The "rippling" effect is starting

[WDWDave]

I feel Disney has done exactly the right thing and may need to go further. We own at BCV & WLV because those are the two places we most enjoy staying. They also happen to be the two smallest resorts.

When DVC allows individuals to transfer in hundreds or even thousands of points to these two smaller resorts from the larger DVC resorts this effectively reduces our opportunity to make the reservations we may want. As has been stated above this creates more BCV & WLV points than were sold in the first place.

Part of operating a vacation club is protecting the rights of owners. The 11 month window advantage for booking ones own resort is diminished everytime someone transfers points in from another resort.

While I would not want to hurt a members ability to transfers points for a family vacation I believe the one per year rule will accomplish this in most cases.

I also have no problem with someone renting their own points that they are not going to use. I doubt that this causes many problems in the points allocation.

FOR PROFIT renters however, will do nothing but diminish the value of DVC for the vast majority of us who bought and use Disney for personal family vacations. I believe that Disney actually has a legal obligation to make sure that this doesn't happen. DVC was not created to provide a business opportunity for owners.

I appauld Disney for any efforts they make to reduce or eliminate commercial renting.

 

[Dean]

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.

I wish they would enforce everything including people who smoke in NS rooms and occupancy limits. But this is different this is not simply a question of enforcing rules, it's a question of changing the rule and then changing it back. Actually I think it's funny because I believe this issue will hurt the average member overall and not really hurt anyone who planned to do a lot of renting. It does mean they'll be far more likely to turn more to reserving and renting high demand times/resorts.

 

[Dean]

FOR PROFIT renters however, will do nothing but diminish the value of DVC for the vast majority of us who bought and use Disney for personal family vacations. I believe that Disney actually has a legal obligation to make sure that this doesn't happen. DVC was not created to provide a business opportunity for owners.

LOL, DVC was created purely for profit, mostly Disney's. The intent of Disney when creating DVC is somewhat irrelevant. What is the issue is what can members legally do under the rules. They have no leg to stand on to prevent renting. What they could do is go after logo usage and the like.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I sent mine too. (somehow I doubt they agreed)

I sent one, too, telling them that I appreciated the hard work they are doing to enforce the rules already in place.

 

[waltfan1957]

When DVC allows individuals to transfer in hundreds or even thousands of points to these two smaller resorts from the larger DVC resorts this effectively reduces our opportunity to make the reservations we may want. As has been stated above this creates more BCV & WLV points than were sold in the first place.

Part of operating a vacation club is protecting the rights of owners. The 11 month window advantage for booking ones own resort is diminished everytime someone transfers points in from another resort.

but only an owner at that particular resort can book at the eleven month window

 

[Disney Doll]

I'd bet DD4-going-on-24's lunch money the people who have listed their DVC contracts in the last 24 hours have no clue what we're talking about.

I haven't listed mine have no intention of listing mine and I still have no idea what you're all talking about.

 

[rinkwide]

...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...

Let me make sure I understand; You think it's appropriate for Disney Vacation Development to increase restrictions on the membership's point usage because of an internal auditing problem that they themselves have created?

 

[castleri]

but only an owner at that particular resort can book at the eleven month window

The point you seem to have missed is that someone with a minimal BCV contract for example could transfer in many times the number he/she owns and because of a glitch in the computer system which does not track the points the person then has them all showing as BCV points and they also took on the UY of the account. It could of course apply to any resort but the big issue seems to be the transfer of points into the smaller resorts. This then throws the total number of points allocated to BCV out of wack. It also allows that person to book many more nights at BCV than they really should be able to at 11 months based on their own BCV contract. Big time renters could buy up small or large amount of points at a low price from people who needed to get rid of them or lose them from any resort and have them
transferred into their own accounts and rent them for a profit over what they themselves paid using the 11 month window to reserve prime dates.
The points are supposed to retain their own resort and UY status but according to many on this board they have not and this has caused the problems people have been mentioning.

 

[Spine_DR]

As posted before The computer does track were the points are from it is a modifier now whether the MS rep notices or evan cares about the modifier depends. I have seen posts here and elsewhere that the people couldnt use the transfered points till 7 months but it does happen they get by. They do need a true software based lock on the points so that the rep can't miss it.

 

[ceejay13]

Wow and I've missed all the fun in the last couple of days while I was selling my 100 point BCV contract. Actually, I didn't know about all of this controversy and don't we all just love a little conflict now and then. I also agree that I am glad DVC is enforcing their rules. We have or should I say had 5 contracts all but the one at the BWV, which we prefer. We have only stayed at the BCV once since we bought and have always used them at OKW or to add on a few nights at the BWV. We have never rented them. Actually, as I stated in another thread I'm jealous of all those people who seem to have all these points to rent. I love my vacations too much. Ironically, my DH and I decided 3 days ago to contact the TSS and sell our BCV contract. Much to my surprise it was listed yesterday and sold yesterday. I obviously need to pay more attention because I was shocked it went so quickly, and even more pleasantly surprised at the profit we made. I do understand MS's issues if they are bombarded with transers for some members on a fairly frequent basis, and agree with those posters who think it is about time the rules are enforced.

