DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure why they would have to do this though. I don’t know if they have to make it 2 separate pools of pts/units, ever. Maybe I’m over simplifying it so I can understand better so I’m probably wrong here, but if the trust is just like you or I who gets to purchase X points through DVD then they should have 11mo access to whatever resorts are in their portfolio. And so, whoever “rents” or buys trust points from them also gets 11mo access to whatever resorts are in their portfolio. The only difference is if the trust owns 1000 RIV pts, 2000 VDH pts, 2000 AUL pts, 3000 CFW pts, 3000 Poly pts, 100 VGF pts and 100 BCV pts then trust purchasers only have that pool of points to work with at 11mo, right?

I also think as people buy into the trust, aka the trust buys more deeded pts from undeclared resorts, the more that ultimately is declared for all of DVD (Including for us deeded owners) because that’s what would happen if there was a lot of purchases by deeded random/individual owners at the resorts.

The question still remains that when someone purchases from the trust, and therefore the trust can purchase more deeded points for itself, how does the trust allocates the purchase of its points amongst the resorts in its portfolio. I guess the simplest answer would be to distribute it equally amongst the undeclared units in the portfolio. So if someone purchases 100 trust pts and the portfolio of active resorts includes RIV, VDH, CFW, AUL, and Poly2, then the trust in turn purchases 20pts at each resort, until the resorts are fully declared and sold out.

Of course, it’s very different for sold out resorts but I still think this works but only as the trust picks up more and more resale pts at sold out resorts. I think they’ll likely start ROFRing a lot of pts over the course of the next few years and once they have a good amount of resale pts at the legacy resorts then it will add them to the trust portfolio. I agree I think it would be a bad idea to add sold out resorts from the onset so they’ll probably wait.

If the trust spreads its pts evenly throughout the year and actually sticks to only the amount of pts it owns at each resort then I don’t think it’ll add too much more competition for deeded owners but make it very difficult for trust owners. If they don’t distribute their pts over the year and let trust owner book all of the 1000 RIV pts at once then it might make already hard to get times/rooms a bit more difficult but once the amount of pts owned by the trust are finished then they have no more pts to use until 7mo where trust owners will be left with few choices. Idk seems like a bit of a lose/lose for trust owners but I’m sure I’m missing something.

Is my understanding wrong here? As long as they keep it like this I’d be ok with it, I probably still wouldn't buy into it, but ultimately, I think DVD is going to try to make the trust more appealing so they probably won’t follow these rules so that’s where we deeded owners will have to be more vigilant in making sure whatever has been promised to us isn’t compromised.

Much of what you say is my thinking. In terms of points that are tied to currently declared units that have been sold with deeded interests to others, the points the trust owns in those units would have the same 11 month booking ability that you are I have.

My suggestion regarding holding them away from trust members for a month was more to keep things cleaner for booking in terms of the way I think about the current POS rules.

A trust is going to give access to a large number of members trying to use its one pool of points and why I think it might be messy with the resorts that have all its units declared.

Once we know more and things take shape...whenever that may be...I will be keeping a very close eye on how it is and the documents that are submitted.

 

[Sandisw]

I've read in a previous post that other trusts allow each month to use 1/12 of the points owned at that resort.

I also think if they declare in the trust units in a resort that sells also deeded points, they have to set aside a percentage of nights for each unit type to be booked.
If they allow free for all at 8am and 100k trust owners compete with a few hundreds deeds owners for the high demand rooms (think Poly duo studios), most of those will go to trust owners just by sheer power of numbers.
Instead, if the trust owns 20% of points at Poly, they can set aside 20% of nights for duo studios, deluxe studios at the tower, 1BR, 2BR, bungalows and longhouse studios spread evenly over the year.
It goes against the most restrictive interpretation of the existing POS, but it's difficult to argue it's unfair for anyone.
Other systems have enrolled existing resorts into their trusts and they've resisted legal challenge. That creates a precedent. It's hard to think DVC will give up on free money created out of thin air (upwelling existing owners into the trust). If they ask, for example $25-100pp to enroll, it's potentially billions of almost pure profit.

Having the trust take out inventory would be something that would be a tough one for me...however, you do make a good point in that it might be a fairer solution than to have all those trust owners competing against the deeded owners.

