It was unrealistic not to expect DVC to do something about resales

[Ben E N]

I’m still confused as to why this may deter people from buying resale at one of the original 14 resorts if you can still use your points at any of them? If I buy SSR today I can still book a Poly/GF stay correct? I just can’t book at Riviera but honestly is that really a negative thing? The only issue I see is if you buy Riviera and want to sell it down the line you may not be able to because someone who buys it resale can only stay there and nowhere else?

I’m still confused as to why this may deter people from buying resale at one of the original 14 resorts if you can still use your points at any of them? If I buy SSR today I can still book a Poly/GF stay correct? I just can’t book at Riviera but honestly is that really a negative thing? The only issue I see is if you buy Riviera and want to sell it down the line you may not be able to because someone who buys it resale can only stay there and nowhere else?

Starting in 2042, things start to get a lot more restricted. More new resorts, with those guys trading in, with less old ones for you to trade to yourself.
I would still buy resale at a place I would be comfortable staying only at, and booking at 8 or more months out, but not at a place that I would only use those points to sleep around with.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

Sunshine or not, I didn't say that to be disparaging. I'm just stating a fact that SSR, when brought into the system, introduced a huge demand disparity between home and non-home bookings.

I understand you want to separate yourself from resale buyers because you bought direct, but SSR as a whole has caused more problems for early owners who used to book their home resorts at 5 months than a resale buyer at BCV or VGF ever would. But instead, when people encounter issues, they quickly pull out the renters or resale buyer as the source of their maladies.

And you have to admit to the irony of your concern about future resale buyers, when just about any non-SSR owner could say that exact same thing about any SSR owner who trades out at 7-months regularly, direct or resale. No one is competing to get into SSR, your "chosen resort."

1.) A quick review of your past posts shows that you bought resale (fairly recently) AND you rent your points out. I'd argue that people that rent their points out are a larger problem of competing availability. And I'm not sure why you think insulting my "chosen resort" or my "dirt cheap points" (I bought direct) is a way to knock down my opinion - but it's not working. LOL!

 

[Marionnette]

I’m still confused as to why this may deter people from buying resale at one of the original 14 resorts if you can still use your points at any of them? If I buy SSR today I can still book a Poly/GF stay correct? I just can’t book at Riviera but honestly is that really a negative thing? The only issue I see is if you buy Riviera and want to sell it down the line you may not be able to because someone who buys it resale can only stay there and nowhere else?

You have the gist of the restrictions, as I understand them. I believe that a lot has to do with perception. Just because you are allowed to book at any L14 resort at 7 months, that doesn't mean that you will be able to. That really hasn't changed. What has changed is that there will be more DVC II resorts added to the mix, which creates greater competition at the L14 at 7 months. Would you be willing to pay $xx for SSR if you stood a good chance of not being able to stay anywhere else? Some people proudly state that they bought SSR and have never stayed there. Others who bought there love their home resort and choose it over all others. What makes BCV sell for $XX vs. SSR for $xx? Perception.

 

[Bing Showei]

1.) A quick review of your past posts shows that you bought resale (fairly recently) AND you rent your points out. I'd argue that people that rent their points out are a larger problem of competing availability. And I'm not sure why you think insulting my "chosen resort" or my "dirt cheap points" (I bought direct) is a way to knock down my opinion - but it's not working. LOL!

I'm not insulting SSR. I actually also bought SSR direct. I also trade out at 7-months. Just like you.

The difference is I'm not going to lament competition from cheap points at 7-months as that would be hypocrisy.

What I take issue with is as follows:

1-You bought cheap points
2-You regularly trade out those cheap points at other resorts
3-You complain about people buying cheap points to trade out at other resorts

I have no issues with people doing what you do. What I think is bizarre is doing that and then complaining about people doing it.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

I'm not insulting SSR. I actually also bought SSR direct. I also trade out at 7-months. Just like you.

The difference is I'm not going to lament competition from cheap points at 7-months as that would be hypocrisy.

What I take issue is as follows:

1-You bought cheap points
2-You regularly trade out those cheap points at a other resorts
3-You complain about people buying cheap points to trade in at other resorts

I have no issues with people doing what you do. What I think is bizarre is doing that and then complaining about people doing it.

Why on earth do you think I bought "cheap points" LOL! I can't grasp this? I bought direct - chose SSR (they had SSR/BWV/OKW available at the time) and they weren't cheap...... so I'm just not getting this.

I've stated that I HAVE transferred out at 7m - but I also said I'm FINE with that going away b/c I love SSR. Where do you see me being a hypocrite? I genuinely cannot see what about my opinion is bothering you?

