ROFR Thread January to March 2019 *PLEASE SEE FIRST POST FOR INSTRUCTIONS & FORMATTING TOOL*

[TexasChick123]

I wrote the broker who had my contract and sent it on 1/12 (haven't heard yet).. they said the listings in the blog are NOT ALL FROM JAN. 2019... EVEN THOUGH it clearly says that they were all from JAN 2019... very confusing

I would guess they are two different data points that don’t have the relationship they’re implying. 1) They submitted x amount of contracts for ROFR in a January and 2) Disney exercised ROFR on y amount of contracts in January with no information on when these were submitted (many of which were submitted to ROFR in December).

Clearly the data is a little misleading. For them to have the true percentages of submitted contracts in January where ROFR was exercised by Disney on only the contracts submitted in January, they’d have to wait until the end of February. I’d ignore the percentages as they are misleading. Look at the contract info: ppp, number of points, who pays closing and MF’s, and the number of points currently available on the contracts where Disney exercised ROFR for a better analysis.

 

[MickeyTrooper]

I guess I'm a simple person... when it says ALL DVC contracts in Jan. and then it isn't ALL it can be VERY CONFUSING... certainly with the extra anxiety
My resort was not even on the list of resorts taken... that's why I contacted them and asked a few minutes ago...

 

[meekey7197]

I wrote the broker who had my contract and sent it on 1/12 (haven't heard yet).. they said the listings in the blog are NOT ALL FROM JAN. 2019... EVEN THOUGH it clearly says that they were all from JAN 2019... very confusing

I’m thinking they must be the contracts that closed in January that were bought back by Disney. Some may have been “taken” in December but not finalized until January. I think That’s what’s happening with the one I had taken on 1/14.

 

[TexasChick123]

Considering that they can’t possibly have all the info on whether a contract had ROFR waived or exercised for any month until the end of the following month (30 days), then that means that the buyback percentages in December were actually referring to contracts submitted in November AND December, not just December. Again, the percentages really have no meaning because you can’t take a numerator from one data set over a denominator of a completely unrelated data set to get a percentage.

Ignore the percentages and look at the other info about the contracts. I hope this makes sense.

 

[ScubaCat]

Lyusuf27—$106-$17396-150-SSR-March-0/17,8/18,300/19,150/20-sent 1/22

Please use the link in post#1 to format that for the list!

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Considering that they can’t possibly have all the info on whether a contract had ROFR waived or exercised for any month until the end of the following month (30 days), then that means that the buyback percentages in December were actually referring to contracts submitted in November AND December, not just December. Again, the percentages really have no meaning because you can’t take a numerator from one data set over a denominator of a completely unrelated data set to get a percentage.

Ignore the percentages and look at the other info about the contracts. I hope this makes sense.

Maybe the ROFR reports are just the number that they heard back from Disney on in January?

Simply, any contract that Disney either waived or exercised their ROFR.

So, they took 49 and waived 512.

That's the only way it makes sense. But the wording is confusing.

Basically, they could be recording a "sale" only when it's determined who the sale is to.... Disney or a buyer.

 

[TexasChick123]

Maybe the ROFR reports are just the number that they heard back from Disney on in January?

Simply, any contract that Disney either waived or exercised their ROFR.

So, they took 49 and waived 512.

That's the only way it makes sense. But the wording is confusing.

Basically, they could be recording a "sale" only when it's determined who the sale is to.... Disney or a buyer.

According to these posts:

just saw the ROFR report from my broker yeah im pretty sure my vgf contract will get taken. so math wise i went all the way to january 1 they have announced 164 ROFR waivers until the 25th. on their report it says they sent 546 contracts and 49 got taken that means 512 passed that leaves 348 that were not announced on their facebook soooit might be that they dont announce all even on days we see no movement they might still get answers back from Disney. now im rambling its day 28 for us

I wrote the broker who had my contract and sent it on 1/12 (haven't heard yet).. they said the listings in the blog are NOT ALL FROM JAN. 2019... EVEN THOUGH it clearly says that they were all from JAN 2019... very confusing

they did not waive 512 contracts in January. They've only waived 164 in January which is why I think the numbers are misleading. They're taking the number of contracts where they heard in January that the ROFR was exercised (of which some must have been submitted in December too) over the total number of contracts submitted to ROFR in January. It makes no sense because they haven't heard back from all the contracts submitted in January. One number has nothing to do with another and actually uses data from another month (December in this case). A better method would be to have the December data published at the beginning of February once they have heard back from all contracts submitted in the month of December (the theoretical 30 days). January data couldn't be completely gathered until the end of February for a report that would be published at the beginning of March. I think the other information they publish is very helpful, but the percentages are incorrectly calculated and misleading IMO.

 

[meekey7197]

According to these posts:




they did not waive 512 contracts in January. They've only waived 164 in January which is why I think the numbers are misleading. They're taking the number of contracts where they heard in January that the ROFR was exercised (of which some must have been submitted in December too) over the total number of contracts submitted to ROFR in January. It makes no sense because they haven't heard back from all the contracts submitted in January. One number has nothing to do with another and actually uses data from another month (December in this case). A better method would be to have the December data published at the beginning of February once they have heard back from all contracts submitted in the month of December (the theoretical 30 days). January data couldn't be completely gathered until the end of February for a report that would be published at the beginning of March. I think the other information they publish is very helpful, but the percentages are incorrectly calculated and misleading IMO.

