Will a Rental Crackdown Reset DVC Resale Prices?

[Huskerpaul]

I don't think Disney has an issue with owners renting the points out themselves but I do think they are now having an issue when a commercial third party broker is being used especially when they are advertising that you can save up to 65% off. Disney is probably looking at every third party rental as lost revenue.

But that revenue loss is very small compared to the room going unoccupied and no one buying park tickets, food merch, etc.

 

[Stank]

Obviously resale values are going to be negatively impacted when (if) you remove commercial renting—you’re reducing the demand and absolute buying power in the marketplace while also adding contract supply.

DVC continues to make detrimental changes to the overall product. The fewer outlets/less flexibility to dispose of points, the less appealing it is. What goes unmentioned is how in the run-up with DVC prices, these commercial renters were a major factor. They made money on appreciation + rental/dues arbitrage. Unwinding that will absolutely undermine resale pricing with that element chased out.

 

[Sandisw]

Let's see,

One is an unfortunate work schedule that precludes being able to book at 8am (as an aside, I'd be surprised if anyone's schedule is so rigid that they can't take 5 minutes to book).

The other is by choice using a loophole in the system to gain advantage over many other owners. We all know if there were no advantage to be gained by walking, it would not be done.

These are circular arguments that we've gone round and round about. I don't really have anything else to add. As I said, I've heard all the arguments, and I'm not moved.

I was a teacher and I can tell you that I could not take the time to book at 8 am when students were there.

But, for the owners who can’t book, no matter the reason, the effect is the same.

And it’s why it is something that always will go round and round because some want qualifiers and others understand that not every owner is in the same situation and making things as wual as possible is all that can happen.

 

[Bearval]

Even if every person walks their reservation, you are still going to have the majority of days when demand doesn’t exceed supply that it won’t be an issue.

Walking is only noticed when more people want dates for rooms than rooms that exist. or want upcoming dates for more rooms than rooms exist.

If you go in today. And see rooms still there, it doesn’t mean no one is walking those rooms. People could be…you just don’t know it because it’s not a busy travel day.

And that’s the whole point…every day rooms get taken for a variety of reasons but as long as the supply outweighs the demand, then everyone who wants a room for their trip will get it…even if it means it requires a waitlist or a little extra effort.

My UY is June. I walked a 2 bedroom AKL value room from July 1 2020 to May 2021 and the next year did the same July 2021 to May 2022 ( I wasn't able to start the walk July 1st since it was not available until a week or two later . Walking works, but it sucks and isn't fair. Unfortunately until it gets "fixed" it is the only way you will ever get some of the rooms you want.

 

[Bearval]

But that revenue loss is very small compared to the room going unoccupied and no one buying park tickets, food merch, etc.

But DVC will get the points in" breakage" offer rooms discounts fill the room and make bank.

 

[tx911]

Here's a thought experiment.

1. 0% of owners walk reservations. Everyone on equal footing.

2. Now let's say that walking gets more and more common, (because we can right?)

To the point where 99% of owners walk reservations. 1% book at 8am at 11 months.

What do you suppose the odds are of that 1% getting a desired home reservation at 11 months?

It's zero. ZERO. And that 1% are probably freshly minted shiny new owners of DVC.

I think that is wrong. I do not deserve a better chance at a reservation than someone who books at 8am at 11months.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Any limitation on modifications to the window will only benefit large point holders because they can always add days to the end and eventually drop the front days when the limitation window has passed.

The system will always benefit large point holders, that can’t be an argument for or against modifications. And maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think all that many large point holders are trying to get the cheapest studios in December. I see where you’re coming from with your other points but I don’t agree that the current system is fair. But for now I’m willing to see if cracking down on rentals will help anything before we bring it back to walking.

 

[Hubalorian]

Here's a thought experiment.

1. 0% of owners walk reservations. Everyone on equal footing.

2. Now let's say that walking gets more and more common, (because we can right?)

To the point where 99% of owners walk reservations. 1% book at 8am at 11 months.

What do you suppose the odds are of that 1% getting a desired home reservation at 11 months?

It's zero. ZERO. And that 1% are probably freshly minted shiny new owners of DVC.

I think that is wrong. I do not deserve a better chance at a reservation than someone who books at 8am at 11months.

Are you arguing for what’s fair or equal? They are not synonymous with one another

 

[Brian Noble]

Given that the 2020 point charts had a reallocation across units and after they rolled it back they haven't tried again, I tend to take this as a demonstration that it's not allowed.

