Renter 5,000+ point Firesale?

[JimMIA]

allflgirl made a great catch this afternoon that I bet not many of us saw. It was over on the "Rippling effect" thread. Here's what she found:

I just checked the resale and man are there a lot of contracts for sale. I wonder if all those STRIPPED BCV contracts on this board resale site is because of the enforced rule. The funny thing is, they are still wanting $95 - $97 per point and you don't have any points on most of them until '08. YIKES!!

I looked at the list, and I see that the BCV contracts she noticed are not alone. There are a lot of new contracts for sale that look like a renter firesale to me.

Take a look at the TTS listings and see what you think. As I said over there, I hope it's not one of our friends here!

 

[brasey]

I looked but all the contracts over 400 - 1000 points that would be the big bangers all seem to have points left or a bunch coming soon?

 

[rinkwide]

Better act fast, those Beach Club contracts are still selling like hot Krispy Kremes ("hot cakes" seems so outdated). 5 out of 7 are "Sale Pending".

 

[Scratch42]

But Tom said it took up to a week before they could list?

Wait until Next Week!

j

 

[simzac]

But Tom said it took up to a week before they could list?

Wait until Next Week!

j

Been a week since we received the email from MS, right?

 

[BlakeNJ]

We are currently researching DVC and I am trying to go into this with as much knowledge as I can get....Can you explain to me the OP's message. Why would there be a firesale on BCV? Seems to be a hot issue around the boards. If you could explain, I would appreciate it! Thanks.

Blakely

 

[brasey]

Better act fast, those Beach Club contracts are still selling like hot Krispy Kremes ("hot cakes" seems so outdated). 5 out of 7 are "Sale Pending".

The Krispy Kremes around here all closed because they were more expensive than what they were worth. Same for the BCV resales with no cream (points) left in them.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I looked but all the contracts over 400 - 1000 points that would be the big bangers all seem to have points left or a bunch coming soon?

Don't assume the "big bangers" have all their eggs in one basket. My hunch is that most of them have multiple contracts at multiple resorts, and maybe even multiple members of the family as owners. That would mean they could have multiple times the allowed points. Not so sure that last point is possible, but it's a thought. I know for sure that if anyone was going to have up to 2000 points at each resort, they would never have been advised to buy them as one contract. The largest single contract I have seen is 1000.

 

[dianeschlicht]

We are currently researching DVC and I am trying to go into this with as much knowledge as I can get....Can you explain to me the OP's message. Why would there be a firesale on BCV? Seems to be a hot issue around the boards. If you could explain, I would appreciate it! Thanks.

Blakely

It isn't really just BCV. The "hot issue" is that last week, DVC decided to stop allowing folks to make multiple transfers of points either in or out of their memberships. I appears that folks were missusing that transfer policy to buy up cheap points from owners who weren't using them, have them transfered into their account, and then rent them out as normal non-distressed points. They could do this because for some reason MS computers can't track home resort or use year on the transfered points. Once they are in the new person's account, it seems they appear as that person's home resort and use year. That is NOT what they are supposed to do, but it seems that's what the computer allowed. That meant that some resorts (like BCV, since it is one of the smaller ones) could have actual usage beyond the number of points sold and alloted for that resort. You can imagine what a problem that could be if it continued unchecked. That's why Disney decided to go back to the original wording in the offering statement that says "one transfer either in OR out per membership per year". Oh, and it says money must not change hands for those transfers. So you see, for us regular folks who are buying a timeshare like DVC for our own use, the rule only has a consequence if we neglect to plan well. By enforcing the rule, Disney can stop the floodgates of over point usage at the smaller resorts. I'm quite sure it could have been to the point where a resort like BCV may have had a significant number of points from other resorts being used there, throwing their points out of balance.

 

[Scratch42]

Been a week since we received the email from MS, right?

I'm not sure since I did not receive anything even though I now have rechecked to receive.



j

 

[allflgirl]

Been a week since we received the email from MS, right?

Yes, it's been a week.

 

[allflgirl]

It isn't really just BCV. The "hot issue" is that last week, DVC decided to stop allowing folks to make multiple transfers of points either in or out of their memberships. I appears that folks were missusing that transfer policy to buy up cheap points from owners who weren't using them, have them transfered into their account, and then rent them out as normal non-distressed points. They could do this because for some reason MS computers can't track home resort or use year on the transfered points. Once they are in the new person's account, it seems they appear as that person's home resort and use year. That is NOT what they are supposed to do, but it seems that's what the computer allowed. That meant that some resorts (like BCV, since it is one of the smaller ones) could have actual usage beyond the number of points sold and alloted for that resort. You can imagine what a problem that could be if it continued unchecked. That's why Disney decided to go back to the original wording in the offering statement that says "one transfer either in OR out per membership per year". Oh, and it says money must not change hands for those transfers. So you see, for us regular folks who are buying a timeshare like DVC for our own use, the rule only has a consequence if we neglect to plan well. By enforcing the rule, Disney can stop the floodgates of over point usage at the smaller resorts. I'm quite sure it could have been to the point where a resort like BCV may have had a significant number of points from other resorts being used there, throwing their points out of balance.

