Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[Genie+]

I’m willing to wait it out for strong price incentives and think incentives could take it under $200pp. Our plan is to find a good deal before Sept 2026 (we have Sept UY). We’d jump at $180pp! But it needs to be under $200 for us to buy direct.

If Poly2 is same association, the contracts will be 4 years shorter than RIV ($225) and 8 years shorter than VDH ($239). I can’t see Poly2 price being higher than those 2 active resorts. CFW ($225) has 9 more years than Poly2 will likely have.

When we bought VGF2, the price was $207 and incentives brought it down $161pp (with 41 years still left on our contract). That was ~25% off. With inflation I’d consider $175pp a similar deal in 2026.

 

[Disney.dad]

Disney.dad---$110-$31068-275-PVB-Feb-0/23, 0/24, 275/25, 275/26-Last of 4 Big Poly C- sent 2/22, passed 3/9

Hoping for part of the same association. This was the last contract of a seller who had 2 250 pt contracts and 2 275 point contracts all Feb that wanted them gone according to the Broker.

Hard to go wrong with Poly at 110. Have a friend waiting on ROFR on a 150 pt contract that had Dec 300-23, 150-24 and 150-25 that was at $150 that is a really good buy as well. I imagine it will pass. Those hard loaded contracts can be a value a lot of times as well considering the prior year (2023) points have no dues to pay and worth around $18 per point. A stripped contract with 2025 points intact has no dues due to be reimbursed for 2024 so not a lot of value lost vs a contact that only has 2024 intact.

 

[maui22]

If you use VDH asa guide, sales started May and opened in September.

So, if this is opening late 2024…assume December…then we could see sales delayed as late as August to September.

However, they will need to file paperwork for sale as well as paperwork for association before that. The documents for CFW were filed in December and sales were Feb 1st.

So, I think by May documents would need to be filed.

Paperwork for CFW was filed in October, not December.

https://dvcfan.com/2023/10/13/new-permits-files-for-fort-wilderness-cabins-dvc/?amp=1

CFW had the shortest paperwork timeline. If tower follows the same timeline…
To open November 1, we will see the paperwork this week.
To open December 1, it would be 5 weeks from now.

Is Iger doing this on purpose?

• Disneyland Forward vote is this week.
• Possibly Poly tower paperwork
• Proxy vote in April.

 

[Sandisw]

Paperwork for CFW was filed in October, not December.

https://dvcfan.com/2023/10/13/new-permits-files-for-fort-wilderness-cabins-dvc/?amp=1

CFW had the shortest paperwork timeline. If tower follows the same timeline…
To open November 1, we will see the paperwork this week.
To open December 1, it would be 5 weeks from now.

Is Iger doing this on purpose?

• Disneyland Forward vote is this week.
• Possibly Poly tower paperwork
• Proxy vote in April.

The filed the document to sell in October…the documents guiding the declarations, covenants etc were filed in December, which is what I was referring to.

That is what I am looking at as being important for Poly tower as it will give us info on the project and most importantly the association and vacation plan.

For me, that is the important element, not the right to sell one.

 

[maui22]

The filed the document to sell in October…the documents guiding the declarations, covenants etc were filed in December, which is what I was referring to.

That is what I am looking at as being important for Poly tower as it will give us info on the project and most importantly the association and vacation plan.

For me, that is the important element, not the right to sell one.

BPK was an addition to VGF and was an amendment to the timeshare license. That appeared long before the declaration.

I believe we will see one of the following:

• Amendment to PVB timeshare license if it is addition to the existing association.
• New timeshare association if it is a new association, same as we saw for CFW in October. (This could mean part of trust or it could be an entirely new. We wouldn’t know for sure until more data is released)
• Or perhaps a modification to the CFW association if they want CFW and Tower to a larger association.

Perhaps something else happens this time. My understanding is one of the scenarios I list above has happened at least 2 months before the declaration at every previous association/addition.

 

[maui22]

Here was DVCNews story about Disney amending VGF timeshare license for BPK. This was long before the BPK declaration.

https://dvcnews.com/resorts/grand-f...dian-timeshare-license-amended-for-new-villas

 

[maui22]

In addition, here is DVCNews article on when the first declaration for BPK happened. As you can tell by the dates, there was a large gap. This was more normal.

https://www.dvcnews.com/resorts/gra...oridian-units-declared-into-condo-association

CFW was a shorter gap, but they still received timeshare approval many months before the declaration happened.

Note: timeshare approval for Florida does not mean approval for sales in other states. PVB rollout was a disaster where they could only sell in Florida in maybe a few more states. It was weeks and in at least one state, it was several months before they had approval.

I believe PVB shows why they do the approval in Florida first. Then start the process in other states. Also, isn’t a declaration only a single state approval process (state the property is located in)?