I can think of three (or maybe two) other allocations across units, but all prior to this.

1: The creation of Standard View at Boardwalk. (This might not have been a reallocation, but instead just lowering the points of some units before the resort was sold out. I do not know for sure. And it is possible that Standard always existed from the beginning? But I dimly remember it was created because people complained about the noise from the baggage area.)

2: The Treehouse vs. 2BR rebalance at SSR.

3: The split of SSR into Standard and Preferred.

Interestingly, when they did a similar split at OKW, they did not reallocate, but instead just created booking categories. IIRC, the creation of "near HH" was prior to the SSR Standard/Preferred split.

 

[Sandisw]

Here's a thought experiment.

1. 0% of owners walk reservations. Everyone on equal footing.

2. Now let's say that walking gets more and more common, (because we can right?)

To the point where 99% of owners walk reservations. 1% book at 8am at 11 months.

What do you suppose the odds are of that 1% getting a desired home reservation at 11 months?

It's zero. ZERO. And that 1% are probably freshly minted shiny new owners of DVC.

I think that is wrong. I do not deserve a better chance at a reservation than someone who books at 8am at 11months.

It absolutely is not zero. Even with walking, some people getting those rooms want them. If 1% of the people booking want the rooms, they get it as long as 1% of the rooms are still there.

As I said, as long as there are more rooms than people want for walkers and real guests, you have no idea how many rooms were walked.

Look at availability today and see how many rooms are completely gone..and how many have big gaps in the week before that…which means it’s not just walkers.

We can keep going but the system is set up so that all owners have the same shot for every room 365 days a year at 8 am for those rooms that are still open.

If the biggest group of walkers ar those spec renting for commercial purposes or those trying for high demand rooms, then the solution is simple. Go after the memberships that are violating the contract and changr the point chart to limit a reason for walking…by making the reasons people choose a value over a standard or a standard over a preferred less necessary, which means making it match demand.

 

[Hubalorian]

I can think of three (or maybe two) other allocations across units, but all prior to this.

1: The creation of Standard View at Boardwalk. (This might not have been a reallocation, but instead just lowering the points of some units before the resort was sold out. I do not know for sure. And it is possible that Standard always existed from the beginning? But I dimly remember it was created because people complained about the noise from the baggage area.)

2: The Treehouse vs. 2BR rebalance at SSR.

3: The split of SSR into Standard and Preferred.

Interestingly, when they did a similar split at OKW, they did not reallocate, but instead just created booking categories. IIRC, the creation of "near HH" was prior to the SSR Standard/Preferred split.

Didn’t they also rebalance Savannah view rooms and standard views rooms are AKV because of the “people pit”. They changed the categorization of some savanna view rooms to standard due to complaints about the pit. Wouldn’t this be another example of point reallocation across unit types?

 

[Sandisw]

Didn’t they also rebalance Savannah view rooms and standard views rooms are AKV because of the “people pit”. They changed the categorization of some savanna view rooms to standard due to complaints about the pit. Wouldn’t this be another example of point reallocation across unit types?

No because rooms are not declared by views in most cases.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Here's a thought experiment.

1. 0% of owners walk reservations. Everyone on equal footing.

2. Now let's say that walking gets more and more common, (because we can right?)

To the point where 99% of owners walk reservations. 1% book at 8am at 11 months.

What do you suppose the odds are of that 1% getting a desired home reservation at 11 months?

It's zero. ZERO. And that 1% are probably freshly minted shiny new owners of DVC.

I think that is wrong. I do not deserve a better chance at a reservation than someone who books at 8am at 11months.

I think there's a flaw in your logic. If 99% of owners walk, making it impossible for the 1% to get a reservation at 8am at 11 months out, then how are the walkers going to begin their walk when they must wait until 8am at 11 months out to reserve the initial dates they are going to walk from?

According to your scenario, no one (not even the walkers) would be able to get a reservation, because nothing would be available at 8am at 11 months out. But that only happens if people CAN get a reservation at 8am at 11 months out to start walking. You get into a chicken/egg logic loop.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I don't think DVD took into account back in 1992 that with development of the internet that there would be so many commercial sites to rent out unused points. Their idea of owner's renting out points would have been to friends and family which in turn could lead to more DVC memberships being sold. I would bet they never thought it would turn into a direct competition for guests to book their rooms.

This has always been my contention.

 

[Hubalorian]

No because rooms are not declared by views in most cases.

I am intrigued by this concept? Could you elaborate? Would they just be declared based on studio, 1Br, 2br and GV then?

