Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[disneynutz]

Didn’t they have a referral relationship with Fidelity for a while?

Seems like they still do along with Vacatia.

Bill

 

[TexasChick123]

I am going to post selected excerpts from the POS, below. This is the bulk of the POS but is not ALL of it. I have tried to focus most closely on the iteration of the Restrictions.

I did not include EVERYTHING in the Offering statement. I have only included the things that I thought pertained most directly to current and future limitations.

It clearly states the currently announced limitations, and then, essentially says, "AND, we can limit ANYTHING, because we can change the rules however we want, whenever we want, and we can even deny you the right to book at your own home resort."

Take a look and see if you agree.

They had their lawyers working overtime on these. I think you are referring to: "4. DVD has reserved the right, in its discretion to modify or revoke implementation of any of these prohibitions, or then reinstate implementation of any of these prohibitions as it determines in its discretion from time to time, or permit such conversions for such Club Members who pay a fee or acquire an additional Ownership Interest at Riviera Resort or other DVC Resort, or to place additional prohibitions or limitations on certain Club Members including implementing such prohibitions or limitations to select Club Members or categories of Club Members or to set times. Such actions or decisions may be implemented by DVD, in its discretion, through a notice recorded in the public records, by requiring BVTC to make such an amendment to the BVTC Disclosure Document, or such other method, and such exercise of its reserved right shall not be subject to the approval or consent of any person, including the Association or any Club Member."

They are saying that they can amend or revoke the particular limitation with regards to pre- versus post-1/1/19 resale buyers. It is in a particular section, so it only applies to that section. Same thing with the Riviera section.

 

[chalee94]

If DVC really wanted to eradicate the resale market then why wouldn't they put in a buy back clause? Where if you want out you can either sell back to DVC (at there determined amount) or you can gift to a family member. Completely eliminating the resale market.

I guess their hold back from putting in such a clause would be if they were to take back everything then DVC could potentially be sitting on thousands of points and no one paying MF.

Disney has a lot of money but buying back all resales would take more than they have.

Back in the Great Recession, Disney dropped ROFR almost completely. ROFR is there to give them an option but not the obligation.

The only time they did anything like you suggested, around a decade ago, they offered to buy back BCV for $50 per point. So you could take the Disney buyback or gift it to family. Strangely, virtually all owners still pursued the standard resale option for $90-100 at that time.

I don't understand why so many people assume if Disney added a buyback policy or an extension offer, that Disney would make the deal at market rates. That's just not a reasonable assumption.

 

[kniquy]

I don't understand why so many people assume if Disney added a buyback policy or an extension offer, that Disney would make the deal at market rates. That's just not a reasonable assumption.

I would expect that they would have some sort of prorated buy back based on the remaining life of the contract. They could certainly put it well below current market resale values. But if they were 100% in control of the buy backs then people either sell back at DVC pre-determined rate or gift to family. Otherwise i guess they could foreclose on the contract and get nothing back. This would really pin people in a corner when they have to get out of their DVC contract.

It seems they are putting so much effort into restricting re-sale -- why allow resale in the first place? It just makes the system that much more confusing.

I do see a buy up option for those Rivera resales. They will make the resale of those contracts pretty unattractive, thus pushing someone to buy up to the option of having a better booking window.

We really all just have to sit back and watch it unfold and see what DVC's next move will be.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

It strikes me that Disney could be setting this up to cut the current guides out of selling sold out resorts. They could tell guides they are only compensated on selling new resorts.

Then they create a low-cost entity to market resales that they have ROFRed and foreclosures that they have taken back. They use a low cost sales force and offer full trading privileges. This way they can offer a full featured resale product, but keep more of the value for themselves. Other resale companies are OK for the time being with the legacy 14, but over time, more and more resales will go through the Disney approved channel.

 

[crvetter]

Quality Assurance is still “researching” the meaning of this paragraph about two classes of resales for the 14 original resorts. I’ve also asked the agent I’m working with on a resale contract. They said they didn’t receive the language in the POS and they are looking at what it means. I assume that meant they were going to ask Disney.

 

[TexasChick123]

Quality Assurance is still “researching” the meaning of this paragraph about two classes of resales for the 14 original resorts. I’ve also asked the agent I’m working with on a resale contract. They said they didn’t receive the language in the POS and they are looking at what it means. I assume that meant they were going to ask Disney.

