Renter 5,000+ point Firesale?

[dianeschlicht]

Maybe I'm not getting it but couldn't it cause an "overbooking" of points if they transfer points for xx resort and they are morphed into yy resort?

Below is assuming one UY only:
Let say for example (and I know this is very very small numbers but for the sake of an example) BCV has a total of 10,000 points for total use. Lets say one renter/transferee has 100 points of those total 10,000 points and he/she gets transfered into their account another 1000 non BCV points which "morph" into BCV points. Now you have a total of 11,000 possible BCV points running around in the system when it was only meant to have 10,000.

Let me know if this is way off base or if I am missing something but if you do the above in a larger scale I would "think" there very well could be an issue with premium dates or high demand times, etc.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[Y-ASK]

Maybe it's time to tighten up the Rent board some more and not allow the advertisement of reservations for rent. Set it up so that you can list your points for rent and then make the reservation after the renter has agreed to your terms. That would at least stop a small percentage of primetime reservations from getting made prior to having someone available to rent your points. Maybe setup an addition rental board for "Last Minute Rentals" for people who find themselves not being able to go at the last minute. Something like what TUG does. Just a thought.

Y-ASK

 

[Anjelica]

As long as the resorts are linked in the current system, the only thing a morphed point does is change the booking window for that point. Even if no points morph, there are way more points out there that could book at a resort than the point capacity of the resort.

Isn't this "illegal" though in terms of the purchase of the timeshare? Meaning you are actually buying a percentage of the xx resort. I didn't think it was legal for them to "sell" more points than can be used in any given year. I also thought thats why Disney reserves the right to not allow banking/borrowing for that specific reason - so they don't get into trouble.

 

[crisi]

Wow, that's a good one. Mind if I use it?

Go for it, personally, I think it would be improved if you'd just lost your job as well - but it might stretch believability....

 

[crisi]

I didn't mean to suggest that morphed points don't cause problems - especially the missing-spot problem you mention. I can believe that only 50% of BCV owners who want to stay during F&W are able to get the rooms they want. If it weren't for morphed point people "jumping their place in line", maybe 55% or even 60% would be able to get that week. Especially for the people who aren't getting their choice due to line-jumpers, morphed points are a problem that should be fixed.

And that is sort of the deal. If its one or two people getting "cheated" out of their place in line, it isn't a big deal (unless you are one of those people). And I suspect that it what it was for a long time - or what Disney thought it was. And for some reason this year they looked and said - humm, its big enough that we should do something about it.

 

[LisaS]

I'm not sure if someone from the Timeshare store will confirm this, but I think a lot of those contracts that are stripped have been listed for more than a week. I have been checking the site at least once a day for new listings for about 3 weeks, and I know those BCV listings have been on there for more than a week.

It's easy enough to tell. The last 4 digits of the "ID" field for each listing are the date the contract was listed. For example, the very first listing has this ID: BC180-06-0804 so this contract was listed on Aug 4th. The date does not include the year but as far as I know there is only one contract that has been listed for more than a year (an OKW 1000 pointer) so in all other cases you can probably assume the contract listing date is within the last 12 months.

 

[drusba]

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.

As to the computers, if you have followed Disney's on-line sites for the last 10 years (including its main site), you would have noticed that Disney always seems to be way behind on the computer science side (it was several years after most other hotels had on-line booking that Disney adopted it for its main site and its original attempt to do so was even then lousy at best). And Disney generally spent a lot more money creating and changing its on-line sites than virtually anyone else. In other words, its entertainment expertise never seemed to carry over to the internet where it seems it followed the Peter Principle. So I am not surprised that it has problem with computer tracking transfered points.

As to leasing and transfer: (a) transfer is the unigue act of actually transfering points from one member's account to another and you are not supposed to do that for value; one reason is that points are legally deemed to have no monetary value but just represent your real estate interest in the property, which real estate interest does have value, and thus by asserting you are not supposed to do the act of transfer for value, Disney maintains that legal distinction: (b) leasing, which you can do, as long as you do not engage in a "pattern" of rental activity, is the renting of your actual real estate interest in the DVC property to another; that does not even need any point transfer as you can rent and make the ressie on behalf of the renter by using your own points and putting the ressie in the renter's name.

 

[Plutofan]

I am not sure how accurate this is but I read a post somewhere else that Disney sent a memo to employees about renting and transfers. I would like to know if any of the sales are by employees. I got the impression that they might not be allowed to do transfers or rent because they receive a buy in discount. Does anyone know if this is true?

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

You know I hadn't thought about the case of points due to expire in 10 days morphing into points that could expire as late almost 24 months later. So never mind the BCV example...there must have been an upwelling of the potential number of points in the system. Unchecked we could have had more points than room capacity in the system. I have to assume that that situation hadn't occurred yet or the inability to get rooms anywhere would have been the talk of the boards (after all SSR is still available).

