Small direct add on at VGC

[Mouseforward]

Leaving the spec renting argument aside, that logic basically says "profit is ok, but too much profit is bad". But saying that it's "commercial" just because they make a bit more more profit per point doesn't make sense to me. How is renting 5000 points "a-la-carte" ok, but one confirmed reservation for a hard to get room at BWV or AKV is a "commercial" endeavor?

In my view, if you ban spec renting just because "too much profit is bad", the logical next step is to say "profit is bad" in general because that's also "commercial" - so would you be ok with a restriction of no renting for anything above dues (we can just say the upfront cost is a sunk cost and nobody should expect to recoup that, so ignore it)? How about some entity (e.g., DVC) just takes the points you want to "rent", reimburses your dues, and then they get $40/pt because they are actually in the business of maximizing profit? Is that a better final outcome for owners?

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for because that argument is a slippery slope...

They could do something simple, and say no more than 35% of your points can be rented each year. I don’t think they need to get into how much is charged per point. No commercial. renter could stay in business if they had to eat 65% of their points each year.

I could also get behind a 10 month limit for spec rentals of any kind. Meaning anything booked at 11 months had to be rebooked to rent with rare exceptions allowed for cancellations within 60 days for documented medical reasons.

 

[MattB2G]

In my view, if you ban spec renting just because "too much profit is bad", the logical next step is to say "profit is bad" in general because that's also "commercial" - so would you be ok with a restriction of no renting for anything above dues (we can just say the upfront cost is a sunk cost and nobody should expect to recoup that, so ignore it)? How about some entity (e.g., DVC) just takes the points you want to "rent", reimburses your dues, and then they get $40/pt because they are actually in the business of maximizing profit? Is that a better final outcome for owners?

Maximizing profit isn't the problem, it is taking all the low point units away from Owners to be used for non-owners is what the problem is. I don't think Owners would care what profit Commercial Renters made, as long as they had access to the low point units.

 

[DanCali]

They could do something simple, and say no more than 35% of your points can be rented each year. I don’t think they need to get into how much is charged per point. No commercial. renter could stay in business if they had to eat 65% of their points each year.

I could also get behind a 10 month limit for spec rentals of any kind. Meaning anything booked at 11 months had to be rebooked to rent with rare exceptions allowed for cancellations within 60 days for documented medical reasons.

I don't know what the right answer is. There are always pros and cons... e.g., what if you have a personal situation in the family that doesn't allow you to travel one year and you need to rent out 100% of your points that year, but over time you're just renting 20% on average? There is no simple answer and a one size fits all solution.

Maximizing profit isn't the problem, it is taking all the low point units away from Owners to be used for non-owners is what the problem is. I don't think Owners would care what profit Commercial Renters made, as long as they had access to the low point units.

When you have 5 Club Level studios or 8 hotel rooms (Aulani), or 18 value studios, I don't think the tens of thousands of Owners as a group at places like Aulani and AKV will ever feel that they have access to those rooms, no matter who books them.


In any case, we're digressing - this is probably not the best thread for this discussion!

 

[VGCgroupie]

Leaving the spec renting argument aside, that logic basically says "profit is ok, but too much profit is bad". But saying that it's "commercial" just because they make a bit more more profit per point doesn't make sense to me. How is renting 5000 points "a-la-carte" ok, but one confirmed reservation for a hard to get room at BWV or AKV is a "commercial" endeavor?

In my view, if you ban spec renting just because "too much profit is bad", the logical next step is to say "profit is bad" in general because that's also "commercial" - so would you be ok with a restriction of no renting for anything above dues (we can just say the upfront cost is a sunk cost and nobody should expect to recoup that, so ignore it)? How about some entity (e.g., DVC) just takes the points you want to "rent", reimburses your dues, and then they get $40/pt because they are actually in the business of maximizing profit? Is that a better final outcome for owners?

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for because that argument is a slippery slope...

