Poly Tower Speculation

[Robbie Cottam]

Regardless of what happens to going to be the worst thing DVC has ever done....

To about 49 percent of the owners....

49 percent are going to LOVE IT,

the other 2 percent aren't going to realize or care

 

[MartyParty]

Regardless of what happens to going to be the worst thing DVC has ever done....

To about 49 percent of the owners....

49 percent are going to LOVE IT,

the other 2 percent aren't going to realize or care

Put this way and reflecting on it, I think I'm in the 2% camp. Will go back in to thread looker mode and follow the chatter.

All good!

 

[DduzDis]

We are prepared for either same or new association. If it is the same I told DW we would likely add to get into 1BRs in the new building. But, if it remains the same that is fine too. We bought there for the occasional MK party or EP festival and love the Studios. I suppose if it is a new association and Poly1 points get much cheaper in resale as a result, I could see adding more there too. Can't wait to see it unfold to see which way we go with it.

 

[KimMcGowan]

As an existing Poly owner, I've been following the chatter for a few months but haven't formed an opinion as to how I feel about Poly 2 being a part of Poly 1's association (or if you're a Poly 1 being a part of Poly 2 crowd).

Part of me would like 11 month access to Poly 2 and the separate bedroom choices. Another part of me thinks it would be better to keep the Poly 2 owners away from the 11 month booking mark for Poly 1. Yes Poly 1 is only studios but they are some of the biggest nicest studious in a fantastic location. Might be nice to have this small slice of Disney heaven all to myself.

But no real love or hate on my part for which way it goes. Its all Poly stays with South Pacific vibes.

This is us exactly! We love Poly 1 exactly as is. That is why we bought there, even with it only having studios. Would it be nice to have bigger room choices? Maybe. We are all about “more days at Disney “. Those bigger rooms cost a lot more points, resulting in fewer vacation days. So I normally only want a studio. BUT on one of our last trips we did 8 days in 1-bedrooms split between Beach Club and Bay Lake. That was awfully nice. So, if I had the option for bigger rooms at Poly I could see myself booking occasionally. Either way, every trip I get to stay at my beloved Polynesian Resort.

 

[PolynesianPip]

I just saw this had been posted here.

I can’t get to the bottom of whether or not that is a site-created chart or if it was captured from something released by Disney.

IF it is a Disney infographic, it sure seems to specify a difference between “The Villas at Disneyland Hotel, a new Disney Vacation Club Resort” in 2023 and “Disney Vacation Club at Polynesian Resort” in 2024.

Does anyone know if it is an officially released infographic from Disney?

 

[Sandisw]

I just saw this had been posted here.

I can’t get to the bottom of whether or not that is a site-created chart or if it was captured from something released by Disney.

IF it is a Disney infographic, it sure seems to specify a difference between “The Villas at Disneyland Hotel, a new Disney Vacation Club Resort” in 2023 and “Disney Vacation Club at Polynesian Resort” in 2024.

Does anyone know if it is an officially released infographic from Disney?

I believe it was shared during the earnings call. I do think it was a unique phrase that was missing.

But they still tied it just to Poly resort and not PVB. They also failed to even include FW cabins which was announced as a new resort.

Per my guide, there is still no decision so they want us speculating still. I just wish they’d come out with it soon.

 

[CarolynFH]

Per my guide, there is still no decision so they want us speculating still.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I simply cannot rationalize a universe where this is some sort of new association. I think people are way over-thinking this thing based on one new resort in a totally new location.

The precedent simply doesn't exist. Go ahead. You tell all the current Poly owners they can't book a 1BR at 11 months now that they're finally available at THEIR resort. I'll bring the popcorn. And the beer.

Ain't gonna happen. You can rationalize it till the cows come home, as we say in the rural south. It still ain't gonna happen.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I simply cannot rationalize a universe where this is some sort of new association. I think people are way over-thinking this thing based on one new resort in a totally new location.

