Looks terrible to go resale

[unixgirl]

Originally Posted by Saratoska

thing is though we need the fully accessible room and there is not any nice view. the view is the bus stop so feel bit unfair

See more...

That sucks that there is no nice view for a fully accessible room

[2point]

Conflicting data out there.

1. Average length of ownership is 10 to 15 years.

2. Vast majority of sellers bought on finance.

If 1 has been derived from 2 then it doesn't give the full picture. It is just showing that people who could barely afford DVC end up selling it (at a profit or breakeven?)

I have zero problem with Disney pricing. This isn't some evil corporation that is supplying me with essentials, it's a luxury product that is increasingly popular.

The price increases are not a surprise, I'm a shareholder and the aims of the company are crystal clear in the annual report. Those graphs in the report are consistent with the expectation of the paying customer.

[2point]

Resale at Riviera does look poor value when compared to the previous offering.

Given that 14 resorts are going to be available to book until 2042 resale at the existing hasn't changed much.

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by bighal

Thats what we did too. and we don't treat it as an investment either..

Problem has always been too many people buy resale and then never stay in thier home resorts so people are finding it hard to book at thier home resorts, those that buy at Vero Beach and always stay at WDW for example.
This is one way that Disney sees as trying to stop that. Nothing wrong with it as its thier play set..

See more...

I'd say this is not correct Big Hal. It's nothing to do with people booking at 7 months- direct and resale do that in equal measure. Disney do not give a fig about that. It is shutting down and monetising the resale market for themselves. Pure and simple.
Does not effect me, as I own grandfathered original 14 DVC 1 points. I also think when anyone with the original 14 comes to sell, their points will be worth possibly more- more resale customers coming on line will be chasing those points, not to mention the direct price increases which have a knock on effect. So personally, no impact on me at all. Of course, if we sell our contracts, our buyers can also trade into all the original 14 at 7 months.
What it is doing is hammering new buyers of Riviera, if the thoughts are correct and it is not worth much resale.
Also it gives an indication of what the product has become and management's changing views. It is now a different product. But again it isnt for me as it doesn't effect me.
I suppose new buyers caveat emptor, and they need to do thier research, but sadly so few do.

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by 2point

Conflicting data out there.

1. Average length of ownership is 10 to 15 years.

2. Vast majority of sellers bought on finance.

If 1 has been derived from 2 then it doesn't give the full picture. It is just showing that people who could barely afford DVC end up selling it (at a profit or breakeven?)

I have zero problem with Disney pricing. This isn't some evil corporation that is supplying me with essentials, it's a luxury product that is increasingly popular.

The price increases are not a surprise, I'm a shareholder and the aims of the company are crystal clear in the annual report. Those graphs in the report are consistent with the expectation of the paying customer.

See more...

Agree with this in the main- the price increases for it make me happy- bolster my contract value resale. If the market will take it, they will charge it.
What I am very, very unhappy about is this lockoff premium points out of thin air issue, as is still being discussed on the other board under the lawsuit thread.

[MrsBrown]

Hi Yorkshire T, I've seen a lot of mention about the lockoff premium points, would you mind explaining to me what this is "in simple terms" please? I've stayed at Boardwalk in a studio and also in a 2 bedroom (which was lock off, but it wouldn't have mattered to us that much if we had a one bed and a studio side by side I suppose).
Thank you

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Agree with this in the main- the price increases for it make me happy- bolster my contract value resale. If the market will take it, they will charge it.
What I am very, very unhappy about is this lockoff premium points out of thin air issue, as is still being discussed on the other board under the lawsuit thread.

See more...

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by MrsBrown

Hi Yorkshire T, I've seen a lot of mention about the lockoff premium points, would you mind explaining to me what this is "in simple terms" please? I've stayed at Boardwalk in a studio and also in a 2 bedroom (which was lock off, but it wouldn't have mattered to us that much if we had a one bed and a studio side by side I suppose).
Thank you

See more...

