Riviera Resale Values

[dvc lover 1970]

Give the resale restriction on Riviera, I think the resale price should be less than CCR,POLY,VGF,BLT, but more than AKV, OKW(E) and SSR over 10, 15 and 20 year. At the 25 year mark, I think BLT will probably drop below RIV just because of the remaining years on the contract.

One thing that could help RIV resale prices stay high is when BWV and BCV get sold as new in 2042, how high will they be priced at? At that point RIV resale could be looking like a good option for someone wanting an EPCOT/DHS resort.

Good points, but i think in 2042 BCV and BWV will hurt RIV resales instead of help them because those resorts will have 50 years and be on the boardwalk and Cresent Lake

 

[JETSDAD]

I wish this were true, but it's not. To grant is to bestow or convey a legal right to do something. Owners are not granted a right to rent their points. It’s currently a practice that’s permitted within nebulous bounds that Disney has tenuously allowed with multiple reservations of rights that allow them to rescind this practice.

I had an extensive conversation with a wonderful guide after the resale restrictions were released. In a more candid moment, she conceded that she personally did not like the restrictions, and she expressed how it wasn't making her job any easier. Then she reverted back to the company talking points and mentioned how Disney is doing what all timeshares have done, nothing different. That this is simply industry standard.

At the core of it, Disney's view is that these contracts are not bought to be sold, rented out, or profited from, but to be enjoyed by a family for the life of the contract. It's a cute sentiment, but had it not been used to justify the anti-owner resale restrictions done only for the benefit of Disney timeshare Developers, I would be more apt to concede this is in keeping with the original concept behind Disney's venture into the timeshare industry. But the resale restrictions are just the latest in a host of profit driven choices by Disney to move more product at a greater margin at the expense of owners.

In light of that, anyone looking to buy into the timeshare system with the safety net of being able to rent under the same terms that exist today, that need this to have the purchase make sense, is doing so inviting far greater risk than what people are suggesting on these boards when they talk about how "you can always rent your points" on the years you don't use them. There is no right granted to do so.

I mean they can change pretty much anything but it is written into the POS that members are permitted to rent reservations. They would need to make a change to the memberships agreements which make up a part of the POS.

 

[Spark65]

Good points, but i think in 2042 BCV and BWV will hurt RIV resales instead of help them because those resorts will have 50 years and be on the boardwalk and Cresent Lake

Too many on these boards think Disney will just refurb and resell BCV and BWV I wouldn't bet on it. 20 years from now things will change in regards to how properties will be used similar to developments going on around where you currently live.

Sticking to realistic talking points whether it's RIV or any current resort in the here and now instead of what the future may bring should be the only factor.

I will say any resort, including RIV, is cheaper resale today than buying direct today. Will you be able to sell any resort in the future and make money? Who knows but if that's your intent good luck your gambling wrong.

 

[EM Lawrence]

Good points, but i think in 2042 BCV and BWV will hurt RIV resales instead of help them because those resorts will have 50 years and be on the boardwalk and Cresent Lake

Right. And all of the arguments in favor of buying direct right now, i.e. unrestricted points, will apply even more so in 20 years when BWV and BCV are being resold as new resorts. Unless the price for RIV resale is extremely low, why would you choose it over a brand new 50 year contract at a highly coveted location with unrestricted trading rights?

 

[Spark65]

Right. And all of the arguments in favor of buying direct right now, i.e. unrestricted points, will apply even more so in 20 years when BWV and BCV are being resold as new resorts. Unless the price for RIV resale is extremely low, why would you choose it over a brand new 50 year contract at a highly coveted location with unrestricted trading rights?

Because resale will be cheaper and DIS and other forums have proven there are way too many cheap people buying DVC and in 20 years nothing will change.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I wish this were true, but it's not. To grant is to bestow or convey a legal right to do something. Owners are not granted a right to rent their points. It’s currently a practice that’s permitted within nebulous bounds that Disney has tenuously allowed with multiple reservations of rights that allow them to rescind this practice.

I had an extensive conversation with a wonderful guide after the resale restrictions were released. In a more candid moment, she conceded that she personally did not like the restrictions, and she expressed how it wasn't making her job any easier. Then she reverted back to the company talking points and mentioned how Disney is doing what all timeshares have done, nothing different. That this is simply industry standard.