 

[zavandor]

I can think of three (or maybe two) other allocations across units, but all prior to this.

1: The creation of Standard View at Boardwalk. (This might not have been a reallocation, but instead just lowering the points of some units before the resort was sold out. I do not know for sure. And it is possible that Standard always existed from the beginning? But I dimly remember it was created because people complained about the noise from the baggage area.)

2: The Treehouse vs. 2BR rebalance at SSR.

3: The split of SSR into Standard and Preferred.

Interestingly, when they did a similar split at OKW, they did not reallocate, but instead just created booking categories. IIRC, the creation of "near HH" was prior to the SSR Standard/Preferred split.

1 never happened. Standard was already cheaper. They did create the BW view category after the resort sold out because it was a very very common request. But in doing so they didn't change the point charts, just created a booking category like they did for OKW "Near HH". This is a sign the early management (those who wrote the POSs) believed they couldn't reallocate across units.

Other reallocations across units:

• they reclassified some theme park views as standard views at BLT (floors 1 to 5)
• they reclassified some savannah view at AKV to standard
• They reallocated some points from AKV value to AKV Club (shocking they would lover AKV value even more, but I believe the aim was to increase the cost of Club rooms and they had nowhere to go, standard and savannah rooms where too many to be able to reallocate against just a handful of club rooms)

Once they saw all those changes went unchallenged, they got greedy and we got the 2020 charts. No reallocation across units happened since.

A thing to note: with the 2020 reallocation, they essentially certified that there is an imbalance between bungalows and studios at PVB and cabins and other units at CCV. And yet, they haven't reallocated since. Their job would be to readdress the imbalance they confirmed exists, and yet they haven't, that's why I believe they think they cannot (or at least, they're not 100% sure they can).

 

[DonMacGregor]

It’s simple.

Everyone has an equal chance to book rooms, it’s just some people have more of an equal chance than others.

Well duh, you obviously don't understand how it works: "equal opportunity" and "first come, first served" at the 11-month window really means a member has an equal opportunity at the 11-month window, to book whatever rooms are left by people who actually booked (then walked) those rooms at the 13-month window...

 

[Sandisw]

I am intrigued by this concept? Could you elaborate? Would they just be declared based on studio, 1Br, 2br and GV then?

Rooms are declared as units, which can consist of different room sizes. That is now total points can be determined.

Take RIV…there could be some units that might have 2 bedrooms units, 2 bedroom lock offs, and maybe a GV. Whatever those total points are for that unit need to stay balanced.

When a resort is being built, they make their best guess as to how many rooms might be different views, and go from there.

 

[crvetter]

The system will always benefit large point holders, that can’t be an argument for or against modifications. And maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think all that many large point holders are trying to get the cheapest studios in December. I see where you’re coming from with your other points but I don’t agree that the current system is fair. But for now I’m willing to see if cracking down on rentals will help anything before we bring it back to walking.

I agree we should start by limiting those that are blatantly violating the rules first. No reason to introduce a new interpretation that is gray and counter to what they have done before without seeing how that works. But I think we both will have to disagree that making a rule that hurts smaller point holders vs larger point holders is a good move that should be done. The large point holder doesn't need to be too large, I can with just 200 points hold onto a Tower Studio for 3 weeks some seasons and have the intention of just keeping the last week once the modification restriction is limited (just keeping adding days). This might not hurt me if I keep a buffer of 1 year of banked points or my next 11 month window is far enough away and for a less in demand time.

 

[DonMacGregor]

But, it also says that it’s first come first serve and so if you go in on your 11 month window for your trip and rooms are gone, then that is a nature of the program.

But it's not first come first serve if you go in at 11 months prior to your desired travel date (and "no earlier" than that, based on the plain language in the contract you read) and rooms are gone because someone effectively booked them 2 months earlier and then walked the reservations up to your date. It's one thing to say "well, we all jumped on at 8:00 and I just wasn't fast enough", but that's not the case.

The system only becomes "fair" when a new member tries to follow the process prescribed in the POS, is repeatedly denied the room of their choice, on their desired travel date, then (hopefully) finds out through whatever source, that for those dates they need to do this thing called "walking", which essentially means that at 11 months, you're really 2 months too late.

Now, I don't have a problem with walking, per se, (although I'd like it better if people didn't need to find out about it the hard way), but I do see the ease with which it can be abused and used to secure large percentages of the most desirable rooms by commercial owners using thousands of points and bots.