RESALE POLICY CHANGE!

[davper]

Is there really a difference between a member booking 3 nights and a member renting for 3 nights. I would think that there are many members who only do short trips. Those with annual passes that only like to visit for a few days during the week. So to me rentals are a non issue.

I would think that Disney would encourage rentals. How much can they soak a DVC member for on a repeat basis? How many t-shirts or souveniers can a DVC buy year after year after year. A rental brings in fresh blood money to suck dry.

 

[drusba]

Ambiguity seems to be Disney's specialty. You have that ambiguity in the Membership Extras Statement that could be construed to mean that effective 4/4/16, anyone who has purchased only resale, incuding prior purchasers, would lose the benefits. That same document initially defines "Members" as only those who buy directly from Disney, but then says "Members" who do not buy directly from Disney do not get the benefits, i.e., a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, the statement on the site and the actual letter from Potrock said that all those who purchased pre-4/4/16, regardless of whether they purchased from Disney or resale, will be entitled to the applicable benefits now being excluded for new purchasers.

As to how bad the loss, we still have the 25 point add-on issue. It appears that a new resale purchaser can overcome any issues by simply adding on 25 points through Disney. That may be all that Disney wanted to accomplish but we need to see if any other restrictions will be announced. It may make sense to allow even just the add-on purchaser to get the extras because most of them -- e.g., merchandise discount, AP discounts, TIW, dining discount -- are profit makers for Disney both in their sale to and use by the member, and keeping members on site to otherwise spend more money.

I do not consider this a change anyone should be happy with. Every member may someday be a seller and this lowers the resale value, and thus every member is impacted negatively.

 

[ziravan]

This is DVD and Disney's huge mistake here: resale buyers aren't competition, they're new customers.

1. As new DVC members, resale buyers are probably far more enthusiastic about coming and spending money than the person they bought from.

2. They're far less likely to rent out their points than the former owners, and that means less competition in that market.

3. Many owners end up buying add on points, and many do that direct. I did.

I bought BCV resale. I would not have justified buying direct. But. After being a member and using and enjoying the product, I DID buy direct, a fixed week at Poly. I almost certainly wouldn't have bought resale with these restrictions in place.

So, had these restrictions applied to me, they would have cost Disney/DVC years of APs and TIW, 8 trips and counting to WDW, a 168 point direct contract, dozens of meals and other expenses, etc etc.

I wasn't their competition when I bought resale. As a direct result, I've been their customer to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. That's just me.

Disney/DVC has this backwards, and it's a damned shame. It's a shame for us. It's a shame for future DVC members. It's a shame on Disney/DVC.

 

[avidadventurer]

I would think that Disney would encourage rentals. How much can they soak a DVC member for on a repeat basis? How many t-shirts or souveniers can a DVC buy year after year after year. A rental brings in fresh blood money to suck dry.

With that verbiage why not sell your membership. No different than buying a meal from McDonald's

 

[Mousewerks]

There is a big diff, I feel because that's not what is happening. It's rental companies or people with big points packages that are renting out several short trips a year, when we sat down with guide he told me he recommended that we only buy enough to use for our self as we would have to possibly lose points not used or rent them out which he doesn't recommend, very honest and upfront with his members expectations.

What you are missing in your desire to feel slighted is that points are points. It does not matter who owns the points. A rental transaction does not change the number of points in play, it just changes who is making use of the points. Therefore, rentals have _nothing whatsoever to do_ with the ability or lack of ability to secure a reservation. It is only the number of points in play which has an effect on your ability to secure a reservation. The number of points in play is purely controlled by Disney so if you wish you blame anyone, it's Disney's fault. Not rentals.

 

[southerngirl528]

My point is more that when someone buys a 25-point contract on the resale market, and that 25-point contract is their sole ownership interest, DVD could ROFR it. They don't. DVD could easily just set a blanket rule in ROFR to always take back 25-point contracts regardless of price per point sale value.

They could buy those contracts back but no way would they do so "regardless of price per point sale value". No way. What I don't understand is why DVC has let the resale market become what it has. Not so long ago, when prices were under a $100/point, DVC did NOT let the resale prices be so different from direct purchase. IMO this is what has created such a conundrum, at least to a great extent.