And why did you not comment on the point rental? Do you not think people who rent points are also a cause of the availability issues? Not saying they're not allowed - I'm saying this contributes to the availability issue.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

As long as I can book wherever I own, and the new resorts seem like a bonus to me, I am much more alarmed at the seemingly unlimited ability of DVC to raise the number of points in a resort.

I feel lucky to have home resort privileges at the resorts I own at, and when we sell, so far, that is what I will be selling. I hope our buyers feel the same. DVC better not neglect these original properties!

YES! All of this... YES!

 

[ziravan]

Why on earth do you think I bought "cheap points" LOL! I can't grasp this? I bought direct - chose SSR (they had SSR/BWV/OKW available at the time) and they weren't cheap...... so I'm just not getting this.

I've stated that I HAVE transferred out at 7m - but I also said I'm FINE with that going away b/c I love SSR. Where do you see me being a hypocrite? I genuinely cannot see what about my opinion is bothering you?

And why did you not comment on the point rental? Do you not think people who rent points are also a cause of the availability issues? Not saying they're not allowed - I'm saying this contributes to the availability issue.

These new restrictions are also going to significantly contribute to availability issues.

Right now, an exchange is an exchange. Every trade is a level playing field. Maybe more SSR owners want to trade into Poly than vice versa but both owners have an equal opportunity to trade, and that creates an equal amount of fluidity in the system.

Depending how the POS for the new resorts are structured, the possibility exists for an unlevel playing field, where more total owners have access to the L14 than L14 owners have access to trade into.

That’s going to create an imbalance that will crimp everybody’s 7 month window - even more than it is now.

Remember, if your 7 month window is pressured, the solution is to book earlier. And that in turn puts more pressure in the 7 month window as less inventory is available at that point. It’s a self-reinforcing pattern. That’s what we’re seeing now and these changes will seriously exacerbate this trend.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

These new restrictions are also going to significantly contribute to availability issues.

Right now, an exchange is an exchange. Every trade is a level playing field. Depending how the POS for the new resorts are structured, the possibility exists for an unlevel playing field, where more total owners have access to the L14 than L14 owners have access to trade into.

That’s going to crimp everybody’s 7 month window - even more than it is now.

Yes, your "exchange" example makes perfect sense, great way to look at it - and I can see how this new rule will make it more difficult in the long term to trade in at 7m. However, while I agree that this is a negative (I do enjoy staying at other places at times) I really am happy if I get "stuck" at my home SSR and WDW. Which is what I bought in for - the 7m was a "perk" but I didn't buy for that - so I'm not heartbroken if it becomes more difficult.

 

[jade1]

Yes, your "exchange" example makes perfect sense, great way to look at it - and I can see how this new rule will make it more difficult in the long term to trade in at 7m. However, while I agree that this is a negative (I do enjoy staying at other places at times) I really am happy if I get "stuck" at my home SSR and WDW. Which is what I bought in for - the 7m was a "perk" but I didn't buy for that - so I'm not heartbroken if it becomes more difficult.

Yep, we took the old "buy where you want to stay" route and are now stuck at BCV, BWV, VWL and BLT.

 

[Marionnette]

And why did you not comment on the point rental? Do you not think people who rent points are also a cause of the availability issues? Not saying they're not allowed - I'm saying this contributes to the availability issue.

Owners who rent their point comprise a very small percentage of owners as a whole. If people who currently rent out their points ceased to do so, they would still use their points. They will either use them for themselves, trade into RCI or the Disney Collection (if they can). None of those actions will create availability for other DVC members because every trade out results in a villa of equal value being removed from DVC inventory.

I believe that the current 7-month availability issue has been created by two things:

1. the sale and resale of small contracts to owners who bought specifically to book studios at their home resorts (and don't trade out at 7 months)
2. point-sucking bungalows/cabins at resorts where not enough large contracts were sold to support booking them 365 days a year.

 

[jade1]

Owners should either not care about the change (if they never plan to sell), or be concerned about the devaluation of their holding, as this change affects all DVC members whether they bought resale or direct. There is no logical reason any owner should be happy about additional restrictions imposed by Disney on what they can or can not do with their ownership interest.

Generally agree, but if this causes Riviera to fall from $200 a point direct, to under $100 a point resale (and we can only stay there) I will grab that for sure.

 

[Bing Showei]

Why on earth do you think I bought "cheap points" LOL! I can't grasp this? I bought direct - chose SSR (they had SSR/BWV/OKW available at the time) and they weren't cheap...... so I'm just not getting this.

Your direct points were cheaper than what recent resale buyers of most non-OKW/SSR WDW resort are paying. So yes, even direct, your SSR points are cheap points being used to book at other people's home resorts. Which again, I have no problem with.

I've stated that I HAVE transferred out at 7m - but I also said I'm FINE with that going away b/c I love SSR. Where do you see me being a hypocrite? I genuinely cannot see what about my opinion is bothering you?