At the core of it, Disney's view is that these contracts are not bought to be sold, rented out, or profited from, but to be enjoyed by a family for the life of the contract. It's a cute sentiment, but had it not been used to justify the anti-owner resale restrictions done only for the benefit of Disney timeshare Developers, I would be more apt to concede this is in keeping with the original concept behind Disney's venture into the timeshare industry. But the resale restrictions are just the latest in a host of profit driven choices by Disney to move more product at a greater margin at the expense of owners.

In light of that, anyone looking to buy into the timeshare system with the safety net of being able to rent under the same terms that exist today, that need this to have the purchase make sense, is doing so inviting far greater risk than what people are suggesting on these boards when they talk about how "you can always rent your points" on the years you don't use them. There is no right granted to do so.

Yes, anything can change in the future. I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on your point of there being nothing in the contract specifically granting owners the right to rent their points for perpetuity. But again, as it has been in the past and is now, owners can rent their points. It is pretty easy to do so, actually. Owners shouldn't buy with the objective of renting their points every year. That would be foolish. But it isn't unreasonable to think that renting points very sporadically over the coming years is a possibility, especially when someone is looking 25 to 50 years down the road. I honestly don't think my family would be able to use our points every year over the life of our DVC contract. Yes, I know the "letter of the law" when it comes to the POS and that the right to rent points isn't granted to me specifically. But, as of now, I know that renting is an option for those future years that I can't use the points.

And as a side note, I highly doubt DVC will stop allowing renting of points. They would seriously have a revolt on their hands. They always say they do what benefits the owners, which is exactly what they are supposed to be considering when making decisions. So if they disallowed point renting, how would that benefit owners that can't use their points? It wouldn't. To think that DVC may stop allowing point renting in the future is, IMO, worrying about nothing. I don't see that happening.

 

[JETSDAD]

I wonder if they really could stop allowing rentals while still allowing themselves the right to rent out their own points? The usage of the points they retain follows the same booking rules as other members.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I wonder if they really could stop allowing rentals while still allowing themselves the right to rent out their own points? The usage of the points they retain follows the same booking rules as other members.

That's a great point. It's another reason I don't see it happening. I see the point Bing Showei is making, which is that anything can happen down the road. But that is true with most things outside of DVC. People take the info they have to make an informed decision. Thinking that DVC will cut off point rentals is, IMO, conspiracy theory. I just don't see it happening.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Do you think Disney monitors renting ?
When I first became a member (purchased with Disney Cast Discount VWL 2000)...I think I got a warning letter Notice.
I was not renting but using points for married daughter w/ different last name. So I didn’t worry but it is in my memory recall and this discussion just reminded me.This might have pertained to castmembers specifically since part of my agreement was not to immediately resell to make a profit off my purchase. Anyway If Disney needs to they will find a way.

personally I wish they did not allow renting.
Maybe we need a survey.
What other Things can affect the corporate decision to “ allow/ ignore “ the rental as it currently is described and believed in. ?

 

[EM Lawrence]

I wonder if they really could stop allowing rentals while still allowing themselves the right to rent out their own points? The usage of the points they retain follows the same booking rules as other members.

Since the points they own are bound by the same booking rules as the points the general membership owns, I think this is an excellent point. If they disallow renting, they would only be able to make money by renting breakage rooms. I doubt they are interested in making that move.

 

[Bing Showei]

I wonder if they really could stop allowing rentals while still allowing themselves the right to rent out their own points? The usage of the points they retain follows the same booking rules as other members.

Since the points they own are bound by the same booking rules as the points the general membership owns, I think this is an excellent point. If they disallow renting, they would only be able to make money by renting breakage rooms. I doubt they are interested in making that move.

You guys put a lot of faith in Disney around this premise of our rights being protected by virtue of Disney being owners as well.

Disney has set up the contract as such that they are allowed to forecast what breakage will be and to monetize that projection outside of the standard 60 days normally reserved for breakage. So beyond being able to book cash at 11 months at home, they could, by virtue of stating they have the exact right to do so in the POS that they could rent out points beyond their ownerhsip interest during the home reservation period. No other owner can do this.

This, like many other aspects in the contract are in very general terms that it would be impossible to determine what standards are used to arrive at a contract-complying metric of the aforementioned "anticipation" of breakage. It's the same behind-the-curtain "magic" that allowed Disney's timeshare Management to make the assertion in 2019 that 1BRs were in greater demand than studios, justifying the increase in point cost in the lock-off premium.