These are all very good points

 

[SUSIEQ]

*

 

[adais]

According to these posts:




they did not waive 512 contracts in January. They've only waived 164 in January which is why I think the numbers are misleading. They're taking the number of contracts where they heard in January that the ROFR was exercised (of which some must have been submitted in December too) over the total number of contracts submitted to ROFR in January. It makes no sense because they haven't heard back from all the contracts submitted in January. One number has nothing to do with another and actually uses data from another month (December in this case). A better method would be to have the December data published at the beginning of February once they have heard back from all contracts submitted in the month of December (the theoretical 30 days). January data couldn't be completely gathered until the end of February for a report that would be published at the beginning of March. I think the other information they publish is very helpful, but the percentages are incorrectly calculated and misleading IMO.

this would make sooo much sense they should do it that way it would be more useful data wise

my only issue is the math how the heck do you list the % passng rate i cant figure out the math "In the month of January, Disney exercised their right of first refusal (ROFR) on 49 of 561 Disney Vacation Club (DVC) contracts sold through the "broker" , representing 8.7% of the contracts sold. The waiver rate for January was 91.3%."

 

[TexasChick123]

this would make sooo much sense they should do it that way it would be more useful data wise

my only issue is the math how the heck do you list the % passng rate i cant figure out the math "In the month of January, Disney exercised their right of first refusal (ROFR) on 49 of 561 Disney Vacation Club (DVC) contracts sold through the "broker" , representing 8.7% of the contracts sold. The waiver rate for January was 91.3%."

49 divided by 561 is .087 or 8.7%

Here's what I think they are saying: They were informed in between January 1 and January 31, 2019 that 49 of the contracts they had submitted to Disney for ROFR review were bought back by Disney. Theoretically, these 49 contracts were sent to Disney both in December and January since there is a good deal of time (up to 30 days) between submission and notification. Not all January ROFR submissions have been reviewed with a final decision sent to the brokers as many are still waiting to hear. They, the broker, sent a total of 561 contracts to ROFR in January. To say that the 49 contracts where Disney exercised ROFR is a full accounting of all contracts taken by ROFR as a percentage of all contracts sent to Disney in January is incorrect as they haven't heard back on many of them and at least some of the 49 were sent in December. They're trying to use 49/561=8.7% as a helpful percentage, but it is mixing decided December and January ROFR submissions. I suggest that they simply report the data as to all the identifiers they currently use but don't quote percentages until they have complete data/have heard back about all the contracts submitted to ROFR in any particular month. They should, again in theory, have heard back by now about all December submissions. They could accurately report December's data now. January's data collection is incomplete as they have not heard back about many of the contracts they sent to Disney in January. Am I making any sense at all?

 

[TexasChick123]

49 divided by 561 is .087 or 8.7%

Here's what I think they are saying: They were informed in between January 1 and January 31, 2019 that 49 of the contracts they had submitted to Disney for ROFR review were bought back by Disney. Theoretically, these 49 contracts were sent to Disney both in December and January since there is a good deal of time (up to 30 days) between submission and notification. Not all January ROFR submissions have been reviewed with a final decision sent to the brokers as many are still waiting to hear. They, the broker, sent a total of 561 contracts to ROFR in January. To say that the 49 contracts where Disney exercised ROFR is a full accounting of all contracts taken by ROFR as a percentage of all contracts sent to Disney in January is incorrect as they haven't heard back on many of them and at least some of the 49 were sent in December. They're trying to use 49/561=8.7% as a helpful percentage, but it is mixing decided December and January ROFR submissions. I suggest that they simply report the data as to all the identifiers they currently use but don't quote percentages until they have complete data/have heard back about all the contracts submitted to ROFR in any particular month. They should, again in theory, have heard back by now about all December submissions. They could accurately report December's data now. January's data collection is incomplete as they have not heard back about many of the contracts they sent to Disney in January. Am I making any sense at all?

It would be like me saying the following:

I spent $1000 on travel on my credit card bill in January. My February credit card bill is $5000. Therefore, I spent 20% of all my money on travel as a percentage of my February credit card bill. One has absolutely nothing to do with another.