 

[Deb & Bill]

You know, the POS has had the information about one transfer per member per use year either in or out for years. I don't understand why people are so surprised about this.

 

[Sammie]

Actually I think it's funny because I believe this issue will hurt the average member overall and not really hurt anyone who planned to do a lot of renting. It does mean they'll be far more likely to turn more to reserving and renting high demand times/resorts

Dean, would you explain further why you think this will be the case? I don't see anything in the current changes that would hurt the average member.

 

[greenban]

You know, the POS has had the information about one transfer per member per use year either in or out for years. I don't understand why people are so surprised about this.

Several recent 'versions'of the POS(by date) DO NOT specify the number of transfers as in or out, only one direction. Wasn't a typo, as at the same time DVC-Advisors allowed multiplt same direction transfers.

Transfer abuse isn't the REAL problem here. If Disney has 'x' number of points for use, then 'X' should be used. HOWEVER, when transferred points take on the Owners Home Resort and UY, Disney has a major problem, more 'Z' points, acting like 'X' points then were ever sold. Add a heavy banking and borrowing cycle of 'legitimate' owners, and a resort can be seriously 'over sold' against FL timeshare laws.

IMHO the correct fix is to track transferred points correctly. This can be done. We have all read the posts where some one transferred a specific resort into their account, and did not want the points to change, and MS had to do a manual lookup to verify the point's origin. SO IT CAN BE DONE.

By limiting all Owners to only one transfer, that seems very reasonable, as MS will have much less manual look ups to do.

As a purist, I would prefer the technical repair, as a realist, I can see this is what we're getting.

I will expect transfers, especially large ones to retain the original Home Resort Status. I also expect the banking of transferred points to be disallowed again, and perhaps, if enough Owners compain, Occupancy levels actually inforced as written.

As soon as these 'glitches' are corrected, and the dust settles, the new DVC will be announced@

-Tony

 

[Dean]

Dean, would you explain further why you think this will be the case? I don't see anything in the current changes that would hurt the average member.

I have to a degree in other areas but I'll try here.

First, lets set up that the last 3 years have allowed members to easily transfer in points to get a larger package when needed and that it has allowed many members feel comfortable with that "one time" rental or transfer to pay for a cruise, etc. But many times it takes several actual transactions to accomplish the goal. Then there are those handful of people who have bought one or more contracts with the idea of renting but to add to their holdings to rent as well by transferring in and a much larger group of people that have bought a larger number of points to use but also to rent, maybe they bought 500 but only need 200 and rent the rest out.

What has happened is going to make a number of members uncomfortable with the rental option. There were many that were renting out that were very apprehensive about it. Heck when we were discussing the fact that a renter has risks for their "tenants" recently, some said this was too risky and they wouldn't rent due to just that tidbit. In many cases it took them a couple of years to get enough comfort to do so. Now they are unlikely to be comfortable with the process. Since I believe this is a very large portion of the points being rented, it means a lot less points for rent and for transfer. And this means that those members are more likely to use the points for a trade (DCL for example) when previously they would have rented them out or transferred them for rental. Thus, IMO, this devalues the points exchanges directly as well as indirectly. Indirectly because that will give more points for DVC to rent out to pay for the cash equiv exchanges, something they've never been able to do efficiently. And the points will still go for rental, just to Disney instead of to an individual Thus those type exchanges are likely to go up in points costs in the next couple of years as well.

Turn to those that bought with the idea of renting as a large portion of their ownership. This CHANGE will affect only a handful of them negatively. It really only affects the ones trying to buy lots of points transferred in then re-renting them. And since there will be less transfer options, those with a lot of points to rent have lost the option to transfer them to other members consistently. So they will turn to the option of securing high demand weeks/resorts and renting them out. Making even less availability for those times for others at those resorts. And they can still transfer in points to rent out, just that they'll require larger chunks at a time and possibly own more separate contracts to do so as it's one transfer per MEMBERSHIP per USE YEAR, multiple per separate contract. They can even make combined contracts separate by changing the registration slightly, the cost would be less than $50 per contract. And given all the others issues above, they'll be able to charge a higher fee to do so. This group is the main ones that will BENEFIT overall from this change.

Then there are those of us who bought to use but have more points than we currently need along with those who's financial situation has changed and are renting now rather than selling. I'm sure some will sell, but likely only a few. Many of us are comfortable with the system, will learn the impact of any changes and will adapt easily to them. Again at a likely higher price. I likely average about 1-2 points rentals per year. But I might do 5 in a 12 month period and go a couple of years without doing any rentals. I have been charging $12-13 per point or more for the last 2 years but I will likely increase my price soon.