 

[Sandisw]

BPK was an addition to VGF and was an amendment to the timeshare license. That appeared long before the declaration.

I believe we will see one of the following:

• Amendment to PVB timeshare license if it is addition to the existing association.
• New timeshare association if it is a new association, same as we saw for CFW in October. (This could mean part of trust or it could be an entirely new. We wouldn’t know for sure until more data is released)
• Or perhaps a modification to the CFW association if they want CFW and Tower to a larger association.

Perhaps something else happens this time. My understanding is one of the scenarios I list above has happened at least 2 months before the declaration at every previous association/addition.

I didn’t realize that the timeshare license would be different if it was an addition to PVB vs, something else.

In that case, that document might be the one that gives us a clue. However, the current PVB documents do allow for them to create a different vacation plan under that association..

So, I still believe that the declaration documents. will really give us specifics on what they plan to do and whether there are any changes in reference to this project.

 

[maui22]

I didn’t realize that the timeshare license would be different if it was an addition to PVB vs, something else.

In that case, that document might be the one that gives us a clue. However, the current PVB documents do allow for them to create a different vacation plan under that association..

So, I still believe that the declaration documents. will really give us specifics on what they plan to do and whether there are any changes in reference to this project.

Agree, the declaration could treat it differently.

It's possible tower is trust based, I just can't wrap my head around why they missed the opportunity to have more than just MK area properties in the trust. 15 years of MK area DVC additions (BLT, VGF, PVB, VGF BPK, and now tower) is a lot of supply when the Epcot and DHS have limited supply.

I can't see why they have not filed trust based Riviera and VDH declarations. Proxy vote is one possible excuse, but that exposes them to questions of incompetence for not declaring Riviera and VDH rooms into the trust sooner.

Which is more interesting today?

• (MK only) CFW
• (MK) CFW, (Epcot and DHS) Riviera, and (Disneyland, California Adventure, and Disneyland Forward) VDH.

In addition to more interesting today, it would also clearly signal tower is part of the trust. Giving it upscale accommodations at MK, Epcot, DHS, DL, CA, and Disneyland Forward.

 

[Sandisw]

Agree, the declaration could treat it differently.

It's possible tower is trust based, I just can't wrap my head around why they missed the opportunity to have more than just MK area properties in the trust. 15 years of MK area DVC additions (BLT, VGF, PVB, VGF BPK, and now tower) is a lot of supply when the Epcot and DHS have limited supply.

I can't see why they have not filed trust based Riviera and VDH declarations. Proxy vote is one possible excuse, but that exposes them to questions of incompetence for not declaring Riviera and VDH rooms into the trust sooner.

Which is more interesting today?

• (MK only) CFW
• (MK) CFW, (Epcot and DHS) Riviera, and (Disneyland, California Adventure, and Disneyland Forward) VDH.

In addition to more interesting today, it would also clearly signal tower is part of the trust. Giving it upscale accommodations at MK, Epcot, DHS, DL, CA, and Disneyland Forward.

My guess to why they have not added RiV or VDH is so they don’t have some units at the same property sold differently. I think it is easier to just sell those out as leasehold condominiums and not have two different products at the same resort.

Poly tower is different because PVB is sold out so they could transition with that I think easily since that is all they would be selling.

I am just still having a hard time believing that they are giving up the opportunity to add restrictions to Poly tower and anything else that comes with keeping resale out.

 

[mkatsy]

My guess to why they have not added RiV or VDH is so they don’t have proms units at the same property sold differently. I think it is easier to just sell those out as leasehold condominiums and not have two different products at the same resort.

Poly tower is different because PVB is sold out so they could transition with that I think easily since that is all they would be selling.

I am just still having a hard time believing that they are giving up the opportunity to add restrictions to Poly tower and anything else that comes with keeping resale out.

I also have a hard time believing that they are ignoring their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders by giving up those opportunities… especially with Peltz breathing down their neck.

 

[WinterSolider]

Are we still doing this thing where everyone believes the irresponsible speculation about the trust being a "new product"?

The trust is not a thing. The trust is a legal anomaly that Disney needed in order to be able to sell deeded real estate interest in the FW trailers which are not, themselves, real estate. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no new product. Nothing else is going into the trust unless Disney decides to sell more trailers.

 

[kneely58]

Are we still doing this thing where everyone believes the irresponsible speculation about the trust being a "new product"?

The trust is not a thing. The trust is a legal anomaly that Disney needed in order to be able to sell deeded real estate interest in the FW trailers which are not, themselves, real estate. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no new product. Nothing else is going into the trust unless Disney decides to sell more trailers.

The other reason I think it may be unique to CFW is to give them the flexibility to add Reflections to the cabins use plan 10+ years from now (when I understand they could not otherwise add it to the same association under the other format).

 

[mkatsy]

Are we still doing this thing where everyone believes the irresponsible speculation about the trust being a "new product"?

