The "rippling" effect is starting

[greenban]

You know, that would be interesting to track if I had the time. It would have been great to know how many renters had listings before and after the change.
Do you think they will set up shop elsewhere? Like here?

They may try, but we know Disney at the minimum, 'monitors' this site. So they may not last too long around here either.

-Tony

PS: Rinky, now *THAT'S* an E-Ticket ride!!!

 

[tomandrobin]

Personally I am glad to see this change. Honestly, I don't see where maybe 2 or 3 max transfers would be a problem. Any more then that should be charged $100 per transfer or something to that effect.

I agee, but instead of a set fee, make the charge per point. I think .25 cent per point would work fine. I'm guessing this would also increase rental prices, which I persoanlly think are already too low. I price out a cash reservation for a studio, compared to the rental price for points. It was less then half the cost. I can't understand why renters would cut the cost so much.

 

[Disney Doll]

Wow - talk about tangential spin .....

Ok - forget the analogies .... how about some facts.

- The original POS stated there was a limit of one transfer per UY per member

- Around 2003, the revised POS removed the wording around the limit of one and stated that transfers were essentially limited to one direction per UY

- MS was telling people (including myself) that there is no limit to the number of times you can make a transfer as long as they are in the same direction in a given UY

This has nothing to do with people doing something wrong or getting away with something that they weren't supposed to.

The fact is that what is in writing in your contract that you sigend, presumably after reading and understanding it, is what will be enforceable, no matter what someone at MS "told" you.

You're right that "bending" the rules makes for a gray area in some folks mind. But I have always thought that if the rules were "bent" for me that I received a lucky break, not a precedent-setting event that would hold up in a court of law.

Having been a DVCer for a number of years now, my guess is that what will happen is that they'll be a bit more stringent for a while to get rid of the "power renters" who are trying to make a living off of DVC rentals (and believe me, DVC knows who they are), and then once they have cleared them out, the standards will relax to a more reasonable level for us "normal" folks who, once in a while, need to do some creative point-finding to make a family vacation happen.

I am sure they have a way to track history, point usage, rental/transfer info and so on. If they don't, they should ask caskbill to design a beaituful one ofr them, liek the one he designed for us!!!!! If you are a person who, once every few years, has to rent/transfer points to do a vacation, I doubt they are going to give you a while lot of grief. If you are a person who does multiple rent/transfer transaction per year...well, yes...you're going to be squashed.

 

[Mike]

We can turn it around anyway you want. You started the spin and I fliiped it around as well.

Actually, I did not start it. I was trying to show a previous poster why his comparison of a member "getting away with" multiple transfers to a motorist speeding but not getting caught was apples to oranges. It is simply a bad analogy and does not apply here, particularly to members who received a POS dated 2003 or later.

The fact is that what is in writing in your contract that you sigend, presumably after reading and understanding it, is what will be enforceable, no matter what someone at MS "told" you.

But the problem is that there is no language in the POS from 2003 on that limits the number of transfers to one a year. So to anyone purchasing after 2003, this is a change in the rules in addition to a change to what was being practiced.

 

[3DisneyKids]

just bumping

 

[allflgirl]

I just checked the resale and man are there a lot of contracts for sale. I wonder if all those STRIPPED BCV contracts on this board resale site is because of the enforced rule. The funny thing is, they are still wanting $95 - $97 per point and you don't have any points on most of them until '08. YIKES!!

 

[JimMIA]

I just checked the resale and man are there a lot of contracts for sale. I wonder if all those STRIPPED BCV contracts on this board resale site is because of the enforced rule. The funny thing is, they are still wanting $95 - $97 per point and you don't have any points on most of them until '08. YIKES!!

And the BCV's are in good company too! Look at the other listings. That looks like some big renter bailing bigtime. Hopefully it's not one of our friends!

 

[OneMoreTry]

I just checked the resale and man are there a lot of contracts for sale. I wonder if all those STRIPPED BCV contracts on this board resale site is because of the enforced rule. The funny thing is, they are still wanting $95 - $97 per point and you don't have any points on most of them until '08. YIKES!!

