Is this true? Rental companies buying resale contracts to rent points out?

You can link to anything when you build a group. A link to Disney means nada.

A link from disney would mean something.
 
I highly doubt this is happening. I do not know enough about the tax code to really make strong statements, but others can help there.

But for an example, buy an SSR contract, at say 80 per point. 5.60 in dues per point, rent for 14, you are clearing just over 8 per point. Using 8$ for simpler math, it takes 10 years to recoup your initial investment. If your contract maintains its value, that means you double your money in 10 years. BEFORE TAXES. Now, if you can depreciate your property to a value of zero to offset the profits, then there is added benefit (and this is where I do not know enough).

But, on a more basic level, as a PP said, "Renting is becoming lucrative". This may very well be true. But, if it is, it is true because of the business model used. David's has zero cost of inventory. That is huge. If you change that, you change everything drastically. Once you own inventory, there is an associated carrying cost, which decreases profitability.

I do not see how you can come to the idea that buying contracts with the idea being to rent them out makes good financial sense. There are a lot better options out there.

Plus the trend is to NOT OWN (Uber....VRBO, AirBNB, etc)
 
As to the 20 reservation rule, I made a copy when it was published back in early 2008 but I do not know where it can be found now. Here is what I have:

Commercial Use Policy. The Disney Vacation Club (DVC) Public Offering Statement makes it clear that DVC memberships are intended for personal vacation use. The Declaration of Condominium and the Membership Agreement for the Resort expressly limits the use of Ownership Interests to personal use and prohibits use for “"commercial purposes," -” –a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes. If, in any 12-month period in which a DVC Member attempts to make more than 20 reservations but is unable to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the “Multiple Reservation Rule”).

Enforcement of this policy will be the responsibility of DVC Member Services as follows. For each reservation made by a DVC Member, Member Services shall determine, before confirming the reservation, the number of reservations made by such DVC Member which are occurring or have occurred in any rolling twelve-month period in which the reservation then being made will occur. If, as a result of Member Services’ review of the DVC Member’s reservation history, the reservation the DVC Member is then attempting to make violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the DVC Member has not established, or cannot then establish that all of the DVC Member’s reservations, including the reservation then being made by the DVC Member, are for Personal Use, DVC Member Services will not honor or confirm the reservation and the DVC Member shall be advised that the reservation violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the prohibition on use of Vacation Homes for commercial purposes. For reservations canceled for violating this policy, the cancellation shall be deemed to be a cancellation by the DVC Member and the provisions of the Home Resort Rules and Regulations relating to cancellations (including, without limitation, Sections 5(d), 13 and 14) shall apply.

End quotation.

That was issued after serious issues concerning professional renters had developed along with the development of the internet, which made it easy to rent. Professional renters were getting control of a lot of points and doing what some of us called "predatory" reservations. Any single DVC owner could own no more than 5,000 points total, but put a few people together in a side business and you could easily double or tripple that total. Moreover, there were two rules that allowed such businesses to capture a lot more points for rental without owning them. At the time, you could do unlimited transfers of points in one direction, either in or out but not both, during a use year. The professional renters were getting a lot of transfers into their accounts. Also, you could be named as an associate member who could do reservations on anyone's DVC account and the professional renters were arranging that with numerous members.

With all the points they had control of, what the professional renters started doing heavily was not just ordinary rentals, but, at 11 months out, they were also making large numbers of reservations for highly desired DVC times, like Christmas and Thanksgiving, in highly desired rooms. They would then advertise to rent the reservations that had already been made.The result is that they were creating 11 month issues for members, particularly at a time when such issues otherwise did not exist. The complaints were constant and loud. DVC decided that the way to put an end to the problem was to change the rules to make it more difficult for professional renters to operate. One of the steps it took was the adoption of the above 20 reservation rule (and some of the professional renters received notices under that rule). It also changed the transfer rule to allow only one transfer in or out of an account per use year (which had actually been the original rule in the 1990s). Also, it issued a rule prohibiting any member from being an associate member on more than 4 accounts.

The net effect was not to completely eliminate professional renters but the problem that existed was alleviated. It also led to the development of the current rental broker businesses, under which the brokers avoid any issue of renting points they own as members for commercial purposes because they are acting as a service that hooks up members who want to rent with people who want to rent through them. I doubt the well-known brokers that are often mentioned on this site are ones actively trying to buy points in resale to rent that way because they want to avoid DVC coming after them for improperly using their points for commercial purposes.
 
Last edited:
If Disney feels that renting is costing them money, they will modify the rules and rental restrictions, 20 per year could become 5. They changed the associate rules a few years ago to stop a rental broker from renting.

:earsboy: Bill
Since the 20 is total, not # of rentals and renting is contractually allowed, I don't think they could limit it much further from a numbers standpoint but there are other things they could do if they chose.

Thanks for posting the actual wording. I'd point out that the statement of intent (personal use) is not a prohibition as it's listed in the POS. It's actually a requirement of state law and stems from the long standing practice of companies selling promising rental and resale profits which were clearly unreasonable. If one reads the POS, when it makes the statement related to personal use, it goes on to say but if you do you're at a disadvantage to the big company.
 

But, on a more basic level, as a PP said, "Renting is becoming lucrative". This may very well be true. But, if it is, it is true because of the business model used. David's has zero cost of inventory. That is huge. If you change that, you change everything drastically. Once you own inventory, there is an associated carrying cost, which decreases profitability
As with everything, there's a trade-off. Sure, without any carrying costs, there's more profit. But there's risk that a reservation goes missing and he's out the initial payment to the owner. If he owns the contract, then there's no risk of something going wrong, but he's got the risk of points going unused. Which risk is more expensive?
 
Since the 20 is total, not # of rentals and renting is contractually allowed, I don't think they could limit it much further from a numbers standpoint but there are other things they could do if they chose.

Thanks for posting the actual wording. I'd point out that the statement of intent (personal use) is not a prohibition as it's listed in the POS. It's actually a requirement of state law and stems from the long standing practice of companies selling promising rental and resale profits which were clearly unreasonable. If one reads the POS, when it makes the statement related to personal use, it goes on to say but if you do you're at a disadvantage to the big company.

Agree. The POS sets out that renting is specifically allowed and contains the warning that you will not get assistance from Disney and will be competing with it. Disney cannot go too far with restricting rentals. The "commerical purposes" prohibition has always been a little vague and the 20 reservation rule actually clarifies that its purpose is not to prohibit renting but to prevent members from being in the business of renting their points rather than using them for visits. If, for example, you use your points for vacations and do some rentals to offset your dues, Disney cannot really make a rule to stop that and likely has no desire to do so.
 
Jeez, I just looked. Mein Gott.

Looks like a completely unmoderated group that's "official" full of the standard issue "y Disney no kiss my DVC owner booty?" and misinformation and "resale buyers can't book {insert whatever here}."

Ugh. On the plus side, maybe this puts them all somewhere they won't bother the rest of us.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    248.1 KB · Views: 6
I just saw that DVC also provided a link to it in the March/April member insider email.

I'm a fairly new DVC member so I thought it would be a good idea to join the official group but the posts were crazy in number (couldn't get it to stop showing up in my feed even when I messed with the notifications so I stopped following it) and really didn't supply any good information. I just asked the question about the renting because it seemed feasible.
 











New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top