The language in the contract is non-specific for a reason. Obfuscating what qualifies as "commercial" renting is by design. Ten years ago it may have been 20 rentals. Who's to say tomorrow, it will be determined that renting anything beyond cost of dues is considered a commercial venture as the owner now is making money, which the Product Understanding Checklist clearly states you, as an owner, agree that the ability to do so cannot be expected.

And as a side note, I highly doubt DVC will stop allowing renting of points. They would seriously have a revolt on their hands. They always say they do what benefits the owners, which is exactly what they are supposed to be considering when making decisions.

You're being ironic, right? You're putting faith in the fiduciary obligations of the same board that brought you post 2016 tiered membership, 2020/2022 point charts, resale restrictions justified by "industry standard."

How's this for a conspiracy for you?

In 2013 when Disney was selling VGF, their boots-on-the-ground guides brought to the developer's attention that too many small contracts were being sold for studios; a byproduct of raising per point costs while dropping minimum point requirements on a contract purchase, designed by the developers to move more volume; that this would result in a studio availability issue. Management on the sales side was aware of this, but continued the policy of selling as many small contracts to as people who were willing to buy on the pitch that it was enough points to get a studio any time of year.

It's the same story with the Bungalows and Cabins. Increasing prices to buy in, compensated for buy lower buy-in requirements. Overselling lowly priced studios against point-hungry 2BR units that become available for breakage at 60 days (or earlier, see above).

Why do you suppose Disney won't disclose how much income is generated beyond the 2.5% due to members on breakage income?

Conspiracy? Or just a logical, continued trajectory of Disney's propensity for putting profit before the ownership? I've seen evidence that supposts the latter. The former? Not so much.

 

[EM Lawrence]

You guys put a lot of faith in Disney around this premise of our rights being protected by virtue of Disney being owners as well.

Disney has set up the contract as such that they are allowed to forecast what breakage will be and to monetize that projection outside of the standard 60 days normally reserved for breakage. So beyond being able to book cash at 11 months at home, they could, by virtue of stating they have the exact right to do so in the POS that they could rent out points beyond their ownerhsip interest during the home reservation period. No other owner can do this.

This, like many other aspects in the contract are in very general terms that it would be impossible to determine what standards are used to arrive at a contract-complying metric of the aforementioned "anticipation" of breakage. It's the same behind-the-curtain "magic" that allowed Disney's timeshare Management to make the assertion in 2019 that 1BRs were in greater demand than studios, justifying the increase in point cost in the lock-off premium.

The language in the contract is non-specific for a reason. Obfuscating what qualifies as "commercial" renting is by design. Ten years ago it may have been 20 rentals. Who's to say tomorrow, it will be determined that renting anything beyond cost of dues is considered a commercial venture as the owner now is making money, which the Product Understanding Checklist clearly states you, as an owner, agree that the ability to do so cannot be expected.

You're being ironic, right? You're putting faith in the fiduciary obligations of the same board that brought you post 2016 tiered membership, 2020/2022 point charts, resale restrictions justified by "industry standard."

How's this for a conspiracy for you?

In 2013 when Disney was selling VGF, their boots-on-the-ground guides brought to the developer's attention that too many small contracts were being sold for studios; a byproduct of raising per point costs while dropping minimum point requirements on a contract purchase, designed by the developers to move more volume; that this would result in a studio availability issue. Management on the sales side was aware of this, but continued the policy of selling as many small contracts to as people who were willing to buy on the pitch that it was enough points to get a studio any time of year.

It's the same story with the Bungalows and Cabins. Increasing prices to buy in, compensated for buy lower buy-in requirements. Overselling lowly priced studios against point-hungry 2BR units that become available for breakage at 60 days (or earlier, see above).

Why do you suppose Disney won't disclose how much income is generated beyond the 2.5% due to members on breakage income?

Conspiracy? Or just a logical, continued trajectory of Disney's propensity for putting profit before the ownership? I've seen evidence that supposts the latter. The former? Not so much.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment here. I fully believe DVC only makes decisions that are to their own benefit, and not in the best interest of the members. No question in my mind about that. But if push comes to shove, everything Disney wants to keep hidden would come to light in a lawsuit. A little thing called discovery would reveal exactly how much income they generate beyond the 2.5% breakage cap. They don’t want that. I don’t think the members want it either, at this point. But there is a reason you don’t poke a happily slumbering lion.

They still have to carefully walk the line between operating in the shades of gray enough that it benefits them and operating in the shades of gray so much that their membership gets ticked off enough to call their bluff and organizes to sue them.

