New $500 Resale DVC Transfer Fee

[Sandisw]

Disclaimer: I do not own DVC. But I wanted to comment anyway.

I feel like this fee may not be noticed by many people who buy direct, since it's my impression that a huge % of direct buyers are unaware of the resale market and don't take into consideration the possibility that they may one day want to sell their contract.

Because this fee certainly makes selling a contract less appealing.

I was thinking of this because someone I know--someone who should have known better--owns a timeshare in Orlando (not DVC) that has zero resale value. Worse than that, if they ever want to unload this contract--which they did think about 2 or 3 years ago--they would have to pay the timeshare company a not-insignificant fee to take it off their hands. When I looked into this for them, about 2 years ago, the fee was $1,500 and there was no guarantee that the timeshare company would actually be amenable to taking the contract back, even with the payment of that fee. This timeshare has NO expiration date. So my friends are stuck with it forever, as their heirs also will be.

The ability to sell one's contract is a huge plus for DVC, as I gather that my friend's never-expiring, unsellable timeshare is hardly an outlier. So, really, DVC is now taking away some of the inherent value of its product.

This isn’t attached to the seller…it’s a closing cost for the buyer.

Where it could impact a seller is that buyers negotiate more with who covers closing costs.

But, to be fair, no set amount is guaranteed when you sell and what the value is, is whatever buyers are willing to pay.

What will determine its impact is the market, IMO….

New buyers to the resale market from 2025 on May have not idea it’s new and by 2027, it will the the cost of buying a resale contract!

 

[AstroBlasters]

@Sandisw Do we know if someone can add an additional owner to a contract if it is still under a loan?

 

[walt34]

This isn’t attached to the seller…it’s a closing cost for the buyer.

Where it could impact a seller is that buyers negotiate more with who covers closing costs.

But, to be fair, no set amount is guaranteed when you sell and what the value is, is whatever buyers are willing to pay.

What will determine its impact is the market, IMO….

New buyers to the resale market from 2025 on May have not idea it’s new and by 2027, it will the the cost of buying a resale contract!

Yes, it's a closing cost for the buyer but my assumption is that it will eventually lower the prices sellers can achieve. I will certainly factor these higher closing costs into future purchases and it's not hard to do as the agent will give you an indication of the overall closing cost.

Yes, prices go up and down and there are no guarantees but in this case Disney unilaterally decided to take some money that would have ended up in the sellers' hands.

 

[airjay75]

Now that we know this $500 fee does not include the $150 estoppel fee, I'm going to weigh on the side of agreeing with those more critical of this fee. If they had done $250, I think that would have been reasonable. I do think $500 is steep and arguably punitive, and I very much hope they are pressed during the meetings this week on what are the actual costs of transferring a contract. How much time does it take? How many people are involved? Are these people hired specifically to do this task or are they existing employees simply using some of their time to process these?

I have a hard time thinking it takes any more than 30 minutes to transfer a contract from the seller to the buyer. Let's say approximately 6,000 contracts are transferred per year. That's 3,000 hours per year or about 58 hours per week. Let's round up to 60 hours per week and so say, you need about two full-time employees to process these. Let's throw in a third employee to for support and to cover time off for the other two employees, and to maybe budget for it taking more than 30 minutes per contract. So, even if it takes an average of 45 minutes to process a contract transfer, you now have 3 employees who will only need to spend an average of 29 hours per week doing this with time left over for other tasks or vacation.

$500 x 6,000 contracts = $3,000,000
3 employees
$1,000,000 per employee

Yes, there is more costs to hiring an employee than just salary. It can cost money to find the right employee. If they're highly skilled, you might even need to pay moving expenses. And, of course, you have the cost of benefits. You've got the cost of materials to do their job - computers, office space, etc. Even if you account for all of that, $3,000,000 to support what should pretty easily be able to be done by 3 employees with time leftover to support other tasks?

I have a very hard time concluding that is not excessive and punitive. Doesn't mean it isn't legal or that they have any reason to care, but I hope they are pressed hard about it this week.

 

[juliebee]

$500 x 6,000 contract = $3,000,000
3 employees
$1,000,000 per employee

Disney, if you are reading this-- I'm available!

 

[BeachClub2014]

I'll start by saying that I am not a huge fan of this new fee, but I can see the logic from the DVC perspective.