 

[MIDisFan]

It's easy enough to tell. The last 4 digits of the "ID" field for each listing are the date the contract was listed. For example, the very first listing has this ID: BC180-06-0804 so this contract was listed on Aug 4th. The date does not include the year but as far as I know there is only one contract that has been listed for more than a year (an OKW 1000 pointer) so in all other cases you can probably assume the contract listing date is within the last 12 months.

I thought that was the case as well, but I noticed that the listing for the 210 point BCV contract that has ID of BC210-04-0803 has also been listed on TTS ebay ad with a listing date of July 16.

 

[JimMIA]

It's easy enough to tell. The last 4 digits of the "ID" field for each listing are the date the contract was listed. For example, the very first listing has this ID: BC180-06-0804 so this contract was listed on Aug 4th. The date does not include the year but as far as I know there is only one contract that has been listed for more than a year (an OKW 1000 pointer) so in all other cases you can probably assume the contract listing date is within the last 12 months.

Thanks Lisa,

The first post I saw of the new change was from Greenban on August 1, and that is also the date I received the monthly newsletter containing the notification from DVC.

I scanned back through the for sale listings and found 37 listings dated August 1 or later.

Of those, if I were a meticulous auditor (which I'm not), I would want to look at 30 contracts -- totalling 5,510 points.

That's not to say all those are from renters, and it's not to say that any of the other listings aren't -- but if I were looking for renter firesales, those are the 30 deals I'd look at first.

 

[allflgirl]

All I got to say, I wish I had these many contracts to choose from when I was looking back in mid-May for my contract. There are an incredible amount of them listed just on this board alone. If the enforcement of transferred points have nothing to do with it, it looks awful supicious, since most of the contracts are dated 8/1/06 and thereafter.

 

[pmcpmc]

Thanks Lisa,

The first post I saw of the new change was from Greenban on August 1, and that is also the date I received the monthly newsletter containing the notification from DVC.

I scanned back through the for sale listings and found 37 listings dated August 1 or later.

Of those, if I were a meticulous auditor (which I'm not), I would want to look at 30 contracts -- totalling 5,510 points.

That's not to say all those are from renters, and it's not to say that any of the other listings aren't -- but if I were looking for renter firesales, those are the 30 deals I'd look at first.

Must put my glasses on .At first I thought you said they were thirty seven of Greenban's contracts for sale

 

[LisaS]

All I got to say, I wish I had these many contracts to choose from when I was looking back in mid-May for my contract. There are an incredible amount of them listed just on this board alone. If the enforcement of transferred points have nothing to do with it, it looks awful supicious, since most of the contracts are dated 8/1/06 and thereafter.

I've been watching TTS's listing for over a year now and things change a lot from month to month. Right now there are only 3 BWV contracts. A few months ago, there were a LOT of BWV listings. Currently there are lots of VWL listings. When I first started thinking about adding on at VWL and started monitoring those listings, there were just a few and they were all listed at close to $90/point! So you will see a wide swing in the number of listings for particular resorts even without DVC policy changes (though I do remember seeing a lot of contracts posted just after the 2006 dues increases were announced!)

As to why there might be more contracts than usual up for sale at the moment (if there in fact are)? We're getting towards the end of summer vacation time. Maybe there are folks who took one last summer vacation at WDW before selling their DVC.

 

[Laurajean1014]

Could people be selling their BCV to buy upcoming VAK and CRV?

 

[JimMIA]

Must put my glasses on .At first I thought you said they were thirty seven of Greenban's contracts for sale

Nope. Sure wouldn't wish that on my buddy Greenban! He was just the first one who mentioned the new transfer rule, as far as I know.

 

[LisaS]

I thought that was the case as well, but I noticed that the listing for the 210 point BCV contract that has ID of BC210-04-0803 has also been listed on TTS ebay ad with a listing date of July 16.

I can only speculate here. Maybe there was another BCV property listed on ebay on July 16th and it was sold, but not through ebay, so TTS substituted a more recent BCV contract listing into that original ebay listing?

I know when I was monitoring TTS's listings every day, the new listings for the day always had the correct date in their ID field.

 

[JimMIA]

I just went back through the resale listings, and the more I look, the more I'm convinced there is at least one big renter trying to unload.

The recent batch of listings (over the last 2 days or so) look perfectly normal. But if you look at the postings between August 1 and August 8, at least 3/4 of them all have stripped contracts beyond what you usually see.

I think someone stripped about 5,000 points out of those accounts, transferred them to an account they're keeping (or to another commercial renter), and then bailed. There are too many contracts for sale with the same characteristics to be coincidental.

Interesting.

 

[crisi]

Its interesting that this pattern is holding only at The Timeshare Store. The other "big two" are not showing a sudden influx of listings. ******** and Jaki both only have one BCV listing currently.

 

[JimMIA]

Its interesting that this pattern is holding only at The Timeshare Store. The other "big two" are not showing a sudden influx of listings. ******** and Jaki both only have one BCV listing currently.

That makes me think these listings may all be from one person. If it were a normal uptick in supply, you'd think the other two brokers would also see increased listings.

One large owner trying to get out of multiple contracts might also go to the biggest broker because they should be able to move the inventory more quickly.