It doesn't matter if you're "FINE" with staying at SSR because if you are regularly booking elsewhere your points are just as much a problem as a resale SSR purchaser's points.

What you actually said that was bothersome was that you are glad you will be "no longer competing with "future" resales buyers that paid $xx at another resort in order to use those points at my chosen resort."

That statement suggests two things:

One, that you take issue with someone buying into the system for cheap.

Two, you see resale buyers as represent some sort of unfair competition with your direct points.

As an early SSR direct owner, you did buy in cheap. I would guess less than $100/point? Whatever it was, your trading out at 7-months, which you admit to doing most times, has the same exact effect as someone who two weeks ago bought SSR at $110/point resale to do the same thing you're doing.

The fact is that your "chosen resort" (SSR - where you bought) is regularly the last WDW resort to book up, so you're probably not complaining about people taking your SSR reservations away from you with their cheap points. In all likelihood, you're complaining about people competing with you to book a non-SSR resort. And that to me, is hypocritical. You regularly book at 7 months elsewhere but don't want future resale buyers to do the same with their $110 SSR points.

And why did you not comment on the point rental? Do you not think people who rent points are also a cause of the availability issues? Not saying they're not allowed - I'm saying this contributes to the availability issue.

But.. but... renters! Off topic, but OK, let's play that game.

I own those points, correct? If I gave them to my cousin to use, would you take issue with that? If my friend wants to take his family there and I charge him the ADs to use my points, would you take issue with that? If my family decided we're going to take an extra trip (instead of renting them out), would you take issue with that? Those are points that I bought. How I use them should not be an issue to anyone. If I didn't own those points, someone else would. The availability issues would not change. I understand you'd like to undercut my points about your hypocrisy, but the renting of points I don't use is really not the way to go about it. I would suggest you go back to what I said, and maybe pick apart the three points I take issue with which is namely:

1-You bought cheap points
2-You regularly trade out those cheap points at other resorts
3-You complain about people buying cheap points to trade out at other resorts

Punch some holes in that, maybe.

But availability issues being pinned on renters is a bit of a distraction from what we're discussing. And as I mentioned earlier, renters and resale buyers are the favorite punching bags of some direct owners who have trouble booking at <7months... that gets old.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

Owners who rent their point comprise a very small percentage of owners as a whole. If people who currently rent out their points ceased to do so, they would still use their points. They will either use them for themselves, trade into RCI or the Disney Collection (if they can). None of those actions will create availability for other DVC members because every trade out results in a villa of equal value being removed from DVC inventory.

I believe that the current 7-month availability issue has been created by two things:

1. the sale and resale of small contracts to owners who bought specifically to book studios at their home resorts (and don't trade out at 7 months)
2. point-sucking bungalows/cabins at resorts where not enough large contracts were sold to support booking them 365 days a year.

But if the percentage were that small - I'm not sure there'd be people/companies that have made a profitable business out of renting. I think many people overbought what they're real interest was - thinking "I'll rent when I don't use" and now I'm competing with non-DVC owners that rented their points from someone else who maybe had no intention of ever using the 600 point he/she bought. In addition, I do firmly believe that many (not all - but MANY) renters don't comprehend the dues/maintenance fees we pay and as a result, don't take the same "care" that many owners do of the units/etc. which negatively effects our dues. I'm not a fan of renting our points and would argue that this has a more negative affect on my ownership (for me) than losing me 7m window. It's all in what is important to you about your membership.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

Your direct points were cheaper than what recent resale buyers of most non-OKW/SSR WDW resort are paying. So yes, even direct, your SSR points are cheap points being used to book at other people's home resorts. Which again, I have no problem with.

It doesn't matter if you're "FINE" with staying at SSR because if you are regularly booking elsewhere your points are just as much a problem as a resale SSR purchaser's points.

What you actually said that was bothersome was that you are glad you will be "no longer competing with "future" resales buyers that paid $xx at another resort in order to use those points at my chosen resort."

That statement suggests two things:

One, that you take issue with someone buying into the system for cheap.

Two, you see resale buyers as represent some sort of unfair competition with your direct points.

As an early SSR direct owner, you did buy in cheap. I would guess less than $100/point? Whatever it was, your trading out at 7-months, which you admit to doing most times, has the same exact effect as someone who two weeks ago bought SSR at $110/point resale to do the same thing you're doing.

The fact is that your "chosen resort" (SSR - where you bought) is regularly the last WDW resort to book up, so you're probably not complaining about people taking your SSR reservations away from you with their cheap points. In all likelihood, you're complaining about people competing with you to book a non-SSR resort. And that to me, is hypocritical. You regularly book at 7 months elsewhere but don't want future resale buyers to do the same with their $110 SSR points.