The precedent simply doesn't exist. Go ahead. You tell all the current Poly owners they can't book a 1BR at 11 months now that they're finally available at THEIR resort. I'll bring the popcorn. And the beer.

Ain't gonna happen. You can rationalize it till the cows come home, as we say in the rural south. It still ain't gonna happen.

What leads you to believe that DVC gives a hoot about current Poly owners being able to reserve a 1br in the fancy new tower? DVC will happily sell them new, unrestricted points to be able to do so.

 

[Jwaire]

But they still tied it just to Poly resort and not PVB. They also failed to even include FW cabins which was announced as a new resort.

Whoever wrote this doesn’t work for Parks. Polynesian Resort doesn’t even exist, it’s Disney’s Polynesian Village Resort.

 

[Sandisw]

I simply cannot rationalize a universe where this is some sort of new association. I think people are way over-thinking this thing based on one new resort in a totally new location.

The precedent simply doesn't exist. Go ahead. You tell all the current Poly owners they can't book a 1BR at 11 months now that they're finally available at THEIR resort. I'll bring the popcorn. And the beer.

Ain't gonna happen. You can rationalize it till the cows come home, as we say in the rural south. It still ain't gonna happen.

Again, there always has to be a first to set a precedent. I mean there was no such thing as restrictions until RIV.

All those BRV owners have to wait until 7 months to book those CCV GV and cabins which didn’t exist at their resort. So precedent has been set to have two DVCs at the same hotel location. And yes, I know the expiration date differences made this a no brainer but they didn’t have to convert some of WL into DVC but they did, which created two associations at one location.

If this was a slam dunk, it would be announced. DVD has kept it secret for a reason.

Even if they didn’t want to last year, we are 6 to 8 months from sales and still no further info.

They didn’t care about VGF 1 owners when they changed the nature of that resort by adding all the resort studios. Why would they care about PVB owners?

Bottom line is that the decision will be based on whether they want it to have restrictions and what sells the fastest and easiest.

I can’t see any good financial reason to roll it in to PVB. Guess some of us will be right and some wrong.

 

[hockeydad21]

I can’t see any good financial reason to roll it in to PVB. Guess some of us will be right and some wrong.

There have been a number of people who have provided very good financial reasons for why Disney would make it part of PVB, but you keep ignoring them.

 

[Sandisw]

There have been a number of people who have provided very good financial reasons for why Disney would make it part of PVB, but you keep ignoring them.

I am not ignoring them…I just don’t agree the ideas shared make financial sense for DVD…there is a difference.

Making part of PVB will guide people to resale and very well could force them to have a lower price than they might be able to get if they keep it new, and keep the restrictions in play.

So, IMO, there is no financial benefit for them to take that route, especially since they have to give up restrictions that they have worked hard to keep in play by adding them to VDH.

I’ll go as far to add that now that FW cabins will be selling at the same time…most likely with those restrctions…it makes even less financial sense for them to add it in.

ETA: I have readily admitted many times none of us know and are guessing…but even if it’s added to PVB, it still won’t make sense to me since they have spent 11 years trying to separate resale from direct.

But, of course, DVD has shown they can do things that don’t seem to make sense…like raising the base price in December to $217 from $207 when sales were not doing very well.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

What leads you to believe that DVC gives a hoot about current Poly owners being able to reserve a 1br in the fancy new tower? DVC will happily sell them new, unrestricted points to be able to do so.

Lawyers.

 

[Sandisw]

Lawyers.

Huh? PVB owners have no right to tell DVD what it can and can not build on land owned by Disney.

 

[hockeydad21]

No, I am not ignoring them…I just don’t agree the ideas shared make financial sense for DVD. Making part of PVB will guide people to resale and force them to have a lower price than they might be able to get if they keep it new, and keep the restrictions in play.