The entire resale market is predicated on buying a "used" product to avoid buying it directly from Disney, thus saving the buyer a lot of money. Disney earns nothing in that scenario. So, from the Disney perspective, adding this fee monetizes the resale transaction, creates a small revenue stream, offsets administrative costs, and (maybe) encourages buyers to purchase directly.

 

[disneylandtour]

This just arrived in an email from Fidelity...

"Beginning January 1, 2026, Disney Vacation Club will implement a new $500 Contract Administration Fee for buyers of DVC resale contracts. Purchasing before December 31, 2025, means you’ll avoid this fee entirely and secure the best possible savings on your resale purchase. Our team is actively helping buyers secure the best DVC resale deals before this change takes effect, and we want to help you, too. To avoid the new fee, your executed contract needs to be submitted for ROFR by December 31, 2025, so don't wait."

This is not exactly how I've been reading this.

 

[disneylandtour]

Now that we know this $500 fee does not include the $150 estoppel fee, I'm going to weigh on the side of agreeing with those more critical of this fee. If they had done $250, I think that would have been reasonable. I do think $500 is steep and arguably punitive, and I very much hope they are pressed during the meetings this week on what are the actual costs of transferring a contract. How much time does it take? How many people are involved? Are these people hired specifically to do this task or are they existing employees simply using some of their time to process these?

I have a hard time thinking it takes any more than 30 minutes to transfer a contract from the seller to the buyer. Let's say approximately 6,000 contracts are transferred per year. That's 3,000 hours per year or about 58 hours per week. Let's round up to 60 hours per week and so say, you need about two full-time employees to process these. Let's throw in a third employee to for support and to cover time off for the other two employees, and to maybe budget for it taking more than 30 minutes per contract. So, even if it takes an average of 45 minutes to process a contract transfer, you now have 3 employees who will only need to spend an average of 29 hours per week doing this with time left over for other tasks or vacation.

$500 x 6,000 contracts = $3,000,000
3 employees
$1,000,000 per employee

Yes, there is more costs to hiring an employee than just salary. It can cost money to find the right employee. If they're highly skilled, you might even need to pay moving expenses. And, of course, you have the cost of benefits. You've got the cost of materials to do their job - computers, office space, etc. Even if you account for all of that, $3,000,000 to support what should pretty easily be able to be done by 3 employees with time leftover to support other tasks?

I have a very hard time concluding that is not excessive and punitive. Doesn't mean it isn't legal or that they have any reason to care, but I hope they are pressed hard about it this week.

I did look up some sample months of sales. I think it's closer to 5k contracts for the year. But yeah, point holds.

 

[airjay75]

I did look up some sample months of sales. I think it's closer to 5k contracts for the year. But yeah, point holds.

Yeah, I thought about whether my number might be off, but the beauty of a per contract fee is that more contracts = more revenue. So, my example basically suggests the equivalent of 1 full time employee is needed for every 2,000 contracts transferred. Even if I’m off (and sometimes things do require more work than anyone thought was reasonably necessary), there’s a lot of room for error and I think we’re well beyond a reasonable fee meant to cover costs (and make a reasonable amount of profit) and something more akin to a punitive money grab. Again, doesn’t mean they aren’t fully within their legal right to do it, but I think we’re going from something defensible to something offensive.

Now back to planning my next Disney trip .

 

[DanCali]

If they are so much into copying from other developers they can do other things too...

What could make sense is that if, in addition to this (probably copied from other developers), they also selectively made offers to existing members/prospects to "upgrade" their resale contracts (this is also done by other developers). This can be done as part of a presentation at a resort or cruise where you walk in and they might say "we'll take your 150-point BLT resale contract for $100/pt and sell you a new 150-point Poly or Riviera for $200/pt".

- DVC gets to selectively buy inventory they want at prices lower than ROFR prices. They profit on the sale and then profit on the subsequent reselling of that contract they just bought at a lowball price.

- Some members may agree to those slightly lowballed offers because they save broker fees, ROFR fees, this new transfer fee, much less hassle, and accomplishes "futureproofing" - unrestricted (and possibly longer) contracts. Most importantly, it also makes the new contract purchase much more affordable, likely substantially increasing the likelihood of a sale.

 

[mkatsy]

I'll start by saying that I am not a huge fan of this new fee, but I can see the logic from the DVC perspective.

