What the Hell is Wrong with DVC?

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I agree. And you should not have to compete with cash customers for the rooms that might be avialable.

Member Fees, annual dues, the cost for running the resort based on the number of points you own. Member fees run about $6-9 a point. Add the initial cost of the points and you are looking upward of $12-14 a point.

 

[AdamsMum]

What if they extend everyone’s contract end date a year without dues? I would enjoy that.

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe the resorts expiry dates are also tied to the end date of a land lease. I don't think they would even have that option if this is the case.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe the resorts expiry dates are also tied to the end date of a land lease. I don't think they would even have that option if this is the case.

Correct. So any extension of the land lease would be through Disney and it would apply to all Owners, not just those who are losing points.

 

[NoTime42]

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe the resorts expiry dates are also tied to the end date of a land lease. I don't think they would even have that option if this is the case.

Yes, DVC leases land with 50 year expirations. DVC might have extra time available on VWL, BCV and BWV since they were all sold as 2042 expirations.

As we learned from the OKW extension, DVC extended everyone’s contract from 2042-2057 and then asked owners to either buy the extension or deed the extension back to DVC. That was a bad idea for selling an extension, but shows an extension can be added to every contract.

Oops, I guess I should have read the prior post. Extending part of the ownership would be a disaster.

 

[KingRichard]

So if it takes 3 years for Disney to sell out direct then there is only 47 years left on contract? I think the lease is for more then 50 years?

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, DVC leases land with 50 year expirations. DVC might have extra time available on VWL, BCV and BWV since they were all sold as 2042 expirations.

As we learned from the OKW extension, DVC extended everyone’s contract from 2042-2057 and then asked owners to either buy the extension or deed the extension back to DVC. That was a bad idea for selling an extension, but shows an extension can be added to every contract.

Oops, I guess I should have read the prior post. Extending part of the ownership would be a disaster.

I am pretty sure that the lease on land for the 2042 resorts was not 50 years, but however many years to get to 2042.

I am not sure which resorts started with the 50 year, but I believe SSR?

 

[Noodlez]

So if it takes 3 years for Disney to sell out direct then there is only 47 years left on contract? I think the lease is for more then 50 years?

The first part of this is correct! Riviera expires in 2070, even if it doesn’t sell out for another 5 years. Aulani has an expiry of 2062 (42 years) but they still haven’t sold it out. They can’t increase the expiry because it didn’t sell as well as they’d hoped.

 

[Sandisw]

So if it takes 3 years for Disney to sell out direct then there is only 47 years left on contract? I think the lease is for more then 50 years?

Yes, if someone doesn’t buy a resort as soon as it opens, they get however many years are left,

The end date of the lease is constant and doesn’t change, So, someone buying BLT today, would still have their contract expire in 2060, because that is when the land lease ends.

 

[Frogman88]

People here better get used to this bug change because there not be large crowds at Disney any more or deals.

this was bound to happen sooner than later this mass consumption of resources and on demand entertainment is going to slow down is not just covid it’s the oil it’s stock markets it food supply

you people obsessed with wanting to go back or complain about points you better count ur losses and move on there’s people losing more than just points.

 

[KingRichard]

Yes, if someone doesn’t buy a resort as soon as it opens, they get however many years are left,

The end date of the lease is constant and doesn’t change, So, someone buying BLT today, would still have their contract expire in 2060, because that is when the land lease ends.

Yes I understand. We are not talking about a resort that has been open for 10 years?

So if you can't buy direct in the first year and with them increasing the cost every year then they are really stealing from people!

 

[Sandisw]

Yes I understand. We are not talking about a resort that has been open for 10 years?

So if you can't buy direct in the first year and with them increasing the cost every year then they are really stealing from people!

How?

Anyone buying today, no matter what the resorts, knows how many years their ownership will last.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

I just responded in another post, but thought it fit here as well I was looking up the banking rules, and it said Disney can temporarily stop allowing points to be banked if it going to negatively impact future use. Want to bet that is what happens next?

 

[mgarbowski]

I just responded in another post, but thought it fit here as well I was looking up the banking rules, and it said Disney can temporarily stop allowing points to be banked if it going to negatively impact future use. Want to bet that is what happens next?

I think they might have done that if they had not already bent the rules to favor borrowers. But I think they cannot make those 2 rule changes in combination. You can sort of justify helping borrowers while not helping bankers. It's nearly impossible to justify changing rules both to help borrowers and separately to hurt bankers. To be clear, I'm not talking legalities. It might be fully legal. I'm just talking about member satisfaction and public perceptions of fairness.

 

[Sandisw]

I think they might have done that if they had not already bent the rules to favor borrowers. But I think they cannot make those 2 rule changes in combination. You can sort of justify helping borrowers while not helping bankers. It's nearly impossible to justify changing rules both to help borrowers and separately to hurt bankers. To be clear, I'm not talking legalities. It might be fully legal. I'm just talking about member satisfaction and public perceptions of fairness.

