions were valueless. Obviously it's something DVC feels yields favorable results. In the case of new resorts where they are creating a new association, there's no reason NOT to include the restrictions.

In the case of the poly, imposing resale restrictions is literally the ONLY reason to even consider a second association. Meanwhile, a single association means less administrative overhead, the tower points expire 9 years sooner, perhaps some flexibility to rebalance points for the entire resort down the road. Similar to GF, they may have decided the benefits of a single association outweighed creating a second just to impose the restrictions.

If the trust happens, I suspect they'll keep selling deeded interests. But the push to sell people on the trust product would further blunt the value of resale restrictions.

maybe the trust is just a way of producing a result similar to resale restrictions, faster and cheaper.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

maybe the trust is just a way of producing a result similar to resale restrictions, faster and cheaper.

You’re probably correct but then why keep them at all and even add them to VDH? Or maybe their plan is to remove them once the trust is introduced, since it doesn’t matter at that point. I guess for continuity sake and to not create a lot of mixed messaging, they’ll keep with the current direction until they’re ready to introduce the new product and everything that goes with it. I could see that being the case.

 

[maui22]

The trust makes me cringe from a business standpoint. If I have the dates right

1. 2019 starts with no restrictions.
2. Roughly March-April 2019 restrictions introduced with start of Riviera sales.
3. Possibly 2024 trust is another system.

Now the guides have to explain yet another new system. They have to know existing owners will question what the next new system will be in a few years.

Unfortunately, I don’t trust (pun intended) Disney introducing significant changes like this every 5 years.

 

[iluvthsgam]

if you buy resale now and it is not included in the new association or there are restrictions, you could always just sell the resale points you bought now and buy into the new association. Yes, there may likely be a drop in value, but contrast that against how much you think the cost will go up if you wait. If you think a drop would be less than a pop, it might make sense to buy now rather than wait.