 

[adais]

It would be like me saying the following:

I spent $1000 on travel on my credit card bill in January. My February credit card bill is $5000. Therefore, I spent 20% of all my money on travel as a percentage of my February credit card bill. One has absolutely nothing to do with another.

i know they said the submitted over 400 contracts by de jan19 deadline but i wish they were more clear but thank you for your math makes a bit more sense

 

[meekey7197]

49 divided by 561 is .087 or 8.7%

Here's what I think they are saying: They were informed in between January 1 and January 31, 2019 that 49 of the contracts they had submitted to Disney for ROFR review were bought back by Disney. Theoretically, these 49 contracts were sent to Disney both in December and January since there is a good deal of time (up to 30 days) between submission and notification. Not all January ROFR submissions have been reviewed with a final decision sent to the brokers as many are still waiting to hear. They, the broker, sent a total of 561 contracts to ROFR in January. To say that the 49 contracts where Disney exercised ROFR is a full accounting of all contracts taken by ROFR as a percentage of all contracts sent to Disney in January is incorrect as they haven't heard back on many of them and at least some of the 49 were sent in December. They're trying to use 49/561=8.7% as a helpful percentage, but it is mixing decided December and January ROFR submissions. I suggest that they simply report the data as to all the identifiers they currently use but don't quote percentages until they have complete data/have heard back about all the contracts submitted to ROFR in any particular month. They should, again in theory, have heard back by now about all December submissions. They could accurately report December's data now. January's data collection is incomplete as they have not heard back about many of the contracts they sent to Disney in January. Am I making any sense at all?

Yes, this is what my husband and I were just talking about and I think someone else alluded to it above. They should report a month's data when they have it all, even it it is a month behind. Either that or don't report it as some type of percentage. Just list this is what bought back in the last 30 days.

 

[MickeyTrooper]

Glad my "simple mind" wasn't confused about being confused

 

[TexasChick123]

Yes, this is what my husband and I were just talking about and I think someone else alluded to it above. They should report a month's data when they have it all, even it it is a month behind. Either that or don't report it as some type of percentage. Just list this is what bought back in the last 30 days.

Yep. Exactly. Just say, in the month of January, these contracts were bought back. Stay away from “January” percentages.

I think they could've published the “December” percentages in this report, but I’m not in charge of it...

 

[4luv2cdisney]

49 divided by 561 is .087 or 8.7%

Here's what I think they are saying: They were informed in between January 1 and January 31, 2019 that 49 of the contracts they had submitted to Disney for ROFR review were bought back by Disney. Theoretically, these 49 contracts were sent to Disney both in December and January since there is a good deal of time (up to 30 days) between submission and notification. Not all January ROFR submissions have been reviewed with a final decision sent to the brokers as many are still waiting to hear. They, the broker, sent a total of 561 contracts to ROFR in January. To say that the 49 contracts where Disney exercised ROFR is a full accounting of all contracts taken by ROFR as a percentage of all contracts sent to Disney in January is incorrect as they haven't heard back on many of them and at least some of the 49 were sent in December. They're trying to use 49/561=8.7% as a helpful percentage, but it is mixing decided December and January ROFR submissions. I suggest that they simply report the data as to all the identifiers they currently use but don't quote percentages until they have complete data/have heard back about all the contracts submitted to ROFR in any particular month. They should, again in theory, have heard back by now about all December submissions. They could accurately report December's data now. January's data collection is incomplete as they have not heard back about many of the contracts they sent to Disney in January. Am I making any sense at all?

You make sense. I just can't believe they're doing their math that way! Lol

I hadn't seen the person that posted they counted the waivers.

In theory, if they have a slow February and Disney takes a lot of contracts, it could look like they took more than was sold. That would be interesting. Ha ha!

All kidding aside, I really don't think they will be buying back much at this point. I'm pretty sure they're going down the waitlist and many are saying "no thanks" . I think they're just backed up on processing.

 

[meekey7197]

In theory, if they have a slow February and Disney takes a lot of contracts, it could look like they took more than was sold. That would be interesting. Ha ha!

yup, exactly.

 

[TexasChick123]

UPDATE: I emailed Nick Cotton about this, and he got back to me very quickly. He said that he has added language to explain how he calculates the buyback rate which states: In the month of January, Disney exercised their right of first refusal (ROFR) on 49 Disney Vacation Club (DVC) contracts, and DVC Resale Market sold 561, resulting in an 8.7% buy back rate. (Contracts Bought Back in January / Contracts Sold in January). The waiver rate for January was 91.3%. Source: https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blog/dvc-right-of-first-refusal-rofr-january-19-report/

He also stated that they would be open to doing the calculation after all contracts in a particular month have had ROFR waived or exercised, but that would result in the information being very delayed because Disney has been taking 5-6 weeks to make decisions since they are so backed up which would make the data less relevant. I must admit that I was very impressed at both the quickness of his response and the length of his email explaining why he does it this way especially on Super Bowl Sunday. I hope this clears it up.

 

[BlondeBelle]

Thanks TexasChick123 for the clarification! I've been following this thread closely, as today is day 24 for me...and boy am I antsy! I was relieved to see the data...but as so many posters have said, I'd like to see the ratio of what was sold in a timefame and then what Disney decided to do with THOSE contracts. To me that would be more representative of what is happening than comparing this month's sales to the decisions that Disney made on last month's sales. If THAT makes sense! Ah the joy of making meaning from numbers!

Anyhow, here's mine, I finally got the formatting all right...I think:

BlondeBelle---$133-$25255-185-BLT-Jun-0/18, 7/19, 185/20- sent 1/10

I've had no word yet. Hoping this week, but sounds like it will probably be the week after. At least the wait is coming to an end!