Wow, I never thought of it that way, that BCV was actually being overbooked per say because more points were allotted than sold. Now, let's see if Disney can work out the glitch in the transfer problem. As the dos read, if you transfer points into another's account those transferred points retain the home resort status with the use year of those transferred points. You would have thought that they would have had this one nailed long ago to prevent such things from happening like the overbooking issue at BCV.

 

[JimMIA]

I looked but all the contracts over 400 - 1000 points that would be the big bangers all seem to have points left or a bunch coming soon?

I wasn't talking about BIG contracts. The contracts allflgirl correctly identified as wierd are all of the smallish contracts which are stripped out until late 2007 or 2008. I started adding them up, and only got about 1/3 of the way through the list when I hit more than 3,000 points in stripped contracts. Sure, there are always some stripped contracts for sale, but not like these.

All of those look to me like a renter made a ton of ressies , borrowing to do so, [ETA: Or more likely, transferred those points into other contracts!] and is now trying to unload. They're not just BCV - they're scattered throughout the list.

 

[lisareniff]

It is sort of funny. Before DVC put their foot down on this rule to stop transfering between accounts most likely to stop home advantage loop-pole, I bet many of the casual readers did not know you could! It was usually a more vailed remark now it is right out there. Perhaps they will have created more of a problem in the end.

 

[brasey]

This is pretty pathetic when you think of all that computer software can do nowadays that Disney could not get it correct in the transfering of points and home resorts to the point were it was totally out of control. I remember kidding around with someone a while back on how you could make a business out of buying up cheap and selling for a profit but I did not think it was that out of control. Who is really to blame, the members selling it for 8.50 a point or the ones turning it into a business? Does anyone know why you can lease your points according to the contract but you can not rec. any money when transfering? This seems contradictory in the aspect of a point is a point ,one you can cash out one you can not.

 

[brasey]

I wasn't talking about BIG contracts. The contracts allflgirl correctly identified as wierd are all of the smallish contracts which are stripped out until late 2007 or 2008. I started adding them up, and only got about 1/3 of the way through the list when I hit more than 3,000 points in stripped contracts. Sure, there are always some stripped contracts for sale, but not like these.

All of those look to me like a renter made a ton of ressies , borrowing to do so, [ETA: Or more likely, transferred those points into other contracts!] and is now trying to unload. They're not just BCV - they're scattered throughout the list.

I figured you meant the big ones being that is was very loose with the restrictions for years and why buy a small contract when you can buy a big one and make quite a few ressies with it. They would never have to worry about not having enough points for someone. I can not see to many normal Joes's buying 1000 points at the cost associated.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I appears that folks were missusing that transfer policy to buy up cheap points from owners who weren't using them, have them transfered into their account, and then rent them out as normal non-distressed points. They could do this because for some reason MS computers can't track home resort or use year on the transfered points. Once they are in the new person's account, it seems they appear as that person's home resort and use year. That is NOT what they are supposed to do, but it seems that's what the computer allowed. That meant that some resorts (like BCV, since it is one of the smaller ones) could have actual usage beyond the number of points sold and alloted for that resort. You can imagine what a problem that could be if it continued unchecked. That's why Disney decided to go back to the original wording in the offering statement that says "one transfer either in OR out per membership per year". Oh, and it says money must not change hands for those transfers. So you see, for us regular folks who are buying a timeshare like DVC for our own use, the rule only has a consequence if we neglect to plan well. By enforcing the rule, Disney can stop the floodgates of over point usage at the smaller resorts. I'm quite sure it could have been to the point where a resort like BCV may have had a significant number of points from other resorts being used there, throwing their points out of balance.

That's the best explanation of the whole issue that I've seen yet. Thanks so much! As a new owner, I really had NO CLUE what they were talking about. I knew that my documents said I could only transfer once, but I couldn't forsee any reason why I would want to do that anyway. (MY POINTS, ALL MINE!-cue nasty evil laugh...)

 

[JimMIA]

I waded through the whole listing, and I came up with 5,934 points in contracts that I thought looked consistently and systematically stripped. There were a couple of other contracts that I thought looked a little odd, but I wasn't sure and didn't count those.

I have to stop doing this, because I also saw some nice add-on opportunities there!

 

[brasey]

I was eyeing a couple of the 70 pointers. Not to crazy money wise and it helps. I though there was a couple for Vero Beach that had under a 100 and the price was really nice. Kind of hard to pass up on the WL smaller ones also.

 

[DVC Grammy]

That's the best explanation of the whole issue that I've seen yet. Thanks so much! As a new owner, I really had NO CLUE what they were talking about. I knew that my documents said I could only transfer once, but I couldn't forsee any reason why I would want to do that anyway. (MY POINTS, ALL MINE!-cue nasty evil laugh...)

Another nasty evil laugh here!