While I understand folks are upset, truth is almost everyone on these forums is grandfathered in so they are not impacted at all by the new changes. And this is a business not a benevolent organization. If DVC did not stay solvent, where would we as members be? And as I mentioned earlier, most other TS have restrictions for their owners that bought resale. DVC is not doing some dastardly, unheard of deed. And everyone can still use their membership for what is touted here so often: use it to stay at DVC resorts. That has not changed.

 

[avidadventurer]

They could buy those contracts back but no way would they do so "regardless of price per point sale value". No way. What I don't understand is why DVC has let the resale market become what it has. Not so long ago, when prices were under a $100/point, DVC did NOT let the resale prices be so different from direct purchase. IMO this is what has created such a conundrum, at least to a great extent.

While I understand folks are upset, truth is almost everyone on these forums is grandfathered in so they are not impacted at all by the new changes. And this is a business not a benevolent organization. If DVC did not stay solvent, where would we as members be? And as I mentioned earlier, most other TS have restrictions for their owners that bought resale. DVC is not doing some dastardly, unheard of deed. And everyone can still use their membership for what is touted here so often: use it to stay at DVC resorts. That has not changed.

Well put!!! Go talk to owners of Westgate Resorts, Holiday Inn Club Vacations and others and you will feel blessed!!

 

[Mousewerks]

Are you serious,?! So if you take up two days in a week via a short term rental and then I make a reservation for a week at another resort due to not having a full week then 5 days are potentially dead now multiply that times 100 short terms, Get it now?

I'm very serious. You are very short-sighted. There is no such thing as "dead days" as you describe them. The whole point of a timeshare is to be as close to full as possible ALL OF THE TIME. It doesn't matter WHO takes those two days in the week. It's the points that secured that reservation no matter WHO OWNS THE POINTS.

 

[DisDadDVC]

Are you serious,?! So if you take up two days in a week via a short term rental and then I make a reservation for a week at another resort due to not having a full week then 5 days are potentially dead now multiply that times 100 short terms, Get it now?

No.

 

[DisDadDVC]

I'm talking more about the rental companies. Technically, the contract states that it's a no-no to except $$ for points reservations. Short of trying to close those companies I'm not sure how they'd handle it. But it has to be some what of a thorn in DVC's side. They would much rather those people buy DVC, or book via cash.

That only applies to transfers, not rentals.

 

[davper]

With that verbiage why not sell your membership. No different than buying a meal from McDonald's

I don't understand your remark.

 

[graychef]

Are you serious,?! So if you take up two days in a week via a short term rental and then I make a reservation for a week at another resort due to not having a full week then 5 days are potentially dead now multiply that times 100 short terms, Get it now?

This is where you lost me. The nature of DVC is not to restrict members on when to use points. Flexibility is a huge selling point. During each twelve-month period, anyone with points can book one night or many nights using that year's points, pending availability and the 11/7 rule. It's flexible. That is key, regardless of direct or resale. If you're looking for a fixed week, buy a fixed week.

 

[LenInMaine]

No, it doesn't. Section 5.1 of the contract explicitly permits rentals: "A Club Member may make a reservation to use a Vacation Home for the Club Member’s own use, make their use available to family or friends or guests, or rent them…. Neither DVD’s, DVCMC’s or the Association’s approval of a rental by a Club Member is required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name, and Club Member are permitted to rent their occupancy rights on terms and conditions that they may establish…”

There is also a section that explicitly states that when you are allowing a renter to use the unit, they do not get any member benefits, whereas if it's just letting a friend/sibling/mom use it, they might be.

The only thing the contract prohibits is buying a DVC membership for express purpose of perpetual rental. Basically, the rental of points is to be incidental, and not the purpose of your ownership.

I should have been more clear. That's what I meant.

 

[msjprincess]

Are you serious,?! So if you take up two days in a week via a short term rental and then I make a reservation for a week at another resort due to not having a full week then 5 days are potentially dead now multiply that times 100 short terms, Get it now?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[mab2012]

So big question, if I was to add on to my existing contract (25 original points was resale in 2007 everything else was direct) as resale, would I lose my direct buy in benefits?

Can't see it. They would just be shooting themselves in the foot with this sort of policy. This would mean that any new owner who initially bought resale would have no incentive whatsoever to make any direct purchase in the future. That's just bad business.

 

[kniquy]

I'd argue that new resale restrictions may increase the number of people on large contracts who rent them out, by the way.