The entire resale market is predicated on buying a "used" product to avoid buying it directly from Disney, thus saving the buyer a lot of money. Disney earns nothing in that scenario. So, from the Disney perspective, adding this fee monetizes the resale transaction, creates a small revenue stream, offsets administrative costs, and (maybe) encourages buyers to purchase directly.

This is exactly why I believe it is short sighted. Cost + Profit = Price. Therefore, because cost is usually fixed, price drives profit. Part of what drives price (and therefore profit) is brand recognition and loyalty. If you begin to engage in behavior that start to undermine consumer faith in your ability to differentiate yourself from your competitors, then you risk damaging your price and therefore your profit. You’re just shifting the money. If the direct points sit because nobody trusts you, and you have to discount them to get them off the books, then the big question is if you have to discount them more or less than the money grab(s) that made everyone not trust you.

 

[BeachClub2014]

This is exactly why I believe it is short sighted. Cost + Profit = Price. Therefore, because cost is usually fixed, price drives profit. Part of what drives price (and therefore profit) is brand recognition and loyalty. If you begin to engage in behavior that start to undermine consumer faith in your ability to differentiate yourself from your competitors, then you risk damaging your price and therefore your profit. You’re just shifting the money. If the direct points sit because nobody trusts you, and you have to discount them to get them off the books, then the big question is if you have to discount them more or less than the money grab(s) that made everyone not trust you.

Perhaps. I am just not in the camp of thinking this move somehow damages the brand or causes mistrust amongst potential buyers. If someone is purchasing resale, it isn't by accident, and they've already decided to forgo purchasing directly. If someone is purchasing directly, then there is no fee, so no degradation of trust. I see it frequently stated here on the Dis that the "average" DVC (direct) purchaser is ignorant of the resale market. If that belief is true, then there's no impact on those buyers by this fee.

I just don't see this move as slimy, as some have suggested, or that it is just a money grab by a greedy corporation. What sometimes gets overlooked is that DVD averages about 160,000 points per month. Every month. At roughly $200 per, that's $32,000,000 in sales. Every month. This $500 fee won't change that.

I also think that many here who bemoan that "DVC is becoming just another timeshare" forget that DVC is just another timeshare. As much as we may love it, and I do, it really is just a timeshare. The primary differentiating thing between DVC and others is the proximity to the theme parks.

 

[mkatsy]

Perhaps. I am just not in the camp of thinking this move somehow damages the brand or causes mistrust amongst potential buyers. If someone is purchasing resale, it isn't by accident, and they've already decided to forgo purchasing directly. If someone is purchasing directly, then there is no fee, so no degradation of trust. I see it frequently stated here on the Dis that the "average" DVC (direct) purchaser is ignorant of the resale market. If that belief is true, then there's no impact on those buyers by this fee.

I just don't see this move as slimy, as some have suggested, or that it is just a money grab by a greedy corporation. What sometimes gets overlooked is that DVD averages about 160,000 points per month. Every month. At roughly $200 per, that's $32,000,000 in sales. Every month. This $500 fee won't change that.

I also think that many here who bemoan that "DVC is becoming just another timeshare" forget that DVC is just another timeshare. As much as we may love it, and I do, it really is just a timeshare. The primary differentiating thing between DVC and others is the proximity to the theme parks.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no shortage of folks (some with advanced degrees from prestigious institutions) that were equally confident in their decision. The margin between dumpster fire and brilliance is narrow.

 

[muppets3d]

Now that we know this $500 fee does not include the $150 estoppel fee, I'm going to weigh on the side of agreeing with those more critical of this fee. If they had done $250, I think that would have been reasonable. I do think $500 is steep and arguably punitive, and I very much hope they are pressed during the meetings this week on what are the actual costs of transferring a contract. How much time does it take? How many people are involved? Are these people hired specifically to do this task or are they existing employees simply using some of their time to process these?

I have a hard time thinking it takes any more than 30 minutes to transfer a contract from the seller to the buyer. Let's say approximately 6,000 contracts are transferred per year. That's 3,000 hours per year or about 58 hours per week. Let's round up to 60 hours per week and so say, you need about two full-time employees to process these. Let's throw in a third employee to for support and to cover time off for the other two employees, and to maybe budget for it taking more than 30 minutes per contract. So, even if it takes an average of 45 minutes to process a contract transfer, you now have 3 employees who will only need to spend an average of 29 hours per week doing this with time left over for other tasks or vacation.