Even IF points for resale have increased, focusing on this rule change with blinders as the ONLY possible cause seems a little ish. What happened to resales the last time the Dow was down and interest rates were this high? Seems like THAT may affect resales as much or more than this rule change.

 

[JimMIA]

I agree with part of what OneMoreTry said. There may be more or less to this than the rule change.

I suspect (and have not one SHRED of evidence to support ) that DVC has placed a few "Okay guy...listen up!" phone calls.

I doubt if they would cancel an existing ressie, but I know they can identify "patterns of rental behavior" quite easily and accurately. It just makes sense that they would stop big renters before they made ressies, and that may be what precipitated the firesale we see on that listing.

I have no doubt a lot of those contracts are renter contracts, just from the stripped points alone. There are always a few stripped contracts for sale, but nothing like that list!

 

[CarolA]

Well using the same time line that started this post... (ie Member Services makes announcement and less then 24 hours later sales are due to announcement)

I am going to assume that the sellers are selling because they cant' carry their shampoo on the plane to get to Disney....

(And if you believe my logic, please give me a PM I have bridge for sale!)

 

[Beca]

Well using the same time line that started this post... (ie Member Services makes announcement and less then 24 hours later sales are due to announcement)

I am going to assume that the sellers are selling because they cant' carry their shampoo on the plane to get to Disney....

(And if you believe my logic, please give me a PM I have bridge for sale!)

I thought I would post an update, since this thread has not died. I had a friend contact the resale agent I was referring to. She verified that she had VERY few non pending contracts, and did receive 12 contracts to sell the day after the announcement....some just took a few days to post. That was her info, not my guess. She was also very surprised that 12 contracts would come in at one time like that.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I agree with part of what OneMoreTry said. There may be more or less to this than the rule change.

I suspect (and have not one SHRED of evidence to support ) that DVC has placed a few "Okay guy...listen up!" phone calls.

I doubt if they would cancel an existing ressie, but I know they can identify "patterns of rental behavior" quite easily and accurately. It just makes sense that they would stop big renters before they made ressies, and that may be what precipitated the firesale we see on that listing.

I have no doubt a lot of those contracts are renter contracts, just from the stripped points alone. There are always a few stripped contracts for sale, but nothing like that list!

I'l sure you are absolutely right. If they can and have identified the "patterns of rental for profit", then I agree that they would be making a few of those types of calls. I also think those folks would be running scared about now, so why not jump ship. I just don't see it changing the perks of ownership for the majority of owners though.

I also don't think it would be in Disney's best interest to just flat out cancel renter's ressies, because all those renters are potential buyers. That's why calling and "nudging" a few of the profiteers would seem like the most likely reason for the "firesale" as you put it.

 

[tomandrobin]

I also don't think it would be in Disney's best interest to just flat out cancel renter's ressies, because all those renters are potential buyers. That's why calling and "nudging" a few of the profiteers would seem like the most likely reason for the "firesale" as you put it.

I agree, to cancel an existing ressie would be a PR headache for them. But I can see where they would target individual accounts and not allow addition reservations.

 

[bpmorley]

There's no doubt, any owner with a contract they've been using for the transfer/rent loophole is going to bailout now while the resale value is still high. DVD may have solved their little MS problem by creating a ROFR monster, at least in the near term.

If you rent your points to non-DVC members, is it considered a transfer? if not, why would anyone bailout? I'm not really sure how this whole thing works. I've never transfered or rented. I've only used my points for our vacations.

 

[senecabeach]

I've been just lurking around, listening to all the discussion.

For what its worth..
I just spoke to my guide and I asked about this issue. As usual, a few ruin a good thing for the masses and "ALL" pay the price.
Apparently.... those big point holders have been blocking out 15-30 rooms at a clip, making it difficult for the little DVC member to get the ressies they want...... so the change. Sounds fair to me.