But, its also why I can see this getting set up to start with units from 5 resorts that can easily transition into this model and slowly, over time, add units for home resort priority from the other resorts. Well, at least that is what I am hoping.

If they put the Poly tower, CFW and the others all in a trust, it may actually be something to consider for a direct purchase for me....

 

[zavandor]

Much of what you say is my thinking. In terms of points that are tied to currently declared units that have been sold with deeded interests to others, the points the trust owns in those units would have the same 11 month booking ability that you are I have.

My suggestion regarding holding them away from trust members for a month was more to keep things cleaner for booking in terms of the way I think about the current POS rules.

A trust is going to give access to a large number of members trying to use its one pool of points and why I think it might be messy with the resorts that have all its units declared.

Once we know more and things take shape...whenever that may be...I will be keeping a very close eye on how it is and the documents that are submitted.

What you say would be exceptional for deeded owners. But I don't think it'll happen because it's not in DVC interest.
They want to sell the Trust as a premium product at a higher cost (multiple 11 months privilege is better than one 11 months privilege). If thebTrust has an evident disadvantage it would be more difficult to sell for more.
All other Trusts have enrolled weeks of existing units.

 

[Cfabar1]

Right now, once declared, all owners have 100% access to all rooms each day…DVD has to follow the same rules to use their points as the rest of us.

So, if the trust has 10% of the resort, they don’t get to take 10% of the rooms each day away from deeded owners to offer to the trust..

This is so important to make sure doesn't happen...

Does the POS explain how Disney can "undeclare" inventory? I assume they must have that ability to some extent? But maybe they can't....

 

[tjkraz]

So, if the trust has 10% of the resort, they don’t get to take 10% of the rooms each day away from deeded owners to offer to the trust..

This is so important to make sure doesn't happen...

What's the upshot to having more availability go to whichever group happens to hit the enter key faster at 8:00:01am? Why wouldn't it serve the greater good to have two separate buckets which correspond to each group's ownership percent?

 

[dioxide45]

I'm picturing Moonlight Magic like registration ques to book a studio at RIV/DH/Poly as a trust owner.

IMO a trust model subsidizes poorly selling, expensive to maintain resorts by bundling them with popular better selling resorts. Hope I'm wrong and there's some creative solution for trust owners who own millions of AUL points with no intentions of buying airfare.

You are right on the AUL points and how they would work in the trust. The trust model also sells on the ability to book at any popular resort at 7 months.

 

[Cfabar1]

What's the upshot to having more availability go to whichever group happens to hit the enter key faster at 8:00:01am? Why wouldn't it serve the greater good to have two separate buckets which correspond to each group's ownership percent?

my view is that owners bought in told there is a fixed number of points available at the resort. So, if you take away inventory from the resort, that is a disadvantage to the current owners. You have made their resort "smaller" by pulling the inventory out of their deeded interest, which is reflected as a percentage on their contract.

While initially having a few owners in the trust fight over a few rooms while the majority are still available for the deeded owners, over time, especially if DVC got aggressive with ROFR, the percentages could flip flop...

It gets even weirder in some respects too because how do you pull inventory out based on how the POS is written? That's a huge source of the OKW-E controversy, and it feels like this would be that problem as well, and possibly even amplified.

For undeclared inventory, Disney is the owner, and it can do with it, whatever it would like. Especially for items not even marketed yet.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

My suggestion regarding holding them away from trust members for a month was more to keep things cleaner for booking in terms of the way I think about the current POS rules.

A trust is going to give access to a large number of members trying to use its one pool of points and why I think it might be messy with the resorts that have all its units declared.

Ahhh I see what you’re saying definitely makes sense. But I agree with @zavandor, DVD is unlikely to give any perceived advantage to deeded owners when they want the premium product to be the trust.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

What's the upshot to having more availability go to whichever group happens to hit the enter key faster at 8:00:01am? Why wouldn't it serve the greater good to have two separate buckets which correspond to each group's ownership percent?

my view is that owners bought in told there is a fixed number of points available at the resort. So, if you take away inventory from the resort, that is a disadvantage to the current owners. You have made their resort "smaller" by pulling the inventory out of their deeded interest, which is reflected as a percentage on their contract.

