New Exchange Opportunity coming..

[tjkraz]

Any reason they can't cut out RCI exchanges going forward for resale buyers?

It would not sit well with RCI and they may not agree to such terms. DVC is an important destination for RCI's marketing. Restricting the number of DVC members who can trade through RCI also reduces the amount of DVC inventory in the RCI program.

 

[Dean]

Any reason they can't cut out RCI exchanges going forward for resale buyers?

I think one could argue it's a contractual option if it's offered at all but they could take it away for everyone as the POS is written. So my vote is no, they can't do it for some but not all. They could offer other options like cheaper fees though as I interpret the situation.

 

[mj2vacation]

No reason to cut out resale buyers for rci. Unlike exchanges that require DVC to monetize the points used, RCI will take every week DVC will give them.

The issue with the cruises a few years ago that led to blocking out all members was that DVc could not rent out enough rooms to pay for all of the monetized exchanges.

Best part of that whole saga is that the cruise line did not know that DVC was making that move. Once Karl Holtz took over DVC about a year later, we know how that worked for Jim Lewis...

 

[Dean]

No reason to cut out resale buyers for rci. Unlike exchanges that require DVC to monetize the points used, RCI will take every week DVC will give them.

The issue with the cruises a few years ago that led to blocking out all members was that DVc could not rent out enough rooms to pay for all of the monetized exchanges.

Best part of that whole saga is that the cruise line did not know that DVC was making that move. Once Karl Holtz took over DVC about a year later, we know how that worked for Jim Lewis...

If they could, it'd still be a selling point so I'd think it would be a consideration if they could remove the option from non qualified owners. The basic system of renting DVC to raise cash to pay DCL (or whoever) is very inefficient because of the commissions that come out of the rental proceeds and the fact that not all villas are rented or at full price.

 

[Cyberc1978]

No reason to cut out resale buyers for rci. Unlike exchanges that require DVC to monetize the points used, RCI will take every week DVC will give them.

The issue with the cruises a few years ago that led to blocking out all members was that DVc could not rent out enough rooms to pay for all of the monetized exchanges.

Best part of that whole saga is that the cruise line did not know that DVC was making that move. Once Karl Holtz took over DVC about a year later, we know how that worked for Jim Lewis...

IMHO the RCI option holds no value for DVC owners, you almost always "trade down". So if they removed that for resale owners, I see no actual value removed.

OTOH the more DVC owners who uses the RCI option the more DVC units are deposited into RCI, giving DVC more of the 195$ exchange fee.

Could it instead be that DVC have found that the rental marked is huge and want "their" cut. So maybe they are introducing, some sort of marked place to rent your points. DVC has the option to provide more security for the guests that the other online rental companies can't. DVC could also provide more security for the owners ( at a cost ofc).

You could argue that this would capitalize on their own rental options, but currently DVC is not getting any money for any rentals and are still making money renting.

 

[Dean]

IMHO the RCI option holds no value for DVC owners, you almost always "trade down". So if they removed that for resale owners, I see no actual value removed.

OTOH the more DVC owners who uses the RCI option the more DVC units are deposited into RCI, giving DVC more of the 195$ exchange fee.

Could it instead be that DVC have found that the rental marked is huge and want "their" cut. So maybe they are introducing, some sort of marked place to rent your points. DVC has the option to provide more security for the guests that the other online rental companies can't. DVC could also provide more security for the owners ( at a cost ofc).

You could argue that this would capitalize on their own rental options, but currently DVC is not getting any money for any rentals and are still making money renting.

I think they use that money to pay for the program though it should be paid for out of deals with RCI and from the general membership. The $95 fee probably went to RCI so I suspect DVD is paying that fee back to RCI. There is also a per member fee just to belong and have an account set up, it's discounted to corporations and it's often paid for in kind, basically by barter. IMO I think it has some value but not that much overall. I don't think it'd be much of a loss if it wasn't there. The way DVD could make use of the RCI exchanges AND the rentals, is to put more effort to getting them into a sales tour and thus giving DVD a chance to sell to those people retail. IMO the best option to use DVC for exchanges is with some of the private exchange companies but RCI, used appropriately, isn't a bad option or CERTAIN resorts, locations and times. You say most are a down trade and I'd agree, most are, but not all. I would point out that even a lateral trade is a down trade because of lost control and flexibility of the reservation, view, etc.