IMHO....I'm OK with this and "my rule" has been..if extended family or friends want to go ....they must take ME with them ...really..no kidding!!!

 

[dianeschlicht]

I've been just lurking around, listening to all the discussion.

For what its worth..
I just spoke to my guide and I asked about this issue. As usual, a few ruin a good thing for the masses and "ALL" pay the price.
Apparently.... those big point holders have been blocking out 15-30 rooms at a clip, making it difficult for the little DVC member to get the ressies they want...... so the change. Sounds fair to me.

IMHO....I'm OK with this and "my rule" has been..if extended family or friends want to go ....they must take ME with them ...really..no kidding!!!

I have the same rule! Heck, I'm even going with DS when he gets married at WDW! Of course, I'll want to be there for the wedding anyway, and we'll save points by getting a GV and letting the newly weds use the master!

 

[Granny]

Heck, I'm even going with DS when he gets married at WDW! Of course, I'll want to be there for the wedding anyway, and we'll save points by getting a GV and letting the newly weds use the master!

How appealing....a honeymoon with my Mom in the next room!

 

[LisaS]

If you rent your points to non-DVC members, is it considered a transfer? if not, why would anyone bailout? I'm not really sure how this whole thing works. I've never transfered or rented. I've only used my points for our vacations.

A transfer can only occur between DVC members -- MS transfers points from one member's account to another member's account. Once the points are transferred, they belong to the receiving member who can do what they wish with the points.

A rental occurs when a member makes a reservation on behalf of someone else, call them the "tenant" (usually a non-member, but it could also be done on behalf of a member as well). No points change hands. The tenant has no control over the reservation and must ask the owning member to make any changes needed (add/remove names of guests, add dining plan, etc.) Trust is required becausing the owning member has control over the reservation and could cancel it, or cause it be cancelled due to not paying their dues on time.

If a member needs additional points to make a reservation, they generally prefer to have points transferred to them rather than renting a reservation from another member. The main reason being that the member receiving the points usually wants to combine the points with their own points to have enough points in total to make a reservation and they want control over the reservation. The member with excess points available also usually prefers to transfer points because it is less work for them -- once the points are transferred from Member A's account to Member B's account, the deal is done and Member A is out of the picture -- no requests for name changes or anything else to deal with.

Why would anyone bail out if they are only in the business of renting to non-members and don't transfer points out to other members? There are two changes happening. One is that DVC is threatening to crack down on members who are in the commercial renting business. DVC can tell by looking at the reservations members are making whether or not someone is in the rental business. They can also monitor what is going on on ebay. These people may have been contacted by DVC and told it's time to close shop. The second change that is happening is that DVC is limiting members to one transfer per UY. Some of the commercial renters get at least some of their points by transferring in distressed points from other members. So with the transfer limit, they have lost a source of very cheap points that they used in their rental business.

 

[JimMIA]

I have the same rule! Heck, I'm even going with DS when he gets married at WDW! Of course, I'll want to be there for the wedding anyway, and we'll save points by getting a GV and letting the newly weds use the master!

We'll be looking forward to THAT trip report!

Hey, how 'bout a "Live from the Honeymoon at OKW!"

 

[bpmorley]

Seneca, Do you really want to be in the same Villa as your son on his Honeymoon? I would get a 2 bdr and then a separate studio for him.

Lisa, thanks for shedding a little light on the situation for me. Not having done anything but use my points for me leaves me out of that transfer/rent loop. Here's a question though.

I have never thought about renting or transferring. Me & my wife are trying to start a family which would put our travel time to a minimum. I don't really want to get into renting, but I have some friends that I wouldn't mind giving a place to just so I don't lose my points. Wouldn't DVC put a stop to that under these newly enforced rules? Would DVC prefer that I just forfeit the points? I know I could bank 1 yr, but what about year 2. We've seen people around WDW with infants & toddlers and we both agreed that it seems like a waste for them, being that they don't really get what is going on around them. So we probably wouldn't be going until the child is 3 or 4.