Exactly this. And I think this is what @Sandisw has been trying to say that changing the available inventory goes against the POS for fully declared resorts, so where this could work for still undeclared inventory, it gets messy for the rest. You’re taking away rooms that have always been available to current owners, that won’t go over well, nor should it.

While initially having a few owners in the trust fight over a few rooms while the majority are still available for the deeded owners, over time, especially if DVC got aggressive with ROFR, the percentages could flip flop...

And this is also a worry I had for the future of DVC. Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but this would pretty much be the end of the current DVC program as we have it today. Once you start taking away things from deeded owners it becomes less and less appealing to purchase a deed from a single resort (loss of inventory and consequently increased competition) and so the “benefits” of owning in the trust is inarguable. I assume that’s what Disney wants in the long term.

All this being said, I think DVD is using the trust to lay out the foundations for what they’re going to do in 2042. I’m not sure they’re going to risk pissing off the huge number of current members too much by doing anything to outright disadvantage deeded owners right now, or even in the foreseeable future, but once the 2042 resorts expire they will gain a lot of control back and the trust is the medium of doing so. Maybe that’s me being naive though.

 

[tjkraz]

my view is that owners bought in told there is a fixed number of points available at the resort. So, if you take away inventory from the resort, that is a disadvantage to the current owners. You have made their resort "smaller" by pulling the inventory out of their deeded interest, which is reflected as a percentage on their contract.

While initially having a few owners in the trust fight over a few rooms while the majority are still available for the deeded owners, over time, especially if DVC got aggressive with ROFR, the percentages could flip flop...

It gets even weirder in some respects too because how do you pull inventory out based on how the POS is written? That's a huge source of the OKW-E controversy, and it feels like this would be that problem as well, and possibly even amplified.

For undeclared inventory, Disney is the owner, and it can do with it, whatever it would like. Especially for items not even marketed yet.

Maybe we're talking about two different things, then. I'm focusing almost entirely on the undeclared resorts, assuming that Riviera, Aulani, Poly, FTW and VDH will all be part of the initial launch. Setting aside what we all think may or may not be permissible under the POS, pre-assigning blocks of rooms at 11 months for either deeded or Trust inventory seems like the most equitable way of handling it.

Right now, Riviera is only 75% declared. Current owners only have access to 256 of the 341 rooms every night of the year. The other 85 are still Disney's property, existing outside of the timeshare. If Disney wants to put some or all of those 85 rooms into the Trust, current owners lose nothing. And it seems like the approach that would create the least pain for everyone involved.

As for the sold out resorts, not sure I even want to go down that road until we know if that's something DVC intends to pursue. Having a tiny number of points from other resorts in the Trust won't benefit many people. I would be mostly a marketing ploy. Unless they offer current owners some path to willingly join the Trust.

 

[tom1944]

We know that a trust will benefit Disney more than the current model or else they will not do it.

So, on the customer side what type of user would benefit more from a trust than the current model of direct or resale purchase of one resort per contract?

 

[Sandisw]

What's the upshot to having more availability go to whichever group happens to hit the enter key faster at 8:00:01am? Why wouldn't it serve the greater good to have two separate buckets which correspond to each group's ownership percent?

I am not yet convinced fhat DVd can simply move partial units into a trust, and then sell access to them to an unlimited number of trust members to hsve equal access to them like deeded owners.

I explained in previous posts that DVD is required to have the same booking rules as the rest of us and setting up multiple accounts to access their points, when I can’t do that…limited to how many associates I can have…makes the rules different.

As an owner, we are also allowed to book all units FCFS that have been declared…minus those resorts with fixed weeks which can be sold to the 35%.

So, taking certain rooms out for trust and leaving others deeded owners violates that…because, IMO, it is DVD reserving those rooms more than 11 months in advance with their points.

Now, I can see how it might be slightly better to have that then having to compete against all the trust members…but I’d rather neither happen.

If they start fresh with units not yet declared at RIV, VDH, and AUL and For Poly tower, and CFW, set it up that way from the start to make whatever rules they want, then I see them working very well together without infringing on deeded owners.

The POS does say we are not guaranteed new phases or declarations so I do think they could amend it in a way to apply to things moving forward.

Again, it’s why I am hoping they don’t add access to sold out resorts until much later. We shall see how it works out

ETA: it looks like we may both be on the same page with new units not yet declared…in that case, I definitely think two buckets should happen and that the current POS at RIV, AUL, VDH, and PVB can be amended to add them as part of a trust system.