Bob & Jane own a 400 point contract that they bought when their kids were younger. Their kids are older now, and they are traveling less with the kids. The contract cannot be broken up, and Bob and Jane still love Boardwalk. They book 2 shorter trips a year with their points, staying in studios. Save in rare years they take some of the fan, they have surplus points. They rent them to cover the dues on the contract.

If resale prices deflate in any way, rental is likely to hold value.

That is a very good point! I could definitely see that if we were at the point in time where we couldn't use our points often that and resale prices had declined that we would rent and not lose out on any money and in fact make a little extra on top of MF.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Ambiguity seems to be Disney's specialty. You have that ambiguity in the Membership Extras Statement that could be construed to mean that effective 4/4/16, anyone who has purchased only resale, incuding prior purchasers, would lose the benefits. That same document initially defines "Members" as only those who buy directly from Disney, but then says "Members" who do not buy directly from Disney do not get the benefits, i.e., a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, the statement on the site and the actual letter from Potrock said that all those who purchased pre-4/4/16, regardless of whether they purchased from Disney or resale, will be entitled to the applicable benefits now being excluded for new purchasers.

As to how bad the loss, we still have the 25 point add-on issue. It appears that a new resale purchaser can overcome any issues by simply adding on 25 points through Disney. That may be all that Disney wanted to accomplish but we need to see if any other restrictions will be announced. It may make sense to allow even just the add-on purchaser to get the extras because most of them -- e.g., merchandise discount, AP discounts, TIW, dining discount -- are profit makers for Disney both in their sale to and use by the member, and keeping members on site to otherwise spend more money.

I do not consider this a change anyone should be happy with. Every member may someday be a seller and this lowers the resale value, and thus every member is impacted negatively.

Well said, as always.

 

[southerngirl528]

Isn't DVC still selling sold out resort? I know it is more limited, no discounts and as available....but if the demand goes up for these other properties, that means DVC will exercise ROFR more often to get the points back. Which in turn elevates the resale market as well because any low cost contracts will be the first to be ROFR'd.

Yes, DVC is still selling sold out resorts. And they could readily do a lot more of it. There are waitlists for many of the sold-out resorts. I know of brand new members that bought sold-out resorts direct from DVC. I think DVC has let the resale market be too soft. JMHO.

Maybe a fee for rooms not reserved in your name? I would think that would have to work the same for direct vs resale.

Tons of other TS do charge for things like locking off a 2 bedroom. I have to pay almost a $100 just for the privilege to lock off the 2 bdrm villas I own with Marriott. DVC does not have a lot of the charges that other TS do. No fees to bank either.

It is becoming almost amusing that there's so much gnashing of teeth here when virtually everyone howling is NOT impacted by the new rules for resales going forward. If you already own, you are NOT impacted by the new stuff.

I was a huge skeptic when I did our DVC tour way back when. DVC was in its infancy. I have more than the "typical" 2 kids so we needed either 2 rooms or cabin/villa type accommodations. I did the math with all sorts of projections and after days of number crunching bought it with well over 200 points. Quickly added on more. And I've added on multiple times. I get to stay in Grand Villas I could never afford. I've been to Aulani multiple times in Ocean View accommodations that I would not be able to afford if I was not a member. Yes. I have done the math of what my dues are costing me as compared to cash rates with my initial investment factored in. I broke even over 15 years ago. I don't love everything about DVC and I don't always love the changes but I love my membership and what I have been able to do because of it. And even though my membership ends in 2042, that is a heck of a lot of years remaining to keep enjoying truly outstanding accommodations with my family. If I was not happy, I would sell. As it stands, I am among many very happy DVC campers.

 

[msjprincess]

I isn't expect it, but you are totally wrong.
Take a real simple look..
Let's say one room has a total of 52 owners and 52 weeks, 10 people book 3 day stays and the other 42 want a full week, How many people are going to be without a room in that year if all are vacationing one week each

What does that have to do with renting?

 

[southerngirl528]

BWAHAHA, now I realize that you must be trolling

While I understand that brand new posters are often viewed skeptically, and often rightfully so, just because someone has a different opinion does not necessarily make them a "troll". I have had numerous guides over my 20+ years as a member and I have felt that every one of them has been a very forthright person. Your comment seems to infer that there are no honest DVC guides at all. Is that what you meant to infer? Just wondering... Oh, and I am NOT a brand new poster.