The "rippling" effect is starting

[TCPluto]

...the small sample size may not necessarily indicate the total collapse of the timeshare resale industry.

I'm gonna wait and see how the Fed reacts before making any big moves.

I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!

 

[rigsby25]

I have rented a reservation for my daughter, and I have had 13 points transferred to my account to complete my reservation. I guess if I am short on points in the future, I will have to reserve offsite. But I was wondering. Since the enforcement of the transfer rule, major renters will have to rent "reservations". Does that mean they will be making more "reservations" on speculation - thus tieing up the most popular times at all the resorts?

 

[NMW]

The rules did not change, Disney's reaction to the abuse of the rules did.

I am truly surprised how few of you that go to Disney often have not realized by now how they think and react. Doc gets it, so does Liferbabe and Jim.

They are not doing any of this for us, the Members, they are doing this for them. Something has occured that either has cost them money or time because time is money.

That is about the only things they react too.

My guess would be "Why Buy When one Can Rent" so cheaply.

Or "I am going to sell my points because I can't book my home resort at BWV and BCV at 11-8 months especially during Food and Wine."

I mean I would like to think that as Members they listen to us but the realistic part of me know they are a huge corporation that listens to the money talk.

I agree with this. I'm sure there are finacial reasons for DVC to enforce the not renting for profit thing. I always wondered why DVC allowed members to rent so much. Websites like mousesavers encourage people to rent points instead of buying. I'm sure there are people who rent once, then buy. I'm also sure there are people who think "why would I EVER buy, when I can just keep renting?"

 

[castleri]

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I believe Disney HAD to start enforcing the "one transfer" rule - because MS is unable to effectively manage transfered points to ensure they retain their original home resort and use year.

As the number of transfers increased, I think the whole "points system" has gotten or is in danger of getting way out of balance. I think the number of non-home resorts transferred and magically being transformed into home resort points puts Disney at risk of violating the law - and someone finally realized it.

Disney cannot sell more points at a resort than the resort has room nights to accomodate. If I were Disney I would not want outside auditors coming in questioning why I seemed to have more (for example) BCV points than I had capacity to handle. One might argue that there is always space (at one of the resorts), but I bet given the lackadaisical attitude re point transfers, that an audit to prove it could turn out to be very costly (and embarrassing to have to admit to such a lousy point bookkeeping system).

FWIW, I am glad Disney is starting to consistently enforce policies that (IMHO) are in the best interest of the members. They are not stopping renting - we are free to rent reservations to anyone we choose. Disney's deal is with US, not our guests, renters.

Members who need more nights/rooms can still rent a reservation from other members. Does anyone else think it a little ironic that we tell non-members that it takes trust, but we ourselves are having a cow over trusting our fellow members by renting a reservation from them? Just a thought,LOL.

Best wishes -

I guess I'm in the same minority with you then -- well said!

 

[Mike]

"I am no lawyer....but when you have a contract...the minute you are willing to "bend" a rule...the rule itself becomes null and void, especially at the levels that the rule was " bended"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree.

Just because a cop doesn't pull you over when you're going 10 mph over the speed limit doesn't mean he can't give you a ticket whenever you are in that situation. Just because he doesn't enforce it once doesn't change the law or the fact that you are breaking the law and there are consequences for you doing so.

Bad analogy - in this case the cop (MS) was in the car with us and stepping on the accelerator and the dispatcher was answering phone calls from the public and telling them that it is ok to speed. Also, the laws were re-written recently to add ambiguity on whether or not there is a speed limit.

I, for one, called MS and asked before I started to do my multiple transfers if I would have any problems and I was told twice that I could transfer as many times as I needed, as long as it was in the same direction.

I even had an issue with the UY of two of my transfers and it was resolved with a phone call from Carli D'Agostino. During the conversation, I told her why I was doing multiple transfers (for a large family trip) and she told me that it sounded like a wonderful idea and she hoped we all enjoyed our trip. She had the transfer history right in front of her and she went through each transaction with me to make sure we were in agreement.

Sorry - your over-simplification of the issue doesn't hold water.

 

[CarnotaurDad]

I guess my mind hasn't had it's normal coffee yet this morning, but how does this stop the renters from renting from someone? In theory, if renting, you don't have a contract so there is no transfer in/out because you aren't a DVC member. The renters simply get their confirmation number from the person with points and everyone is happy.

Am I missing something?

 

[Mike]

I guess my mind hasn't had it's normal coffee yet this morning, but how does this stop the renters from renting from someone? In theory, if renting, you don't have a contract so there is no transfer in/out because you aren't a DVC member. The renters simply get their confirmation number from the person with points and everyone is happy.

Am I missing something?

It affects the other side of the equation. The commercial renters can now only access additional points via one transfer per year so their supply to offer for rent will be limited.

Renting is still allowed, but there was a note in the announcement that Disney will be looking out for patterns of abuse.

The inability of those renting reservations to call MS to confirm their reservation **may** affect the number of people willing to enter into a rental agreement to save money.