The trust is not a thing. The trust is a legal anomaly that Disney needed in order to be able to sell deeded real estate interest in the FW trailers which are not, themselves, real estate. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no new product. Nothing else is going into the trust unless Disney decides to sell more trailers.

“trust me bro” is not an investment strategy… if I’m spending money, no speculation is irresponsible. I want to hear all opinions, not just yours. Sorry it is what it is

 

[WinterSolider]

“trust me bro” is not an investment strategy… if I’m spending money, no speculation is irresponsible. I want to hear all opinions, not just yours. Sorry it is what it is

If someone says "aliens are planning to attack London on April 7," the burden of proof is on them, not the person saying "what the hell are you talking about?"

The idea of a "new product" with elaborate home resort ownership schemes is 100% a fabrication of the DVC Fan YouTube channel, specifically the January 8, 2024 episode. I like the Kriegers a lot and they said repeatedly in that video that they were just throwing things out there, but people ran with stuff THEY MADE UP in the video and set their own hair on fire.

 

[kneely58]

If someone says "aliens are planning to attack London on April 7," the burden of proof is on them, not the person saying "what the hell are you talking about?"

The idea of a "new product" with elaborate home resort ownership schemes is 100% a fabrication of the DVC Fan YouTube channel, specifically the January 8, 2024 episode. I like the Kriegers a lot and they said repeatedly in that video that they were just throwing things out there, but people ran with stuff THEY MADE UP in the video and set their own hair on fire.

Oh you can't blame the Kriegers. That speculation all started right here on disboards. See this thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-club-level-and-home-resort-survey.3935147/

 

[mkatsy]

If someone says "aliens are planning to attack London on April 7," the burden of proof is on them, not the person saying "what the hell are you talking about?"

The idea of a "new product" with elaborate home resort ownership schemes is 100% a fabrication of the DVC Fan YouTube channel, specifically the January 8, 2024 episode. I like the Kriegers a lot and they said repeatedly in that video that they were just throwing things out there, but people ran with stuff THEY MADE UP in the video and set their own hair on fire.

The Krieger’s have bigger problems than that. They misquoted Yvonne Chang in writing and video as saying “association” and then stuck to their guns when told it was “resort” not knowing a proxy war was brewing. How many people voted their proxy for Peltz because they falsely believed it was a done deal that Poly Tower is free from restrictions, therefore reducing the incentive to buy direct from Disney, costing shareholders. This is the danger of failing to consider the opinions of others.

 

[WinterSolider]

Oh you can't blame the Kriegers. That speculation all started right here on disboards. See this thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-club-level-and-home-resort-survey.3935147/

The very first post in that thread contains a factual error that sent all subsequent discussion in a tailspin.

From the OP: Disney was "asking if I would be interested in buying DVC points at a resort that didn't have Home Resort priority."

OP interpreted this as "buying DVC points that allowed me to book at any resort at 11 months" but that's not what the question asked. Having NO home resort priority doesn't mean you can book EVERYWHERE at 11 months, it means you can book NOWHERE at 11 months.

Said another way, the survey wasn't probing a premium product with elevated home resort benefits, it was probing a lesser product with stripped away home resort benefits.

And to be clear, I don't blame the Kriegers. They said over and over again in the video that they were just floating ideas and didn't know anything, but people didn't seem to hear that part.

 

[GoingSince1990]

Are we still doing this thing where everyone believes the irresponsible speculation about the trust being a "new product"?

The trust is not a thing. The trust is a legal anomaly that Disney needed in order to be able to sell deeded real estate interest in the FW trailers which are not, themselves, real estate. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no new product. Nothing else is going into the trust unless Disney decides to sell more trailers.

Indeed. Occam’s Razor. The speculation about a monstrously complicated multi-resort “DVC 2.0” with 7, 8, 9 and 11 month booking windows was just head-scratching. And sure enough, when CFW came along, it was duly marketed in the standard way, with the usual 7 and 11 month windows, the “trust” just being something that many have persuasively argued is needed because of the nature of the cabins.

 

[Cabius]

How many people voted their proxy for Peltz because they falsely believed it was a done deal that Poly Tower is free from restrictions, therefore reducing the incentive to buy direct from Disney, costing shareholders. This is the danger of failing to consider the opinions of others.

I would guess the number is close to zero, or might as well be given the number of shares in trading.

Resale restrictions have a marginal impact on a marginal business unit of the Disney Corporation. They don't even split it out as a separate business unit in financial statements. I've read dozens of articles about the shareholder vote, and not a single one has mentioned it as even a minor factor of contention.

Individual people can of course get a bee in their bonnet and vote however they want, but in terms of the vast majority of shares held by institutional investors, this is an absolute non-factor. It's not totally irrelevant to the overall business, but it's effectively a rounding error.