DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[Genie+]

I just got an email from my guide about the Cabins at Fort Wilderness. I found this part interesting:

Membership requires purchasing a deeded ownership interest at The Cabins at Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort that expires January 31, 2075, which is typically priced at $22,700 to $60,100 (subject to change).

Yes that is weird! The end of the ‘Cabins’ DVC video says typically $34k and up….

 

[wiihoo888]

That's basically what they sell right now.

FWIW, in other timeshare systems with "trust points," (all of WorldMark, Marriott's points product, Wyndham's Access product) there is no notion of home resort.

Not entirely true. It is a charge up option in several. We don’t know a whole lot yet, but I think the big difference would be length of trust commitment vs contract and that flexibility between resorts which, again, has not been defined yet

 

[thadhouse]

Yes that is weird! The end of the ‘Cabins’ DVC video says typically $34k and up….

Thats $227 times $150. So basically proof price per point will be $227. My guess is slightly different teams writing it up, one assuming 150 minimum and one assuming 100 minimum. Not super surprising, since the 100 minimum is fairly new.

 

[kes601]

Yes that is weird! The end of the ‘Cabins’ DVC video says typically $34k and up….

Thats $227 times $150. So basically proof price per point will be $227. My guess is slightly different teams writing it up, one assuming 150 minimum and one assuming 100 minimum. Not super surprising, since the 100 minimum is fairly new.

$22,700 is from VDH. I'm guessing they copied / pasted from that email and forgot to update the CFW email.....

 

[Brian Noble]

Not entirely true. It is a charge up option in several.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

WorldMark does not sell a non-trust credits product, so there is nothing to "charge up" from.

Marriott does not sell non-trust points, though they do sell developer weeks at some non-US resorts that legally cannot be added to the trust. They also sell "bundles" of weeks plus points that tend to lower the effective per-point purchase cost, but those often come at a higher MF/point ratio.

Wyndham sells both trust points (Club Wyndham Access) and home-resort points (Club Wyndham Select), but generally charges the same for them. There are two other trusts (Prefer West and Prefer Hawaii) but those were both based on the old Shell systems.

It seems as though we are using the same words to mean completely different things, because I do not understand what point you are trying to make. Instead of continuing to try, I'm going to bow out of this particular bit of the thread.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

We so agree with this statement. More than once we've run into a family all excited about their first stay at a DVC resort, and ended up taking 15 minutes to try and properly explain some of the ins and outs and misconceptions of what they just spent thousands of dollars on. The common thread in those conversations was around the word "Club". Magically, Disney has reinvented their timeshare and has folks believing they are joining some special club - and they just had to buy into the club!

Agree! That's been THE selling point since '91... DVC Membership is Magical & is NOT like other timeshares!
We'll soon see...

 

[ljmiii]

And, I’ll go further to say that if the trust is the owner and not DVD, then some of the rules for point ownership that only apply to DVD should not apply to the trust.

The limit is 4000/8000 per owner unless DVD chooses otherwise at it's sole discretion. One assumes DVD would waive the limit for whatever entities it creates to own and administer the trust.

 

[Sandisw]

The limit is 4000/8000 per owner unless DVD chooses otherwise at it's sole discretion. One assumes DVD would waive the limit for whatever entities it creates to own and administer the trust.

I know that is likely and probably what they will do.

 

[ljmiii]

Marriott isn’t building any new resorts...

They haven't built any 'from the ground up' resorts in a long time but they have added new resorts through hotel conversions - primarily in urban locations but also in places like the Big Island and Costa Rica. Though Savannah looks like it will be essentially a 'from the ground up' build...but MVC will certainly keep at least one exterior wall up from the existing building at all times to ease permitting issues.

Creating the trust allows them to reacquire points via ROFR, foreclosure, etc. and resell them, over and over, without having to invest large amounts of capital into building new....

On the nosy. Trusts are a money making machine - sell high, buy low through ROFR, rinse and repeat. And for all those resale transactions that they don't ROFR, ensure that you get a piece of the action with every sale by demanding a sizable 'activation fee' from the new buyer.

 

[mort1331]

Big thread on a speculation...but lets keep it going....if I have trust points and legacy points..can I merge them for 1 reservation..would I need to wait till 7months like OTU points..or get them at 11months since all resorts might be Home?..hmm

 

[ziravan]

I just got an email from my guide about the Cabins at Fort Wilderness. I found this part interesting:

Membership requires purchasing a deeded ownership interest at The Cabins at Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort that expires January 31, 2075, which is typically priced at $22,700 to $60,100 (subject to change).

The video says $34,100.

This says $22,700.

Assume the video is talking about 150 pts and this ad is talking about 100 pts and DVC has tipped the starting sales price for CFW: $227/pt.