 

[Sandisw]

Ahhh I see what you’re saying definitely makes sense. But I agree with @zavandor, DVD is unlikely to give any perceived advantage to deeded owners when they want the premium product to be the trust.

I agree they probably wouldn’t want to volunteer to do that. If they start with the those five resorts, and not worry about the very small % of inventory they own at the resorts, they don’t have to.

Right now, it’s buy one resort for home resort advantage, Start the trust and market it with “ Instead of choosing just one of our currently selling resorts, you can buy into the trust and have access to all 5 at 11 months…the rest would be at 7 months. And, as we expand our offerings, you will gain home resort advantage to those down the line”

I just don’t see them needing to market the sold out resorts and then potentially cause issues with current owners..

 

[Tigger1]

I just want Concierge rooms to be available at all the DVC resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

I just want Concierge rooms to be available at all the DVC resorts.

That requires Disney to allow the club level lounge to become a limited common element in each DVC condo association and then give complete control of it to DVC.

I don’t see that happening but you never know!!

 

[Cfabar1]

That requires Disney to allow the club level lounge to become a limited common element in each DVC condo association and then give complete control of it to DVC.

I don’t see that happening but you never know!!

Is that how it works at AKV? The club is controlled by DVC?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Maybe we're talking about two different things, then. I'm focusing almost entirely on the undeclared resorts, assuming that Riviera, Aulani, Poly, FTW and VDH will all be part of the initial launch. Setting aside what we all think may or may not be permissible under the POS, pre-assigning blocks of rooms at 11 months for either deeded or Trust inventory seems like the most equitable way of handling it.

Right now, Riviera is only 75% declared. Current owners only have access to 256 of the 341 rooms every night of the year. The other 85 are still Disney's property, existing outside of the timeshare. If Disney wants to put some or all of those 85 rooms into the Trust, current owners lose nothing. And it seems like the approach that would create the least pain for everyone involved.

As for the sold out resorts, not sure I even want to go down that road until we know if that's something DVC intends to pursue. Having a tiny number of points from other resorts in the Trust won't benefit many people. I would be mostly a marketing ploy. Unless they offer current owners some path to willingly join the Trust.

I cant even imagine what DVC could offer me to move my fixed week #49 at CCV over to the Trust.

Maybe the real question is what could they take away from me by not moving over to the trust?

 

[ziravan]

I think the trust starts with the five new resorts but they’ll need plenty of 7 mo SAP because many of the trust beneficiaries - just like deeded owners - won’t know how to use their points effectively.

If 20-40% of the trust (seems a reasonable amount of say “last minute bookers”) are booking at 7 mos, it would be fiduciarily irresponsible for DVD to be using Poly2 for such bookings.

No.

They’re gonna want 20-40% cheaper (Aka SAPs) points to accommodate that group of owners.

Make those points VB, HH, Aul, and AKV (with some beneficiaries wanting those resorts at 11 mos), and suddenly, the trust is a very diverse product.

I don’t think DVD is gonna view owning partial units in the trust as nearly the same sort of legal issue as say the lockoff premium was. I think they’ll view the trust as them simply being aggregate deeded owners. After all, from their perspective, they already own at least 2% of each resort - and they’ll reason - isn’t that really the same thing??

 

[walt34]

After all, from their perspective, they already own at least 2% of each resort - and they’ll reason - isn’t that really the same thing??

I would assume that at 2%, 5% maybe even 10% trust ownership at a legacy resort you won't see much impact on 11 months availability for legacy owners. But at 20% or 30% trust ownership at a legacy resort those hundreds of owners using the same pool of points would certainly show a different booking pattern than the average legacy owner. My guess is that it would skew usage even more to high demand seasons, unless there is a limiting factor implemented (restricting the rooms accessible to the trust to a percentage, restricting the number of trust points at a resort that can be used each month,...)

Whether DVD will feel compelled to do something about this, is the big question.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

I would, for example, enjoy having VB in the trust because it means my dues at VB would be lower

Your dues will not be impacted one way or the other. Trust members would pay dues that represent a weighted average of the dues from the resorts that the trust owns. “Legacy” points owners would still pay dues as normal however.