Why does DVC only allow you to transfer points once a year?

[unpaintedhuffheinz]

Why would they care? Is it a major administrative hassle for them when members transfer points amongst one another?

As I've read the threads on this board, that stipulation by DVC (only one transfer a year) comes across as a not-insignificant limit on the flexibility with which members can use their points. (Hmmm...the wording of that last sentence is a bit too clumsy for my liking, but I think my point gets across. )

 

[Doingitagain]

I think it is to avoid it becoming a "business" renting and transfering points.

 

[tjkraz]

Another reason is to keep people from bypassing the 11-month booking rules. "I hear you want to stay at BLT next year while I want to stay at BCV. You transfer me your BCV points and I'll transfer you my BLT points." Then we can both book at 11 months.

There has also been talk of a computer glitch in DVC's systems which allows transferred points to assume a different Home resort. Speculation was that DVC started enforcing the written rules better to keep people from exploiting that weakness.

Whether or not that's true, there are still numerous valid reasons for having the 1x per year limit. Not the least of which is to get you to buy more points if you run short rather than looking for a transfer.

 

[Caskbill]

I assume you understand that transfers only apply between two separate membership numbers. That is, two master contracts as opposed to one master contract with add-on contracts.

If you have one membership, master contract, with multiple add-on resorts, then at 7-months you can mix/match the points any way you want to make a reservation. No transfers are involved.

My understanding also is that if you own different master contracts, you can transfer between your own contracts more often than once a year. The once a year applies to transfers from your contract to someone else's. Maybe someone can verify this.

 

[unpaintedhuffheinz]

...not transfers between different master contracts owned by the same DVC member.

Why would DVC care if members transfer points amongst themselves? The only sensible thing that pops to mind: it's a hassle for DVC.

(However, seeing as my experience level here is lower-than-low, not much is popping to mind.)

 

[DebbieB]

I think the reason they cracked down on it is members who are making a business out of it. I don't know the exact wording but I believe the contract reads that members are not to receive compensation for transfers.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

...not transfers between different master contracts owned by the same DVC member.

Why would DVC care if members transfer points amongst themselves? The only sensible thing that pops to mind: it's a hassle for DVC.

(However, seeing as my experience level here is lower-than-low, not much is popping to mind.)

I do think the hassle is at least part of the reason. DVC's computer system does deal with transferred points well.

As you probably know, they do not show up in your online vacation points until you use them then they show up in the number of vacation points used in your "Vacation Points Detail." They are no longer reflected in my "Vacation Details" either, which means that it looks like I am staying for 9 nights in a BW view studio in Dream season for 21 points! -- Suzanne

 

[crisi]

Before they made the one transfer rule there was a lot of complaints about 'commerical renters.' People would buy a DVC contract, then they'd transfer points into their contract at a low rate - sometimes going as far as to tell the person that was renting to them a sob story about how they couldn't afford more than.... Often they were taking advantage of DVCs poor point tracking - distressed points would suddenly be 'undistressed' when moved into a contract with a more advantagous use year. So you could buy someone's points for $6 and sell them for $12. The perception was that these people were then making high demand speculative bookings (for holidays or special events) and reselling the reservation.

Many members did not think the situation was fair. Many people felt that this was negatively impacting their ability to book.

Whether this was happening or not (and it was happening, whether to the extent of the complaints or not) the one transfer rule has certainly changed the perception about this sort of behavior.

 

[bookwormde]

It seems to be a hatchet approach to solving a commercial renter problem which could have with a little thought have been handled with a few well place surgical methodologies. It does of course make it more likely that more points will go unused so that benefits DVC.

I have found that they also take this approach with many issues (take the recent wait list adjustments) because DVC IT seems to lack the ability for make “fine adjustments” to the system and to monitor their effectiveness.

bookwormde

 

[Laurabearz]

My understanding also is that if you own different master contracts, you can transfer between your own contracts more often than once a year. The once a year applies to transfers from your contract to someone else's. Maybe someone can verify this.

I have been able to transfer between my two master contracts (one Aug, one Dec) on numerous occasions.

 

[drusba]

The current rule -- one transfer in or alternatively one transfer out per use year -- was, in fact, the rule for the first 12 years of DVC. It then changed to as many in or alternatively as many out per use year as an owner desired. The perception and possible reality was that the multi-transfer rule aided the business of professional renters. Thus, about 1 1/2 to 2 years ago DVC returned to the original rule. That it was done to curb renting is most likely true since the change was announced at the same time that DVC announced that it would go to a 20 reservation rule -- you can make up to 20 reservations per year; if you try to make more you cannot do so unless you can show you are not a repeating renter.