There is a tipping point where pixie dust and goodwill just won’t cut it anymore. Listening to the DisUnplugged podcast from last Tuesday, it sounds like some Disney fans have reached that tipping point already.

 

[Bing Showei]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment here. I fully believe DVC only makes decisions that are to their own benefit, and not in the best interest of the members. No question in my mind about that. But if push comes to shove, everything Disney wants to keep hidden would come to light in a lawsuit. A little thing called discovery would reveal exactly how much income they generate beyond the 2.5% breakage cap. They don’t want that. I don’t think the members want it either, at this point. But there is a reason you don’t poke a happily slumbering lion.

They still have to carefully walk the line between operating in the shades of gray enough that it benefits them and operating in the shades of gray so much that their membership gets ticked off enough to call their bluff and organizes to sue them.

There is a tipping point where pixie dust and goodwill just won’t cut it anymore. Listening to the DisUnplugged podcast from last Tuesday, it sounds like some Disney fans have reached that tipping point already.

The reality is that most owners won't know anything is happening at all. Most owners have never even heard of the DISboards, or know what a POS is, or have any sense for what the implications of resale restrictions are for an owner. Most owners signed the Mickey head and dated the Palm trees never having read beyond the first couple of lines in the PUC.

If we look at the subset of owners who do know about POSs, PUCs, DVD, DVDMC and resale restrictions. Of those people, an even smaller number are actually upset about the actions Disney have taken over the last decade. Most don't care or feel they're affected by it. Some owners will even reason away how resale restrictions will actually benefit them 21 years from today.

Now we look at the subset of owners who are actually upset about the changes over the years, amidst the vocal outrage around Disney's practice, the postings of concern, the reality is that most of those who are upset, will not even take the time to call Disney or express any concern around the practice.

Of individuals who do reach out and take the time to talk to Disney, few would be willing to take the next step of pursuing legal recourse. Disney knows this. So while discovery could potentially unearth a little of what is behind the curtain, the path to that is rife with a lot of financial risk for those who choose to go that route.

For any owner who reaches that "tipping point" and sells their contract, another owner literally assumes their place, paying the dues they promised to pay when they first bought in. Unless direct sales are hurt by the anti-owner practices that the smallest of smallest subset of owners take issue with, Disney will continue to gradually raise the temperature on owners.

The least we can do on platforms like this one is acknowledge Disney's past actions when posters like the OP are talking about buying 1,000 points and asking about resale values down the line on a product that is such a departure from the original timeshare concept Disney introduced this idea in 1993. That's a lot of Disney visiting for someone who's never bought a Disney timeshare before. If renting points out factors into making that owership possible? That should throw up red flags for anyone who knows the product.

 

[Brian Noble]

Do you think Disney monitors renting ?

At some level, absolutely. DVC rentals are competition for TWDTC.

You guys put a lot of faith in Disney around this premise of our rights being protected by virtue of Disney being owners as well.

I dimly recall someone pointing to some Florida statutes that implied that the developer renting out time that it owned meant that other owners could do likewise. But that probably would not apply to anything other than declared points that are not yet sold and/or have been foreclosed. It would not apply to breakage, nor would it apply to undeclared inventory.

And, of course, points that Disney owned but elected not to "use" would become breakage. So, it probably doesn't apply to anything at all of interest.

 

[scbruno]

I think its too early to tell. we don't know when travel will be the same as was as park demand. Plus we don't know if any of the expiring resorts will expire or be presented with a extension. or extension only given to OKW since it was extended once and most are expiring in 2042. Resale is not a big deal since my adult kids said they will take them over when I'm done going to Disney

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder if they really could stop allowing rentals while still allowing themselves the right to rent out their own points? The usage of the points they retain follows the same booking rules as other members.

I don’t see anything that would allow them to stop renting as I think it would be a material change to the POS, which would require a vote from owners,

They can stop what they consider commercial renting, and that is not defined so they can certainly become more strict as that is prohibited

 

[DVCSunDevil]

You guys put a lot of faith in Disney around this premise of our rights being protected by virtue of Disney being owners as well.

Disney has set up the contract as such that they are allowed to forecast what breakage will be and to monetize that projection outside of the standard 60 days normally reserved for breakage. So beyond being able to book cash at 11 months at home, they could, by virtue of stating they have the exact right to do so in the POS that they could rent out points beyond their ownerhsip interest during the home reservation period. No other owner can do this.