But.. but... renters! Off topic, but OK, let's play that game.

I own those points, correct? If I gave them to my cousin to use, would you take issue with that? If my friend wants to take his family there and I charge him the ADs to use my points, would you take issue with that? If my family decided we're going to take an extra trip (instead of renting them out), would you take issue with that? Those are points that I bought. How I use them should not be an issue to anyone. If I didn't own those points, someone else would. The availability issues would not change. I understand you'd like to undercut my points about your hypocrisy, but the renting of points I don't use is really not the way to go about it. I would suggest you go back to what I said, and maybe pick apart the three points I take issue with which is namely:

1-You bought cheap points
2-You regularly trade out those cheap points at other resorts
3-You complain about people buying cheap points to trade out at other resorts

Punch some holes in that, maybe.

But availability issues being pinned on renters is a bit of a distraction from what we're discussing. And as I mentioned earlier, renters and resale buyers are the favorite punching bags of some direct owners who have trouble booking at <7months... that gets old.

The repeated verbose paragraphs attempting to make your point are falling on deaf ears here - I've stayed at SSR probably close to 75% of my trips over the past 12 years of ownership - by choice. You admitted you bought in to SSR - but have said that SSR owners are those that trade and are the problem. You've also said that renting isn't the problem. SO - It appears as if you bought in where you didn't necessarily want to stay - and that you rent your "cheap points" when you cant go (is that only when you can't get your 7m trade in?) So I understand why having excess points AND owning at resort you didn't want to stay at would make these changes a problem for you.

Like I said - I own where I love staying and don't own so many extra points that I need to rent them. So it just doesn't make me angry.

 

[Marionnette]

But if the percentage were that small - I'm not sure there'd be people/companies that have made a profitable business out of renting. I think many people overbought what they're real interest was - thinking "I'll rent when I don't use" and now I'm competing with non-DVC owners that rented their points from someone else who maybe had no intention of ever using the 600 point he/she bought. In addition, I do firmly believe that many (not all - but MANY) renters don't comprehend the dues/maintenance fees we pay and as a result, don't take the same "care" that many owners do of the units/etc. which negatively effects our dues. I'm not a fan of renting our points and would argue that this has a more negative affect on my ownership (for me) than losing me 7m window. It's all in what is important to you about your membership.

And now you're throw in red herrings.

Whether or not a renter takes appropriate care of a villa is immaterial as to why you can't book a non-home resort at 7 months. You are not "competing" with those renters. You're not even "competing" with the person who spent $XX for their points at a desirable resort (or at least it's so desirable that you're upset that their renter gets to use that villa when you can't). Your competition is with other owners who want to book that resort at 7 months. And if some of those owners are renting their reservation to another party, well whether you like it or not, they got there before you did and their points have every ounce of value that your points have. Renting is permitted by DVC and we all have to accept that.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

No red herrings here... we were discussing what parts of our DVC contract negatively effect us - for "me" that is "renting." (PS - I rented before I bought - I'm not opposed to it entirely - but do feel as if its become a business for MANY people that gave them a reason to buy an enormous amount of points they didn't intend on using - and turning a profit.)

And I don't understand why everyone finds it so incredibly hard to believe that some people really, genuinely, are not furious about possibly losing (or competing more) at their 7m window.

Edited to add at NO POINT did I ever say "cheap points" or that I was upset about what ANYONE ELSE paid. I referenced $XX as a placeholder - it was another poster who brought up the "cheap" reference. IMO - there is nothing "Cheap" whatsoever about buying DVC.

 

[Marionnette]

No red herrings here... we were discussing what parts of our DVC contract negatively effect us - for "me" that is "renting." (PS - I rented before I bought - I'm not opposed to it entirely - but do feel as if its become a business for MANY people that gave them a reason to buy an enormous amount of points they didn't intend on using - and turning a profit.)

And I don't understand why everyone finds it so incredibly hard to believe that some people really, genuinely, are not furious about possibly losing (or competing more) at their 7m window.

We were discussing how the new restrictions will impact us, especially at the 7-month window. You threw renting in there and you're now trying to change the narrative.

 

[Madame]

At least this SSR resaler who routinely trades out books the undesirable 1bds.... oh, wait....

 

[disneyfan2kids]

We were discussing how the new restrictions will impact us, especially at the 7-month window. You threw renting in there and you're now trying to change the narrative.

Oh good grief! If someone disagrees on here it's "changing the narrative"?

No - I just don't think the change is the end of the world for my DVC. "Note: MY DVC - ymmv."

 

[Louis morrell]

Can't we all just get along.

Points are points. It's no ones fault if you can"t get what you want when you want it. We all work within the same system.