 

[kapeman]

If you have one membership, master contract, with multiple add-on resorts, then at 7-months you can mix/match the points any way you want to make a reservation. No transfers are involved.

My understanding also is that if you own different master contracts, you can transfer between your own contracts more often than once a year. The once a year applies to transfers from your contract to someone else's. Maybe someone can verify this.

I would also like some clarification on this point and another:

1. Are multiple transfers in one UY between master contracts allowed?

2. Do tranferred points assume the home resort of the contract they are transferred to?

 

[drusba]

Transfered points do not assume the home resort of contract transfered into. They remain points of the same home resort as original owner and the same use year. DVC used to have problems doing it correctly and as a result, members reported being able to use transfered points as if they had changed into the tranferee's home resort points. My understanding also is that is a problem that has been corrected so you cannot do it anymore.

The one transfer rule does not distinguish between one owner and two different owners, i.e., one owner with two separate contracts (meaning he likely has two different use years) can make only one transfer per use year between his separate contracts under the rule. However, I know many years back DVC allowed multiple transfers for such an owner among his own contracts even when the rule was only one transfer per year -- it was allowed but not prescribed, i.e., Disney could choose not to allow it. Whether it is still allowing that I do not know.

 

[tjkraz]

It seems to be a hatchet approach to solving a commercial renter problem which could have with a little thought have been handled with a few well place surgical methodologies.

I would agree...if commercial renting were the sole reason for the limitation. Curbing commercial renting may be the primary motivating factor behind the transfer limit, but it is hardly the only one.

[/quote] It does of course make it more likely that more points will go unused so that benefits DVC.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see where DVC directly benefits from unused points. Unused points equates to vacant rooms. Vacant rooms are sold thru CRO / DVC member cash discount (or they sit empty), and proceeds from the cash bookings are credited to member dues.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...I don't see where DVC directly benefits from unused points. Unused points equates to vacant rooms. Vacant rooms are sold thru CRO / DVC member cash discount (or they sit empty), and proceeds from the cash bookings are credited to member dues.

Except that unused rooms don't require housekeeping, clean linens, electricity, etc that occupied rooms do. So it could be a savings to DVC.

The one transfer per UY (in or out) was in my Public Offering Statement (POS) from 1997.

 

[drusba]

I don't see where DVC directly benefits from unused points. Unused points equates to vacant rooms. Vacant rooms are sold thru CRO / DVC member cash discount (or they sit empty), and proceeds from the cash bookings are credited to member dues.

Though I do not believe the change in the transfer rule was done to assure points went unused so Disney could rent the space, you are only partly correct that proceeds from cash bookings are credited to member's dues. I believe you are referring to the 60 day rental rule which says Disney can rent rooms still available at 60 days out and that proceeds go to offset dues. The amount that goes to offset dues has a cap of 2% of the annual operating budget for a resort. Once that level is reached, any rental income above that percentage goes to Disney. Typically when you see your annual dues statement, you will that the 2% level has been reached but you won't know how much they made over and above that 2%. There have been discussions before which indicate it is very easy for Disney to get well over that 2% (by many millions total all resorts)

 

[bookwormde]

DVC has a 2-4% maintenance inventory, if they have unrented rooms from “lost points” then they can use them for maintenance and cashbook their inventory.

bookwormde

 

[tjkraz]

DVC has a 2-4% maintenance inventory, if they have unrented rooms from “lost points” then they can use them for maintenance and cashbook their inventory.

To do so would be a violation of the POS.

DVD has committed to retaining at least 2% ownership for maintenance purposes. If some or all of those points are used to rent out rooms, by definition it is no longer holding 2% for maintenance.

DVC can only profit from rooms via unsold points, ROFRed points, points from trades out of DVC and the like.

If rooms are unbooked, not flagged for maintenance and not drawn from DVD's pool of points, revenues would be consider "breakage" and credited to annual dues. drusba is correct in that there is a cap on annual breakage revenues, but I'm not sure I would label that a cash cow DVC is looking to exploit. In fact the 2010 reallocation is pretty likely to reduce the breakage bookings due to the decline in weekend point costs.

 

[anna08]

Pardon me please for being slow, but I'm trying to figure out why someone would transfer points between their own contracts if they retain their original home resort status?

 

[Deb & Bill]

Pardon me please for being slow, but I'm trying to figure out why someone would transfer points between their own contracts if they retain their original home resort status?

So you can use all the points at 7 months out. Or if they are the same home resort but different UY. I have two contracts (one smaller one with a different UY, but same resort as my original contract). So I transfer the points from the smaller one to the larger one and can use them all at 11 months out to make my reservation. With a separate UY, you can't combine points from both to make a single night unless you transfer.