 

[mj2vacation]

If they could, it'd still be a selling point so I'd think it would be a consideration if they could remove the option from non qualified owners. The basic system of renting DVC to raise cash to pay DCL (or whoever) is very inefficient because of the commissions that come out of the rental proceeds and the fact that not all villas are rented or at full price.

There is no downside to DVC for members using RCI. It also represents another "up" as a new potential member is coming in and staying at the resort.

I don't see then blocking off RCI to resale. It could happen, but It is a long shot.

As for the $195, Disney could care less about it. It's a drop in the bucket. It adds up, but if even if 1000 RCI exchangers were on property every day, it would amount to a rounding error on the books. The real money is in park tickets, meal plans, etc.

 

[Dean]

There is no downside to DVC for members using RCI. It also represents another "up" as a new potential member is coming in and staying at the resort.

I don't see then blocking off RCI to resale. It could happen, but It is a long shot.

As for the $195, Disney could care less about it. It's a drop in the bucket. It adds up, but if even if 1000 RCI exchangers were on property every day, it would amount to a rounding error on the books. The real money is in park tickets, meal plans, etc.

To a degree. There is potential up side to limiting to qualified only but I agree it's unlikely to happen. As to other potential downsides, it depends on how DVD handles it. IF they cherry pick the deposits, it certainly is negative to the members. IMO the largest downside is that it's presence encourages members to use a system that's almost always a poor use of points with limited exceptions. The way DVD handles exchanges the chances of a purchase because of the exchange is extremely limited but there is potential there if they want to tap it.

 

[bwvBound]

I'm hoping for any combination of things ...

• 'Discounted' RCI Exchanges in the 'last minute' window (45-days or 59-days from check-in). The industry standard is to allow a "low season studio equivalent" (~80 DVC points) to book any RCI unit sitting in inventory (excluding Residence Club offerings) during that 'last minute' period.
• Expand Buena Vista Trading Company to include direct exchanges with additional clubs. They've recently added Welk ... time to add Worldmark, Wyndham and others listed by Dean earlier in this thread. Maybe some of the former CI properties can be restored with a relationship with Diamond?
• Sure, dual affiliation with II/RCI. Include that 'last-minute' trade opportunity!
• Extend the "no cost outbound exchange" indefinitely. (Continue to shift 100% of our outbound exchange fee to the inbound RCI guest.)

Onwards and Upwards, I hope.

 

[Wakey]

I think one could argue it's a contractual option if it's offered at all but they could take it away for everyone as the POS is written. So my vote is no, they can't do it for some but not all. They could offer other options like cheaper fees though as I interpret the situation.

Agree with this, it's in the contract. My resale welcome letter from DVC says it's a 'foundation pillar' of membership. The deed may possibly allow them to suspend the main exchange programme for everyone, but not resale only.

 

[Dean]

Agree with this, it's in the contract. My resale welcome letter from DVC says it's a 'foundation pillar' of membership. The deed may possibly allow them to suspend the main exchange programme for everyone, but not resale only.

One could argue it either way. It says something to the effect that an exchange program is not guaranteed but I don't see wording there that would allow a division but it's not a clear cut issue.

 

[Wakey]

One could argue it either way. It says something to the effect that an exchange program is not guaranteed but I don't see wording there that would allow a division but it's not a clear cut issue.

Yes I'd have to study the term in real detail but when I read it initially I did think they'd have real legal issues if they cut this one, then tried a direct only one.

 

[Dean]

Yes I'd have to study the term in real detail but when I read it initially I did think they'd have real legal issues if they cut this one, then tried a direct only one.

Here's why I think the best argument is against separating it but for removing it completely. For something that's listed, to separate it there would have to be wording in the POS that would allow it. I think one could argue it but it'd be a stretch for separate this for the exchange program since it's specifically listed. But they could remove it completely. That's likely why BVTC wasn't removed from non qualified members as well but may also be why it's essentially defunct at this point.