Speculation on point requirement increase for direct benefits

The ‘3 years or less’ regarding perks always cracked me up. How does that even work?

Back when new DVC AP sales were halted 2020 until Sept 2021 then halted again shortly after, new direct buyers were frustrated. That contract wording popped up often but never made complete sense after thinking it through. What exactly is it meant to imply or protect?

This question is more rhetorical than anything 😂 I’d be shocked if a clear answer exists.
 

Disney clearly does not care about resale value. If they did, RIV (and later resorts) would not be restricted.

What's more, resale value of a timeshare is not entirely predicated on "what it is worth to own," and that's because timeshare is a product that is sold, not bought. Very few people understand the inherent value of owning one, so there are few "organic" prospective buyers. But, there are many many people own them. Some of those many many people will want to divest themselves at any particular point, and become sellers. So, even though owning has positive value, selling might not be, simply because there are not enough people who recognize the value proposition (and hence not enough prospective buyers) relative to the number of sellers in the market.

This is what makes Wyndham an incredible value purchased resale---particularly when you add in the arbitrage opportunities presented by the major exchanges.

While I'm sure you're right, there will almost certainly be a period where new sales drags as a result (until resale contract inventory minimizes). Anyone who's starting this journey is going to calculate the cost of the points direct vs. resale, and weigh the value of the direct benefits from Disney.

My bigger issue here is that a resale contract in this discussion should not taint the full value of a direct contract. More than 75% of my points are direct, so saying that because I've supplemented that my stays will be compromised in the future is infuriating (and yes, I understand, I'm subject to them changing the terms, blah blah blah - probably completely legal (IANAL) but still unpalatable).

If, and we are not there yet, they go this route, I feel that it would be fair and equitable for them to either grandfather contracts prior to the change or create a one time curing process to pay some amount to convert the "resale" into a full direct point.
 










DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top Bottom