So, IMO, there is no financial benefit for them to take that route, especially since they have to give up restrictions that they have worked hard to keep in play by adding them to VDH.

I’ll go as far to add that now that FW cabins will be selling at the same time…most likely with those restrctions…it makes even less financial sense for them to add it in.

If poly tower is 5 million points (guessing) and let’s say the average family buys 200 pts, then that’s about 25,000 contracts dvd will have to sell. You seriously think they’re concerned about the 50 or so poly resale contracts that are on the market at any given time?

Disney is going to need to sell about $1 billion worth of points at the new tower. They don’t care about the $3-5 million they may potentially lose out on due to resale if not putting restrictions on it helps it to sellout a year or two faster. DVD, the shareholders, and the board only care about selling as many points as soon as possible given the current status of the company.

DVC is really important to the parks business because it essentially guarantees full hotels for the entirety of the deed. It’s a safety net that we all bought into whether we want to admit it or not. It protects Disney’s hotel business by ensuring full rooms year round and it gets their construction bill paid off almost immediately, oh and it makes us loyal guests happy. Their goal is always to sell it out as fast as humanly possible.

 

[Roughians_satchel]

So, IMO, there is no financial benefit for them to take that route, especially since they have to give up restrictions that they have worked hard to keep in play by adding them to VDH.

I’ll go as far to add that now that FW cabins will be selling at the same time…most likely with those restrctions…it makes even less financial sense for them to add it in.

This is exactly why I think it'll be one association. They can maintain the course of restrictions with the FW Cabins, and expand the very popular Poly DVC location with a new tower that won't need restrictions. Plus, while they might not care if it's 40 or 50 years, from a FINANCIAL time/value of money standpoint, 40 years benefits DVD.

 

[ehh]

No, I am not ignoring them…I just don’t agree the ideas shared make financial sense for DVD. Making part of PVB will guide people to resale and very well could force them to have a lower price than they might be able to get if they keep it new, and keep the restrictions in play.

I want to pull on this thread a bit and contemplate the impact on and from resale a bit more. I understand the emotional 'we don't to lose sales to resale' aspect, but I'm not sure the numbers would actually back that up.

Loss of sales to resale, as a theory, requires more resale inventory/supply to hit the market than a normal year (for the duration of Poly2 sales). A baseline resale volume is going to happen no matter what and DVD needs to accept that (and likely has).

So it boils down to two questions:

1. Will an increase in PVB resale supply be larger if the associations are the same or different?
2. And even if resale supply would increase more due to same association, is that increase in resale supply significant enough to worry about? To offset from other potential sales benefits?

Longer winded version:
From what I can tell on the OC Comptroller site, there were no more than ~1k resale deeds for the Poly in 2022. I'm not going to read them all, but let's assume they average between 100 and 150pts per deed (most of the ones I did read appear to be on the smaller side). So 100k - 150k PVB points in resale per year as a baseline.

When Poly2 is a 'go', that will be a major event to PVB regardless of DVD's decision. Let's break out the push/pull on resale supply in both circumstances:

Same association

• Reasons resale supply could increase:
  • PVB owners would get access to Poly2 in addition to PVB rooms. But Poly2 buyers also get access to PVB. Depending on PVB owner travel habits, Poly2 buyers getting PVB access could have a negative impact to their ability to book at PVB and they could sell in response
    • I think only the savviest of owners will have this play into their decisioning, plus it will take a lot of time for this to show itself considering the nature of current PVB inventory (if it ends up being true at all)
  • PVB owners could be generally dissatisfied with Poly Resort after the addition of Poly2 and want to sell
  • PVB owners might think this is a great time to divest, financially (though this would necessitate a supply/demand shift that correlates with reduced supply).
    • This is inherently a secondary effect
• Reasons resale supply could decrease:
  • PVB owners like the Poly2 addition, fewer-than-baseline want to sell because their points now work at a 'new resort' at 11m