 

[Genie+]

Big thread on a speculation...but lets keep it going....if I have trust points and legacy points..can I merge them for 1 reservation..would I need to wait till 7months like OTU points..or get them at 11months since all resorts might be Home?..hmm

I’d have to guess your deeded points can only access that home resort in the priority window. If they let you match some Trust points to complete that reservation because the trust also has availability there? then maybe?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

There is no way to introduce this without someone going down a political road, but I can wish, because I think it needs to be said and I've been guilty of holding back through this entire thread for fear of the post being deleted and me being reprimanded for it, but here goes.

The other thing that could be going on here is that starting to add the DVC resorts to a trust may be a purely political and protectionist move of some kind developed by Disney's legal counsel and may be directly or indirectly related to the whole Reedy Creek Development District fiasco. That concept may not be as outlandish as you may think at first glance. This may have nothing at all to do with any sort of new offering, even though a side benefit could be that they are already in a trust later should they desire to go some sort of route like that.

Many of us here, myself included, seem to look for the most complicated and twisted thing when something breaks concerning DVC when we really ought to just consider Occum's Razor. Sometimes the simplest answer really is the answer, no matter how much we want to read between the lines and draw outside the obvious box.

 

[Genie+]

There is no way to introduce this without someone going down a political road, but I can wish, because I think it needs to be said and I've been guilty of holding back through this entire thread for fear of the post being deleted and me being reprimanded for it, but here goes.

The other thing that could be going on here is that starting to add the DVC resorts to a trust may be a purely political and protectionist move of some kind developed by Disney's legal counsel and may be directly or indirectly related to the whole Reedy Creek Development District fiasco. That concept may not be as outlandish as you may think at first glance. This may have nothing at all to do with any sort of new offering, even though a side benefit could be that they are already in a trust later should they desire to go some sort of route like that.

Many of us here, myself included, seem to look for the most complicated and twisted thing when something breaks concerning DVC when we really ought to just consider Occum's Razor. Sometimes the simplest answer really is the answer, no matter how much we want to read between the lines and draw outside the obvious box.

What advantage would a trust give DVD over the deeded variety?

 

[mkatsy]

What advantage would a trust give DVD over the deeded variety?

my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that ... if it is determined that back taxes are owed on DVC real-estate, DVC will have proactively protected their assets by placing them in a trust. The rest of us would be on the hook for a supplemental tax bill. This is what one of the members was asking about at the annual meeting. Obviously, they can't comment on pending litigation. I don't know how much water these allegations from the forensic audit hold, and I'm not really going to worry about right now. If Disney leaves their assets deeded and cannot, or will not, pay a supplemental tax bill (and a fine) the Governor could force a sale. But that's putting the cart way before the horse, they still have their day in court to even see if the allegations even have merit. It might just be the governor being a pest.

 

[Brian Noble]

What advantage would a trust give DVD over the deeded variety?

There are several reasons why a trust is useful to the developer.

First, the voting rights for the underlying owned property generally remain in the trust. This is probably less important to DVC, because the main reason this matters is electing the Board of Directors, and DVC already serves as the "authorized voting representative" for all units in those elections. But, there could be other less-common situations. For example, one of the timeshares I own is considering a vote to terminate the condominium plan--it's a long story and a very unusual situation. But, still, it happens. The DVC organizing documents do list a few situations that require a vote of the membership at large, and points conveyed to the trust would be voted by DVD, not individual owners.

The second reason is that generally the trust interests sold to buyers are not deeded. This makes recovering a non-performing ownership much easier. With a deeded interest, an owner who isn't paying their fees has to be foreclosed upon--a time-consuming action even if it is non-judicial (which Florida allows, but the owner can object to and force a judicial foreclosure). With most trust products, termination is much simpler.

A trust allows the developer to repackage less popular resorts under the umbrella of the system-at-large, which usually is a better value proposition for the prospective buyer---which means you can charge more for it. It's also easier for a good sales agent to target their sales pitch to the resort(s) that are most compelling to the buyer, and emphasize that the buyer is getting access to those resorts.

All of those are potentially even simpler explanations than "RCID/CFTOD shenanigans." In other words, there is a reason that Marriott, Wyndham, etc. have all gone down this road despite the fact that none of them are under the RCID/CFTOD thumb.

 

[mkatsy]

There are several reasons why a trust is useful to the developer.

First, the voting rights for the underlying owned property generally remain in the trust. This is probably less important to DVC, because the main reason this matters is electing the Board of Directors, and DVC already serves as the "authorized voting representative" for all units in those elections. But, there could be other less-common situations. For example, one of the timeshares I own is considering a vote to terminate the condominium plan--it's a long story and a very unusual situation. But, still, it happens. The DVC organizing documents do list a few situations that require a vote of the membership at large, and points conveyed to the trust would be voted by DVD, not individual owners.