Overall points at a resort must, most of us thought, stay the same. There's a quite sensible ability written into the POS (overarching legal framework) to allow DVCMC (the management company, run by DVD executives, DVD are the developer) to adjust the points in the member interest to balance demand.
So for example, we all know that studios are first to go. We also know October to December is now the busiest DVC time.
So if DVCMC had said, right, we will increase points October to December but decrease them say July to September by an equivalent amount, and we will also increase studios by 2 points a night but decrease 1 beds by two points a night (1 beds appearing to always be last to go), I don't think anyone could really have complained. This is a simplification to demonstrate the point.
But something strange may have happened- certainly they are claiming it has on the other board.
Across resorts generally (but not always) both studios and apparently the usually 'last to book' 1 beds have gone up in points.
Yes, some 2 beds have gone down, but it doesn't appear that the overall points in the 2 beds have gone down by the equivalent points that the studios and 1 beds have gone up. In fact on the other board, they have done some calculations and reckon the points overall have gone up quite a bit.
How can that be, given we thought if a point went up somewhere, it has to go down another?
This is where lockoff premium allegedly comes in. So say a lockoff 2 bed is 30 a night, when sold as a 1 bed that may be 22 and a studio 11. So when split up it's 33 points, the 3 points being the lockoff premium.
Now that in itself wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately it now transpires that the total points per night which have to be balanced are based on the 2 bed, not the lock off cost. So the lockoff premium doesn't get counted in the balancing exercise.
This makes me alarmed if true, because DVCMC can just put the individual 1 bed and studios up and up.
The only restriction is that DVCMC cannot increase lockoff premium by more than 20% per annum.
So take Saratoga. I believe all or nearly all 2 beds are lockoffs-, but many of these will be booked by us as studios and 1 beds. If what they are saying on the other board is correct, the 1 and 2 beds can be increased every year ad infinitum, subject to the 20% cap.
So what this does is effectively make new points out of thin air.
Now the resort is all sold, so members cannot use these new points. What these new points do is dilute the member's ability to book, so they have to either get more points, or stay less days. This is because the room is more expensive per night.
Any leftover points not used by members go to DVCMC as 'breakage' which means they can rent them for cash bookings. Great you may say, surely the income comes back to the members?
Well, only a tiny proportion does, that is capped and breakage income returned to members is already at its limit.
So DVCMC and the Disney Corp basically gets any extra profit it makes from breakage, by charging cash guests for these new points created by lockoff premium.
Not only that, but the members have paid already via dues for the running of the resort for all those extra cash guests.
Now I am in no way suggesting DVCMC has done anything wrong- I'd really like to see the data that justifies the large increases we seem to be seeing in lock off premium. I have to scratch my head, as I know 1 beds are often last to go, as to why those points went up, but maybe DVCMC can justify it. Unfortunately despite this now rumbling on for weeks, no explanation or data has been published.
For more detailed reading you should read the other board and one of the members there (who appears to have been in discussion with DVCMC) has started a whatswrongwithdvc website.
An additional issue is cabins. Most people do not buy Copper Creek or Poly to stay in cabins (couldn't afford a night). But there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of points loaded on. They must be ridiculously profitable to build. Poly owners are not happy now those points are being transferred from the cabins onto the studios. That's a separate issue to lockoff premium though, but it's something for Copper Creek owners to watch out for.
Hope this helps.

[MrsBrown]

Thank you for the detailed response, I think I follow..

We bought resale but did do the tour and were led to believe that the points would not increase so yes this has surprised me. We haven't bought that many points, thankfully and only planned to stay every 2 or 3 years. I just hope not too many more changes come about that could make it difficult to sell on in years to come. We didn't buy in with the intention of keeping it for ever and its possibly one of the silliest things we have done, but we knew that at the time. We could never have afforded (justified) the cost of boardwalk as a cash booking and have now had 2 stays there. I'd happily holiday there for ever more, unfortunately I don't think my family will.


I enjoy reading the DVC posts and its an excellent way of keeping up to date with what is actually happening.