Separate/new association

• Reasons PVB resale supply could increase:
  • PVB owners sell PVB points to buy Poly2 because Poly2 meets their needs better than PVB
  • Poly2 is flawed in some way that drives demand for PVB up, which drives more owners to sell due to market conditions
    • This is inherently a secondary effect
• Reasons PVB resale supply could decrease:
  • Poly2 is so great that PVB loses popularity and drives down the market price, which scares potential sellers away
    • This is inherently a secondary effect

To me, these add up to be pretty close? If Poly2 is great, then I think this skews toward a decrease in PVB resale supply slightly for same association and an increase if separate/new. If Poly2 is middling or mediocre, it's closer, but I still struggle to see meaningful churn from PVB because it's the same association. I might be missing some points on why people would sell because of association configuration, though.

This isn't a VGF1 situation where a small resort with a full range of inventory gets flooded with points from a single room type, VGF2 Resort Studios.

All this to say that I don't think there's going to be much, if any, additional PVB resale supply (and therefore sales) if Poly2 is the same association.

There might be a slight increase in PVB resale supply if Poly2 is great and a separate association, which would itself be a risk to direct Poly2 sales if more potential Poly2 buyers pick up resale PVB instead (no restrictions, likely great price, etc.).

Anyway, I don't think a combined association would drive resale volumes up, I'm inclined to say it will actually slightly dry up the supply if anything. Yes, some buyers will get Poly2 via resale while it's on-sale direct, but if it's lower than a separate association (or even just similar to), who cares? Some volume of resale taking from Poly2 sales is gonna happen.

And regardless of directionality, I don't see it passing the 2nd test: that there's a significant change over baseline, to the point of impacting Poly2 sales. I would be fine calling the baseline itself significant, but if we're talking impact to sales, there needs to be a change from baseline.

 

[PolyRob]

So, IMO, there is no financial benefit for them to take that route, especially since they have to give up restrictions that they have worked hard to keep in play by adding them to VDH.

This isn't a VGF1 situation where a small resort with a full range of inventory gets flooded with points from a single room type, VGF2 Resort Studios.

I agree. I can appreciate the VGF resort studios for what they are, but they are almost a downgrade to the larger units at VGF and would have been harder to market and sell on their own. All the promotional content besides the actual resort studio interiors are photographed and filmed outside the original dedicated villa building.

PVB is the reverse. You have tons of studios and overpriced bungalows that sleep less than 2 studios. I don't think DVC cares about evening out the room accommodations in the association. It wants to sell points and there is no need to give Poly tower purchasers 11 month access to the original PVB studios and bungalows. If you own PVB and want the shiny new tower you need to buy a new contract. If you buy the new tower you will most likely have your own studios and grand villas or the option to swap at 7 months. PVB is pretty easy to secure outside of the home resort advantage.

I think same association benefits current owners and future resale purchasers, not Disney. New association restricts access to other resorts when resold and entices current owners to buy more points to access something steps away ultimately benefiting Disney.

 

[BamaGuy44]

I simply cannot rationalize a universe where this is some sort of new association. I think people are way over-thinking this thing based on one new resort in a totally new location.

The precedent simply doesn't exist. Go ahead. You tell all the current Poly owners they can't book a 1BR at 11 months now that they're finally available at THEIR resort. I'll bring the popcorn. And the beer.

Ain't gonna happen. You can rationalize it till the cows come home, as we say in the rural south. It still ain't gonna happen.

What moves have they ever made to make you think not upsetting current owners ranks high on their decision making matrix?

They weren’t afraid to tell current BRV owners they couldn’t book the CC Cabins and Grand Villas at THEIR resort at 11 months. I don’t recall any law suits spinning up over it. Current PVB owners knowingly bought into a studios only association.

I guess they could cry and wish they were entitled to home resort advantage at anything DVC ever builds at Polynesian. As we also say in the South, “wish in one hand, take a **** in the other. See which one fills up first”