The second reason is that generally the trust interests sold to buyers are not deeded. This makes recovering a non-performing ownership much easier. With a deeded interest, an owner who isn't paying their fees has to be foreclosed upon--a time-consuming action even if it is non-judicial (which Florida allows, but the owner can object to and force a judicial foreclosure). With most trust products, termination is much simpler.

A trust allows the developer to repackage less popular resorts under the umbrella of the system-at-large, which usually is a better value proposition for the prospective buyer---which means you can charge more for it. It's also easier for a good sales agent to target their sales pitch to the resort(s) that are most compelling to the buyer, and emphasize that the buyer is getting access to those resorts.

All of those are potentially even simpler explanations than "RCID/CFTOD shenanigans." In other words, there is a reason that Marriott, Wyndham, etc. have all gone down this road despite the fact that none of them are under the RCID/CFTOD thumb.

There are several reasons why a trust is useful to the developer.

First, the voting rights for the underlying owned property generally remain in the trust. This is probably less important to DVC, because the main reason this matters is electing the Board of Directors, and DVC already serves as the "authorized voting representative" for all units in those elections. But, there could be other less-common situations. For example, one of the timeshares I own is considering a vote to terminate the condominium plan--it's a long story and a very unusual situation. But, still, it happens. The DVC organizing documents do list a few situations that require a vote of the membership at large, and points conveyed to the trust would be voted by DVD, not individual owners.

The second reason is that generally the trust interests sold to buyers are not deeded. This makes recovering a non-performing ownership much easier. With a deeded interest, an owner who isn't paying their fees has to be foreclosed upon--a time-consuming action even if it is non-judicial (which Florida allows, but the owner can object to and force a judicial foreclosure). With most trust products, termination is much simpler.

A trust allows the developer to repackage less popular resorts under the umbrella of the system-at-large, which usually is a better value proposition for the prospective buyer---which means you can charge more for it. It's also easier for a good sales agent to target their sales pitch to the resort(s) that are most compelling to the buyer, and emphasize that the buyer is getting access to those resorts.

All of those are potentially even simpler explanations than "RCID/CFTOD shenanigans." In other words, there is a reason that Marriott, Wyndham, etc. have all gone down this road despite the fact that none of them are under the RCID/CFTOD thumb.

I agree, it's a way to repackage and shuffle points from resorts to create a new product that people will want to buy.

 

[ljmiii]

There is no way to introduce this without someone going down a political road...the whole Reedy Creek Development District fiasco...

Florida currently has the most timeshare company friendly legal system in the country and it is no surprise that DVD is incorporated there. If the Palmetto docs were filed in (say) South Carolina then that would be a major surprise that could lead one to suspect the involvement of WDC's legal counsel.

But the extraordinary advantages of a points trust to a developer over a deeded weeks or points system are reason enough for DVD to be *very* interested in creating and selling such a product. No more nefarious reason need be sought.

 

[jstaff]

I can't imagine the average DVC owner trying to follow this system (who aren't on these boards to talk about it and ask questions) if this does come to fruition. Most owners probably don't know this is potentially in the works to begin with.

Can you imagine all the guides, DVC people manning the kiosks and booths in the parks trying to explain these 2 different systems to the average family (owner or non-owner)? I find it hard to believe they would be able to get everyone on the same page to sell this. @WilsonFlyer may be onto something with the Disney lawyers wanting to protect something to do with DVC.

 

[ljmiii]

I can't imagine the average DVC owner trying to follow this system...

Can you imagine all the guides, DVC people manning the kiosks and booths in the parks trying to explain these 2 different systems to the average family (owner or non-owner)?...

They wouldn't have to because no potential buyer would hear about anything else. Once the trust becomes available that's all the salesreps would mention, "Stay in any resort, book anytime between tomorrow night and 11 months from now." It's a lot simpler than what DVC salesreps have to sell now, where they make potential buyers choose which resort they want to book at 11 months and explain to them that they can only book other ones 7 months out.

At least that's how Marriott (MVC) has worked since 2010 and now how Hilton (HGVC) works. With Marriott, you have to know enough to ask for a week and most of the salesreps give you the third degree before admitting that they can sell you one (at least in the US...property outside the US can't be part of the Abound Trust). And HGVC salesreps only want to sell you their new Trust points as well.

It is likely that DVC salesreps would allow someone 'in the know' to buy points at a resort...just like they do today for the resorts that aren't currently being promoted. But once the trust is in place it wouldn't be confusing to buyers or sellers - it's what gets sold by default.