$500 x 6,000 contracts = $3,000,000
3 employees
$1,000,000 per employee

Yes, there is more costs to hiring an employee than just salary. It can cost money to find the right employee. If they're highly skilled, you might even need to pay moving expenses. And, of course, you have the cost of benefits. You've got the cost of materials to do their job - computers, office space, etc. Even if you account for all of that, $3,000,000 to support what should pretty easily be able to be done by 3 employees with time leftover to support other tasks?

I have a very hard time concluding that is not excessive and punitive. Doesn't mean it isn't legal or that they have any reason to care, but I hope they are pressed hard about it this week.

This is the company that can make a $1 billion box office smash look like a loss on the books. So they can justify that $500 fee easily. Don't waste your breath asking.

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw Do we know if someone can add an additional owner to a contract if it is still under a loan?

I am not positive, but I don’t believe so because the loan is a mortgage and the new owner would be a change in title.

My understanding is that has to be satisfied before they will do it….

 

[eticketplease]

I am not positive, but I don’t believe so because the loan is a mortgage and the new owner would be a change in title.

My understanding is that has to be satisfied before they will do it….

@AstroBlasters That was my thinking as well however the boards sponsor Monera offers refinancing so if the loan was refinanced that should allow a new owner to be added. You of course would certainly want to check the rates before pursuing that course of action.

 

[Sandisw]

Perhaps. I am just not in the camp of thinking this move somehow damages the brand or causes mistrust amongst potential buyers. If someone is purchasing resale, it isn't by accident, and they've already decided to forgo purchasing directly. If someone is purchasing directly, then there is no fee, so no degradation of trust. I see it frequently stated here on the Dis that the "average" DVC (direct) purchaser is ignorant of the resale market. If that belief is true, then there's no impact on those buyers by this fee.

I just don't see this move as slimy, as some have suggested, or that it is just a money grab by a greedy corporation. What sometimes gets overlooked is that DVD averages about 160,000 points per month. Every month. At roughly $200 per, that's $32,000,000 in sales. Every month. This $500 fee won't change that.

I also think that many here who bemoan that "DVC is becoming just another timeshare" forget that DVC is just another timeshare. As much as we may love it, and I do, it really is just a timeshare. The primary differentiating thing between DVC and others is the proximity to the theme parks.

This is where I will always be when it comes to DVC, Disney, or any other business I choose to deal with.

DVD started down the path to making resale and direct different 13 years ago.

Now, DVCMC didn’t have to jump to $500…but they did. When I first bought direct, DVD paid all the closing costs.

Then, they stopped and now it’s part of the purchase. I did send an email to management over the weekend requesting copies of the property management agreements we have with them for each of my home resorts.

I am hoping it will be electronic since I can’t find my hard copy. At least some of the questions we had that I was going to ask, have been answered.

 

[Genie+]

I don’t like this fee, but also not concerned it’s a harbinger of DVC turning into the crappiest timeshares where not even death makes separation easy from the useless financial burden.



$1.4 billion sold multiplied by 9.5% commission = $133 million dollars

That is just ONE broker! Big money floating around the product inside DVD’s sandbox. All this turnover was happening while DVD got goose egg $0. Now they get $500 a pop. Seems a rational decision.

Eta - The math also works out to average $1,900 commission per resale contract.

 

[airjay75]

This is the company that can make a $1 billion box office smash look like a loss on the books. So they can justify that $500 fee easily. Don't waste your breath asking.

Well, I certainly won't be wasting my personal breath, but I'm happy to cheer those wanting to do so on from the sidelines . . . er . . . from an anonymous online internet board .

 

[eticketplease]

Perhaps. I am just not in the camp of thinking this move somehow damages the brand or causes mistrust amongst potential buyers. If someone is purchasing resale, it isn't by accident, and they've already decided to forgo purchasing directly. If someone is purchasing directly, then there is no fee, so no degradation of trust. I see it frequently stated here on the Dis that the "average" DVC (direct) purchaser is ignorant of the resale market. If that belief is true, then there's no impact on those buyers by this fee.

Agreed the ones that are purchasing direct most likely are not thinking of an exit strategy with what happens if I want/need to sell down the line so it's not affecting that market.

It does affect affect those that have discovered the secondary market with them having to pay an extra $500 for a contract now and possibly having to sell it for less in the future if that need or want arises however that $500 is still saving them thousands more when buying straight from Disney.