I think if anything were to be suspended it would be further borrowing, and not out of fairness, but because borrowing adds more points and right now, they do not need any more points brought forward,

Of course, the other option is they do both for the next few years, but I think if they open in June, I am hoping neither will be needed

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yes I understand. We are not talking about a resort that has been open for 10 years?

So if you can't buy direct in the first year and with them increasing the cost every year then they are really stealing from people!

OKW started with 50 years and until SSR all the others were given the same 2042 end date including BCV which opened in 2002 so it only ever had 40 to start. VB opened in 1995, HHI and BWV in 1996 and VWL in 2000 and all end in 2042 - it appears that DVC thought it would completely end in 2042. Then someone realized it that was a stupid money decision…...

It's not quite the same value for those who buy later vs when a resort opens but it's nothing hidden and there can still be value. Just not the same value. In theory resale contracts would adjust for the years that have passed. That's been rather mixed though.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I think this can be restated. Disney is not 'favoring' borrowers. The fact is the future is still in front of us. Mitigating damages starting with point that can be shoved into the future, without breaking laws/rules gives Disney time to figure the rest out. An initial step that helped with several issues. Imagine disney just making the banked points immediately void.

Borrowing and banking are very different things with different risks. Every banker knows that there is an end date and that it is final. Most owners have probably had points vanish at the end of the use year or a cheap forced sale with a broker.

To date the actions by Disney generally are smart, calculated to do the 'right' thing and help owners and keep a balance in system. I don't believe they are done and do think there will be some action(s) to help banked point even though I would not guess as to what it would be.

I think they might have done that if they had not already bent the rules to favor borrowers. But I think they cannot make those 2 rule changes in combination. You can sort of justify helping borrowers while not helping bankers. It's nearly impossible to justify changing rules both to help borrowers and separately to hurt bankers. To be clear, I'm not talking legalities. It might be fully legal. I'm just talking about member satisfaction and public perceptions of fairness.

 

[Noodlez]

So if you can't buy direct in the first year and with them increasing the cost every year then they are really stealing from people!

I'm not sure why you feel it is stealing. I bought direct at Beach Club with less than 30 years left. I was fully aware of what I was buying and that the points had been much cheaper in the past. I don't feel they took anything without my consent and I wasn't misled in any way. As you actually have to request and often wait for points at sold out resorts I can't see anyone being able to do this without knowing what they're asking for.

 

[mgarbowski]

I think this can be restated. Disney is not 'favoring' borrowers. The fact is the future is still in front of us. Mitigating damages starting with point that can be shoved into the future, without breaking laws/rules gives Disney time to figure the rest out. An initial step that helped with several issues. Imagine disney just making the banked points immediately void.

This makes no sense. Once points have been borrowed they are not in the future. They are in the present. Standard rules forbid sending them back to the future because borrowing roughly offsets banking. Disney suspended those rules to allow borrowers to return those points into the future. There will be a room shortage in the future (see below) and allowing people to unborrow made it worse.

Borrowing and banking are very different things with different risks. Every banker knows that there is an end date and that it is final.

Borrowing and banking are very different things with different risks. Every borrower knows that borrowing cannot be undone and that it is final.

Four words change but there is no substantive difference. The risk of banking is an immovable deadline. The risk of borrowing is it cannot be undone. People took both risks and DVCM decided to save one group from their decision but not the other.

To date the actions by Disney generally are smart, calculated to do the 'right' thing and help owners and keep a balance in system. I don't believe they are done and do think there will be some action(s) to help banked point even though I would not guess as to what it would be.

I doubt Disney can or will do anything to alleviate the banking quandary. This post explains -- with solid math -- that the balance in the system is already off and getting worse every week the closure extends. DVC will face a room shortage for 3-10 years with too many points chasing to few rooms. Anything Disney does to let people undo borrowing or bank extra points make this shortfall worse. All Disney can do to help s increase inventory. There are ways to do this discussed in that thread, though they carry costs for Disney.

ETA: Also, the post to which I responded, and the subject of my post, was a suggestion that DVCM might forbid regular banking. So the invocation of "Every banker knows that there is an end date and that it is final" is irrelevant. The discussion is not about relaxing the banking rules to save people who already banked.

 

[Frogman88]

I’m predicting a Disney bailout coming soon

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Disney suspended those rules to allow [emphasis added] borrowers to return those points into the future.

One facet of this situation that I think has gotten overlooked consistently is that DVC is not "allowing" borrowers to return those points to the current UY. Rather, DVC has made the determination that those borrowed points WILL be returned to the current UY. I can only assume they have a reason for doing so (many here have provided some good theories as to why that is).

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think DVC is asking members if they want to return the points to the original UY. DVC is just doing it because that is the policy decision they made (that said, I can understand how that decision could be perceived as favoring borrowers over bankers, but as others have said... it's about the points, not the owners of those points).

I think the caveat to what I stated above would be: for those members who re-scheduled for a stay that's before the start of their next UY, DVC may just be leaving the points alone and applying them to the new reservation. However, that's really no different than DVC returning the points to the original UY and the member then borrowing them back to the current UY for the modified reservation (albeit, probably less "paperwork"/effort, which is why they might forego the intermediate step of returning the points to their original UY).