This, like many other aspects in the contract are in very general terms that it would be impossible to determine what standards are used to arrive at a contract-complying metric of the aforementioned "anticipation" of breakage. It's the same behind-the-curtain "magic" that allowed Disney's timeshare Management to make the assertion in 2019 that 1BRs were in greater demand than studios, justifying the increase in point cost in the lock-off premium.

The language in the contract is non-specific for a reason. Obfuscating what qualifies as "commercial" renting is by design. Ten years ago it may have been 20 rentals. Who's to say tomorrow, it will be determined that renting anything beyond cost of dues is considered a commercial venture as the owner now is making money, which the Product Understanding Checklist clearly states you, as an owner, agree that the ability to do so cannot be expected.

You're being ironic, right? You're putting faith in the fiduciary obligations of the same board that brought you post 2016 tiered membership, 2020/2022 point charts, resale restrictions justified by "industry standard."

How's this for a conspiracy for you?

In 2013 when Disney was selling VGF, their boots-on-the-ground guides brought to the developer's attention that too many small contracts were being sold for studios; a byproduct of raising per point costs while dropping minimum point requirements on a contract purchase, designed by the developers to move more volume; that this would result in a studio availability issue. Management on the sales side was aware of this, but continued the policy of selling as many small contracts to as people who were willing to buy on the pitch that it was enough points to get a studio any time of year.

It's the same story with the Bungalows and Cabins. Increasing prices to buy in, compensated for buy lower buy-in requirements. Overselling lowly priced studios against point-hungry 2BR units that become available for breakage at 60 days (or earlier, see above).

Why do you suppose Disney won't disclose how much income is generated beyond the 2.5% due to members on breakage income?

Conspiracy? Or just a logical, continued trajectory of Disney's propensity for putting profit before the ownership? I've seen evidence that supposts the latter. The former? Not so much.

So then to be clear, you think DVC will not allow rentals in the future?

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment here. I fully believe DVC only makes decisions that are to their own benefit, and not in the best interest of the members. No question in my mind about that. But if push comes to shove, everything Disney wants to keep hidden would come to light in a lawsuit. A little thing called discovery would reveal exactly how much income they generate beyond the 2.5% breakage cap. They don’t want that. I don’t think the members want it either, at this point. But there is a reason you don’t poke a happily slumbering lion.

They still have to carefully walk the line between operating in the shades of gray enough that it benefits them and operating in the shades of gray so much that their membership gets ticked off enough to call their bluff and organizes to sue them.

There is a tipping point where pixie dust and goodwill just won’t cut it anymore. Listening to the DisUnplugged podcast from last Tuesday, it sounds like some Disney fans have reached that tipping point already.

Exactly right. There is enough gray area for DVC to operate in right now that makes them money. Members know it, but there is enough balance to keep members happy. However, if DVC eliminated the ability to rent? Then you would see the revolt I mentioned in my earlier comment. I don’t think DVC wants that.

 

[chalee94]

Exactly right. There is enough gray area for DVC to operate in right now that makes them money. Members know it, but there is enough balance to keep members happy. However, if DVC eliminated the ability to rent? Then you would see the revolt I mentioned in my earlier comment. I don’t think DVC wants that.

As stated above, they cannot completely "eliminate" renting.

But they could get tougher. I could definitely see it as possible in a few years where owners who have rented 3 or 4 years in a row might get a strongly worded letter from Disney.

It all goes back to how they decide to define "commercial renting."

 

[DVCSunDevil]

If renting points out factors into making that owership possible? That should throw up red flags for anyone who knows the product.

I think you are misunderstanding what was originally stated on this thread about renting out points. The point of renting wasn’t in any way stated as a way of “making that ownership possible”. It was used to show that if someone bought resale

As stated above, they cannot completely "eliminate" renting.

But they could get tougher. I could definitely see it as possible in a few years where owners who have rented 3 or 4 years in a row might get a strongly worded letter from Disney.

It all goes back to how they decide to define "commercial renting."

I could see that because, as Sandisw said above, commercial renting of points is prohibited. Anyone who rents their points every year shouldn’t be allowed to continue that practice. DVC has every right to do whatever they can to stop that.

I said from the beginning that entering into a DVC contract with the intention of continuously renting points isn’t a smart move. DVC is not an investment, it’s a luxury. However, renting every once in awhile when owners can’t travel is ok. And I really don’t see DVC stopping that practice.