 

[CarnotaurDad]

Thanks, Mike,

That makes more sense now. So if a professional renter needs to "replenish" their points, they can only do it once a year.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

You know...the abbreviated title to this thread would make for a great book title...genre horror.

"The Rippling" .

 

[dumbo71]

It affects the other side of the equation. The commercial renters can now only access additional points via one transfer per year so their supply to offer for rent will be limited.

Renting is still allowed, but there was a note in the announcement that Disney will be looking out for patterns of abuse.

The inability of those renting reservations to call MS to confirm their reservation **may** affect the number of people willing to enter into a rental agreement to save money.

Mike,

I am really in complete agreement with what you are saying.

DVC had to plug the transfer loophole. Rather than plug it the right way, by making sure transferred points retain there home resort status and retaining there use year, they simply are restrciting the number of transfers made. They haven't fixed anything, just cut down the number of times these abuses will happen. It will also serve to limit commercial renters abilities to access points.

These renters have become competition for CRO ressies inside the 60 day mark as well as competition for cash ressies being sold to cover the costs for member trade outs through concierge collection, cruise line and the like. My best guess is that they weren't recouping enough on those things to cover the trades.

As far as the phrases used in the email it is nothing more than restating policy already included in the original POS we recieved. I do not ever expect DVC to cancel a ressie because of alleged abuse or commercial renting. They would create a PR nightmare. Can anyone really imagine a family showing up for there WDW trip to find out MS cancelled there ressie because they got points or a ressie from a commercial renter? Now take that a step further. What if in fact that guest was a family member of the point holder? It would be a knightmare and DVC would lose big time if it went to court. I can't imagine this happening. How would they know who is family or friends staying as opposed to a for profit rental? They can think it is commercial renting al they want proving it is another thing. Who will track this alleged abuse? A $9 an hour MS agent? Will they hire someone to track this? I don't think so.

DVC and WDW is a money making enterprise. It is simply not worth it to go this route. Anger a guest? Lose someone's business forever? Hurt a potential commercial renter who in a weird way helps DVC and WDW's bottom line? NO WAY.

Renting points is allowed and will always be allowed. This is simply a scare tactic and an attempt to plug the transfer loophole taken advantage of by many.

I do not expect to see people dumping points either. Some will in a knee jerk reaction but not a significant number. In the end DVC may be achieving there ultimate goal and that is to steer people away from resales and directly to them to purchase there current offering.

 

[JimMIA]

You know...the abbreviated title to this thread would make for a great book title...genre horror.

"The Rippling" .

"I see dead people!"

 

[Mike]

As far as the phrases used in the email it is nothing more than restating policy already included in the original POS we recieved. I do not ever expect DVC to cancel a ressie because of alleged abuse or commercial renting. They would create a PR nightmare. Can anyone really imagine a family showing up for there WDW trip to find out MS cancelled there ressie because they got points or a ressie from a commercial renter? Now take that a step further. What if in fact that guest was a family member of the point holder? It would be a knightmare and DVC would lose big time if it went to court. I can't imagine this happening. How would they know who is family or friends staying as opposed to a for profit rental?

If Disney cancels any reservations, I think they will do it more on the front end. The biggest abusers habitually make several reservations every year for key weeks. These reservations then get rented and the names changed. This is a **pattern** that is very easy to spot. If Disney takes any action at all, I think they will immediately cancel all of these reservations once they are made. I also think they will notify the member. I expect all of this to happen before the commercial renter can rent the reservations. Maybe even before their slimey little fingers can surf over to ebay to update their precious little auctions. But I digress

I don't think you will see much drama at the front desk as a result of this. JMHO - I could be way off.

 

[Pooh nut]

If you want a leagal opinion I will give you one. BTW the cop anology, while very broad, is essentially correct.
Failure to uphold a standard or rule does not eliminate nor weaken said regulation. There are cases in the thousands that try to tweak on the "well everybody did it" rule. If you signed the paper and it says one transfer or whatever the rule may be then you can be assured that it will stand up leagally. That being said anything the Disney corporation puts out has been mulled over by some of the nations best law teams. You don't get this big by making really bad legal moves.
On a personal note I would tend to agree with the minority it seems. Enforcement of this rule seems to be geared toward those that bought and rent for profit that would otherwise be Disneys profit. And as a disclaimer I just sent off the downpayment on DVC so I do not have the expertise of you veterens.
*All statements are opinions of the author and should not be inturpreted as legal advice. For legal advice consult a lawyer near you.

 

[tomandrobin]

I have rented a reservation for my daughter, and I have had 13 points transferred to my account to complete my reservation. I guess if I am short on points in the future, I will have to reserve offsite. But I was wondering. Since the enforcement of the transfer rule, major renters will have to rent "reservations". Does that mean they will be making more "reservations" on speculation - thus tieing up the most popular times at all the resorts?

You can transfer points once a year. How many times in a year would have to do that? If you use your membership like most do, it would only be that one time a year. I know there could be exceptions , but I'm talking in general usage.