So, thank you

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Overall points at a resort must, most of us thought, stay the same. There's a quite sensible ability written into the POS (overarching legal framework) to allow DVCMC (the management company, run by DVD executives, DVD are the developer) to adjust the points in the member interest to balance demand.
So for example, we all know that studios are first to go. We also know October to December is now the busiest DVC time.
So if DVCMC had said, right, we will increase points October to December but decrease them say July to September by an equivalent amount, and we will also increase studios by 2 points a night but decrease 1 beds by two points a night (1 beds appearing to always be last to go), I don't think anyone could really have complained. This is a simplification to demonstrate the point.
But something strange may have happened- certainly they are claiming it has on the other board.
Across resorts generally (but not always) both studios and apparently the usually 'last to book' 1 beds have gone up in points.
Yes, some 2 beds have gone down, but it doesn't appear that the overall points in the 2 beds have gone down by the equivalent points that the studios and 1 beds have gone up. In fact on the other board, they have done some calculations and reckon the points overall have gone up quite a bit.
How can that be, given we thought if a point went up somewhere, it has to go down another?
This is where lockoff premium allegedly comes in. So say a lockoff 2 bed is 30 a night, when sold as a 1 bed that may be 22 and a studio 11. So when split up it's 33 points, the 3 points being the lockoff premium.
Now that in itself wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately it now transpires that the total points per night which have to be balanced are based on the 2 bed, not the lock off cost. So the lockoff premium doesn't get counted in the balancing exercise.
This makes me alarmed if true, because DVCMC can just put the individual 1 bed and studios up and up.
The only restriction is that DVCMC cannot increase lockoff premium by more than 20% per annum.
So take Saratoga. I believe all or nearly all 2 beds are lockoffs-, but many of these will be booked by us as studios and 1 beds. If what they are saying on the other board is correct, the 1 and 2 beds can be increased every year ad infinitum, subject to the 20% cap.
So what this does is effectively make new points out of thin air.
Now the resort is all sold, so members cannot use these new points. What these new points do is dilute the member's ability to book, so they have to either get more points, or stay less days. This is because the room is more expensive per night.
Any leftover points not used by members go to DVCMC as 'breakage' which means they can rent them for cash bookings. Great you may say, surely the income comes back to the members?
Well, only a tiny proportion does, that is capped and breakage income returned to members is already at its limit.
So DVCMC and the Disney Corp basically gets any extra profit it makes from breakage, by charging cash guests for these new points created by lockoff premium.
Not only that, but the members have paid already via dues for the running of the resort for all those extra cash guests.
Now I am in no way suggesting DVCMC has done anything wrong- I'd really like to see the data that justifies the large increases we seem to be seeing in lock off premium. I have to scratch my head, as I know 1 beds are often last to go, as to why those points went up, but maybe DVCMC can justify it. Unfortunately despite this now rumbling on for weeks, no explanation or data has been published.
For more detailed reading you should read the other board and one of the members there (who appears to have been in discussion with DVCMC) has started a whatswrongwithdvc website.
An additional issue is cabins. Most people do not buy Copper Creek or Poly to stay in cabins (couldn't afford a night). But there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of points loaded on. They must be ridiculously profitable to build. Poly owners are not happy now those points are being transferred from the cabins onto the studios. That's a separate issue to lockoff premium though, but it's something for Copper Creek owners to watch out for.
Hope this helps.

See more...

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by MrsBrown

Thank you for the detailed response, I think I follow..

We bought resale but did do the tour and were led to believe that the points would not increase so yes this has surprised me. We haven't bought that many points, thankfully and only planned to stay every 2 or 3 years. I just hope not too many more changes come about that could make it difficult to sell on in years to come. We didn't buy in with the intention of keeping it for ever and its possibly one of the silliest things we have done, but we knew that at the time. We could never have afforded (justified) the cost of boardwalk as a cash booking and have now had 2 stays there. I'd happily holiday there for ever more, unfortunately I don't think my family will.


I enjoy reading the DVC posts and its an excellent way of keeping up to date with what is actually happening.

So, thank you

See more...

Sorry to hear that. Try and enjoy your DVC, it's still an excellent product. Personally I'm hoping the negative publicity about the points re allocation if it doesn't make them reverse it (and I doubt v much it will unless they are legally challenged) will make them think twice in future and we won't see another increase in lock off premium. But maybe I'm a glass half full person !

[wedgeh]

I would hope there's enough members who are lawyers to give them pause for thought! It does seem hard to justify raising points on one bedrooms given the well known booking patterns.