Just go over to the rental BBS where the number of posts for those wanting transfers and rentals are far more than those offering. And maybe we're already seeing more reservations wanted than offered posts compared to a week ago but I'll let others judge that know that aspect better offer their insight as I don't follow it closely enough to be sure.

And don't forget that some bought very small packages because that's all they could afford then have transferred in for a larger trip here and there, they will be the big losers. And anyone who truly in this on a large scale to rent, esp to take advantage of the limitations on handling transferred points, can still easily do so.

 

[Dean]

You know, the POS has had the information about one transfer per member per use year either in or out for years. I don't understand why people are so surprised about this.

3 years worth didn't, from early 2003 to early 2006 as a minimum. DVC told them the wording meant multiple in OR multiple out and backed it up by allowing multiple for 3 years. And given that the wording was also CHANGED to allow transferred points to be banked, I don't think anyone can seriously argue a typo or same meaning different wording angle.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Transfer abuse isn't the REAL problem here. If Disney has 'x' number of points for use, then 'X' should be used. HOWEVER, when transferred points take on the Owners Home Resort and UY, Disney has a major problem, more 'Z' points, acting like 'X' points then were ever sold. Add a heavy banking and borrowing cycle of 'legitimate' owners, and a resort can be seriously 'over sold' against FL timeshare laws.

BINGO! That is the REAL problem!

 

[Dean]

Transfer abuse isn't the REAL problem here. If Disney has 'x' number of points for use, then 'X' should be used. HOWEVER, when transferred points take on the Owners Home Resort and UY, Disney has a major problem, more 'Z' points, acting like 'X' points then were ever sold. Add a heavy banking and borrowing cycle of 'legitimate' owners, and a resort can be seriously 'over sold' against FL timeshare laws.

This is a concern and I'd like to see it fixed. But this is not a violation of timeshares laws. Only the number of memberships were sold that were available, no points were actually sold. Points only REPRESENT the ownership. But even if points did fall under the legal description, allowing flexibility that put more points into a given use year than could be reserved at X resort would not be a legal violation. It's what was sold and not how they were used that the law covers. Lets take a points system up the road. Club Intrawest has a resort in the Panhandle. They do not have a home priority to their points and thus every single point sold anywhere could all get concentrated to one resort. Actually that's one of the problems with their system as many bought CI at all of their resorts because they were told they could get Whistler during Christmas and Easter. The end result is not even those who own at Whistler have much of a chance.

 

[greenban]

This is a concern and I'd like to see it fixed. But this is not a violation of timeshares laws. Only the number of memberships were sold that were available, no points were actually sold. Points only REPRESENT the ownership. But even if points did fall under the legal description, allowing flexibility that put more points into a given use year than could be reserved at X resort would not be a legal violation. It's what was sold and not how they were used that the law covers. Lets take a points system up the road. Club Intrawest has a resort in the Panhandle. They do not have a home priority to their points and thus every single point sold anywhere could all get concentrated to one resort. Actually that's one of the problems with their system as many bought CI at all of their resorts because they were told they could get Whistler during Christmas and Easter. The end result is not even those who own at Whistler have much of a chance.

Dean:

How about Whistler's Mother, does she have a chance? (Shown here at OKW - If you look closely you can see her SSR lithograph, framed on the wall)

-Tony

 

[Plutofan]

A lot of people think the new rules will not effect them. Just wait until you need extra points since extended family want to come to Disney. Will you get that one transfer correct? What happens if you want a change of pace or you lose a job so you decide to rent out points for several years. Will you fall into a "pattern" of renting? If you no longer feel comfortable renting then will you use your points outside of the DVC resorts? When I priced out a cruise my points were only worth $7 per point. If I do not rent my points how economical is DVC based upon how many times I do not go to a DVC resort. Everyone needs to look at their future vacation plans and see how it will effect them. True it may have not affected you in the past or currently but the future is not known. We loved DVC for its flexability. You really need to plan to make sure your extra points do not expire worthless. I personally will live as much as possible on borrowed points and will have several years of vacations plan way ahead. We love DVC and applaud the changes but it will at some point affect the person who is not a planner. I hope that the points that expire and the increased points that are traded oustide of DVC will help to reduce our members dues. I am not sure how this works but I hope that DVC makes some good money off the unused points and the points used outside DVC.

 

[Inkmahm]

3 years worth didn't, from early 2003 to early 2006 as a minimum. DVC told them the wording meant multiple in OR multiple out and backed it up by allowing multiple for 3 years. And given that the wording was also CHANGED to allow transferred points to be banked, I don't think anyone can seriously argue a typo or same meaning different wording angle.

Exactly. I have the 02/2006 version which talks only about limiting to transfers in or out in one year, but not both. And NO mention of a limit of one in either direction.