 

[Dean]

I have rented a reservation for my daughter, and I have had 13 points transferred to my account to complete my reservation. I guess if I am short on points in the future, I will have to reserve offsite. But I was wondering. Since the enforcement of the transfer rule, major renters will have to rent "reservations". Does that mean they will be making more "reservations" on speculation - thus tieing up the most popular times at all the resorts?

I have posted this very thought already. I believe your fears are well founded.

 

[Mike]

If you want a leagal opinion I will give you one. BTW the cop anology, while very broad, is essentially correct.
Failure to uphold a standard or rule does not eliminate nor weaken said regulation. There are cases in the thousands that try to tweak on the "well everybody did it" rule. If you signed the paper and it says one transfer or whatever the rule may be then you can be assured that it will stand up leagally.

I disagree .... we weren't getting away with anything. MS was a party to the transfer process and they were telling members that it was allowed. There was no limit specified in the most recent POS. The speeding analogy does not apply.

 

[kimberh]

Disney changed the POS, Why? Mine is 2006 and it does not say ONE. Why was that word taken out? This is what we need to ask and now how can they inforce it? I do agree, that if abuse is occuring, something has to be done but there has to be another way to do it. Redflag the contracts, notify the abusers by the legal dept., there are other ways.

 

[Dean]

I guess my mind hasn't had it's normal coffee yet this morning, but how does this stop the renters from renting from someone? In theory, if renting, you don't have a contract so there is no transfer in/out because you aren't a DVC member. The renters simply get their confirmation number from the person with points and everyone is happy.

Am I missing something?

I don't think it does. What I believe will happen is those who were timid already about renting points and those who were looking at a very casual or one time rental, will drop out of the market. I believe this is a large part of the rental points available on DIS. Thus it will also mean less points available for rent and for transfer. Those who were looking to transfer in a few points to round out a vacation will not likely find many willing to do small transfers or they will charge more. Thus many who would have transferred in will now simply rent or look at other options like cash or off site for those supplements. So the same or even more demand and less availability equals higher prices.

I think the number of people doing multiple transfers repeatedly over multiple years is VERY small, likely a half dozen at best. And even those have only been doing so for 3 years at most since that's all the option has been around. But if I wanted to play the game and work with the new rules as emailed, I'd simply buy several smaller contracts at high demand resorts. I'd then look to transfer in points from others who are distressed or the like. Then if I needed to get a larger chunk of points together for a larger reservation, I could bank those transferred points along with my own. A 50 pt contract at BWV with 50 pts transferred in over 2 consecutive years could give you as many as 250 pts to make standard view Christmas reservation to rent out, etc. The variations are endless.

And if I owned a larger contract at one of the lessor demand resorts, I could buy a small and separate contract at a high demand resort and transfer my lessor demand points to the small contract. And in all likelihood, I'd get the home resort option as well.

I could even do this by buying directly through DVC, here's how. I own a mid sized BWV & OKW contract. Say I buy an add on at BCV of 25 pts attached to my BWV master. I then could transfer OKW points to BCV or BWV for the 11 month window usage and use then combine BWV and BCV points at 7 months. Or I could change the title on the 25 pts in such a way that they would become an independent contract. I could do this by adding my kids to only the 25 pt contract. I's cost me about $50 to do this, simply the recording fees. And they and all who qualify in their family circle get the AP discount option as well.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I believe Disney HAD to start enforcing the "one transfer" rule - because MS is unable to effectively manage transfered points to ensure they retain their original home resort and use year.

As the number of transfers increased, I think the whole "points system" has gotten or is in danger of getting way out of balance. I think the number of non-home resorts transferred and magically being transformed into home resort points puts Disney at risk of violating the law - and someone finally realized it.

Disney cannot sell more points at a resort than the resort has room nights to accomodate. If I were Disney I would not want outside auditors coming in questioning why I seemed to have more (for example) BCV points than I had capacity to handle. One might argue that there is always space (at one of the resorts), but I bet given the lackadaisical attitude re point transfers, that an audit to prove it could turn out to be very costly (and embarrassing to have to admit to such a lousy point bookkeeping system).

FWIW, I am glad Disney is starting to consistently enforce policies that (IMHO) are in the best interest of the members. They are not stopping renting - we are free to rent reservations to anyone we choose. Disney's deal is with US, not our guests, renters.

Members who need more nights/rooms can still rent a reservation from other members. Does anyone else think it a little ironic that we tell non-members that it takes trust, but we ourselves are having a cow over trusting our fellow members by renting a reservation from them? Just a thought,LOL.

Best wishes -

I guess I'm in the minority too. I'm glad Disney is enforcing their policies, and I agree that it is in the best interest of the members. I think your statement about auditing and points is correct too. With Disney's current system of not being able to tract tranfered points, it could be an auditing nightmare for them. I think there are a few people who took advantage of this transfering points loop-hole and abused it.

 

[LisaS]

Since the enforcement of the transfer rule, major renters will have to rent "reservations". Does that mean they will be making more "reservations" on speculation - thus tieing up the most popular times at all the resorts?

I agree with you so I guess we have to hope that Disney follows up on their statement that they will be looking out for patterns of abuse and takes step to shut down that activity.