If you don’t see the difference between the 2 scenarios spec vs non spec then there is no point in debating the point.

 

[tx911]

I don't know what the right answer is. There are always pros and cons... e.g., what if you have a personal situation in the family that doesn't allow you to travel one year and you need to rent out 100% of your points that year, but over time you're just renting 20% on average? There is no simple answer and a one size fits all solution.

i’d be OK with a rolling three-year average of 35 to 49% of annual points. That would preserve the ability to rent all of the points in a given year in unusual circumstances.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Maximizing profit isn't the problem, it is taking all the low point units away from Owners to be used for non-owners is what the problem is. I don't think Owners would care what profit Commercial Renters made, as long as they had access to the low point units.

Not that this thread is about renting, but any owner not owning ie BWV shouldn’t ever expect to grab a resort view room. Those that do own should have a fair fighting chance of getting one.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

How about some entity (e.g., DVC) just takes the points you want to "rent", reimburses your dues, and then they get $40/pt because they are actually in the business of maximizing profit? Is that a better final outcome for owners?

Actually, yes. For profit owners/renters would be less incentivized to sell their points and look for the most profitable rooms and seasons for profit alone, and so only those who truly need to sell their points would do so since it’s no longer a business to be had.

Disney would actually charge much more than $40/pt, keeping it cash/hotel prices because they can’t compete with themselves like that. And these points are breakage I believe, so they can’t even enter the system until 2mo before, so they can’t go for the cheapest and easiest to sell rooms themselves until then.

And yes, owners could sell all their points that year to Disney, and receive the cost for their dues which, IIRC, is what DVC has said renting allows as ‘profit’. This actually seems like an ideal situation to me. I know many would balk at this because right now renting is pretty fruitful, even for the occasional renter not looking to maximize. But it handles all the main concerns for those are afraid of renting being taken away (I know it can’t be taken away but people do get hyperbolic about this). You can rent/sell your points to Disney if something happens and you can’t make it that year(s), get your dues paid. No need for limiting how much or how often even.

I think something a lot of people could get behind is if Disney offered to buy our points at the cost of OTUP. They could even lower it to $18/pt like it was a few years ago and buy back all unwanted/unused points from owners. That cost should cover almost all fees/dues of any contract. There’s no need to make it higher, unless, well, you want to make a real profit, but that goes against the terms of the contract

I mean, I don’t think Disney will do this, they already have enough rooms to sell and I don’t think it’ll be anywhere near profitable for them (maybe if they just sold back the points for dues cost only). But as an owner, I think this could be a great change.

ETA: oops, just realized this isn’t a renting thread. My bad, I got confused reading through lol I’m not even interested in the rental debate anymore, it got too tedious and no one wants to meet in the middle. Feel free to delete, mods, if this is completely out of place.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Not that this thread is about renting, but any owner not owning ie BWV shouldn’t ever expect to grab a resort view room. Those that do own should have a fair fighting chance of getting one.

Agreed, not about renting. However, I would say that spec renting at VGC of studios makes it more difficult for someone with a small contract to secure additional nights at 7m with non-home resort points.

Not impossible, but significantly more difficult.

For all of VDH’s faults… studio availability if you have direct or grandfathered points is not one of them.

VGC is much better for 1/2 bd villas.

 

[Sandisw]

Agreed, not about renting. However, I would say that spec renting at VGC of studios makes it more difficult for someone with a small contract to secure additional nights at 7m with non-home resort points.

Not impossible, but significantly more difficult.

For all of VDH’s faults… studio availability if you have direct or grandfathered points is not one of them.

VGC is much better for 1/2 bd villas.

I am sure that DVC runs through all the different situations on what rules to put in place for everything.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I am sure that DVC runs through all the different situations on what rules to put in place for everything.

Per the question in original post, spec renting of studios at VGC specifically would impact my decision making on whether to purchase a small direct contract at $330pp with the thought of using it every other year or trying to combine with non-home resort points at 7m to stay more often.