This stuff is so aggravating. First the point reallocation and now this. Quality assurance knows who has a full understanding of the intent of the clause. DVD, stop messing around and just ask the person or people who know what’s going on or release a statement about it. Why does everything have to be so difficult and drawn out with them?!? You didn’t take a long time to change the point charts for the worse or announce these restrictions? Bad announcements just rolled out one after another. Yet, whenever it is something beneficial or fair to the members, they need to “look into it”. Goodness!!!

 

[crvetter]

This stuff is so aggravating. First the point reallocation and now this. Quality assurance knows who has a full understanding of the intent of the clause. DVD, stop messing around and just ask the person or people who know what’s going on or release a statement about it. Why does everything have to be so difficult and drawn out with them?!? You didn’t take a long time to change the point charts for the worse or announce these restrictions? Bad announcements just rolled out one after another. Yet, whenever it is something beneficial or fair to the members, they need to “look into it”. Goodness!!!

Agreed. It's likely they want to delay the questions until they get Riviera announced but others should call and ask the same question. More movement the quicker they will be to respond.

 

[TexasChick123]

Agreed. It's likely they want to delay the questions until they get Riviera announced but others should call and ask the same question. More movement the quicker they will be to respond.

I’ll call tomorrow when I’m on a walk. That way, I’ll be more likely to be calm walking in my neighborhood versus in the privacy of my home.

 

[Bing Showei]

I’ll call tomorrow when I’m on a walk. That way, I’ll be more likely to be calm waking in my neighborhood versus in the privacy of my home.

Or you'll be the crazy neighborhood lady who yells into her phone while on a walk.

Neighbor 1: She's yelling at Disney?
Neighbor 2: Yeah, and why's she holding it in front of her face like that? Who does that?
Neighbor 1: Why would anyone yell at Disney?

 

[TexasChick123]

Or you'll be the crazy neighborhood lady who yells into her phone while on a walk.

Neighbor 1: She's yelling at Disney?
Neighbor 2: Yeah, and why's she holding it in front of her face like that? Who does that?
Neighbor 1: Why would anyone yell at Disney?

 

[skier_pete]

This would be a very sticky situation for any potential Riviera resale buyer. So you buy a resale at Rivera because you love the resort, but you are locked into only being able to book at say 5 months. Between 11 month and the 7 month window you will have all direct Rivera owners booking, then at 7 months you will have direct buyers of other resorts and those grandfathered resale buyers, so 5 months comes along and there is only spotty availability, if any (depending upon the time of year). This could essentially make the resale contract totally worthless when you are unable to book anything with your points.

I don't think they would do it that way. It would be more like
Direct buyers can book at 11 months
Resale buyers can book at 9 months
Non-owners can book at 7 months

Still a problematic restriction when you look at typical availability charts for some of the more popular resorts. You probably wouldn't get completely locked out, but there's certainly periods of time during the year where not being able to book for the first 2 months could be a problem getting a studio, and especially forget about ever getting one of those 2-person tower studios.

 

[TexasChick123]

I don't think they would do it that way. It would be more like
Direct buyers can book at 11 months
Resale buyers can book at 9 months
Non-owners can book at 7 months

Still a problematic restriction when you look at typical availability charts for some of the more popular resorts. You probably wouldn't get completely locked out, but there's certainly periods of time during the year where not being able to book for the first 2 months could be a problem getting a studio, and especially forget about ever getting one of those 2-person tower studios.

This would stink if you bought resale at Riviera. I hope they don’t do this.

 

[nkosiek]

This would stink if you bought resale at Riviera. I hope they don’t do this.

But you SHOULD know going in those are the rules. This does make being Direct better long term, but if as has been suggested here that many owners sell after 10-12 years, you would be competing with far less owners able to book at 11 months when you were allowed to book, at least 10 years into this particular contract.

I think this is partly in response to recent resale purchasers (specifically at the older EPCOT resorts) who bought ONLY to stay there and have, in conjunction with the point charts, made booking during Fall Frenzy more difficult, at times impossible without major walking.

 

[crvetter]

But you SHOULD know going in those are the rules. This does make being Direct better long term, but if as has been suggested here that many owners sell after 10-12 years, you would be competing with far less owners able to book at 11 months when you were allowed to book, at least 10 years into this particular contract.

I think this is partly in response to recent resale purchasers (specifically at the older EPCOT resorts) who bought ONLY to stay there and have, in conjunction with the point charts, made booking during Fall Frenzy more difficult, at times impossible without major walking.

Perhaps. Though if Disney gives direct riviera buyers 11 months, resale 9 months and other DVC owners 7 months (as they hypothetical stated above) it really does little to negate what we see with BWV and BCV where they are booked mostly by direct owners there. The only thing it does is give direct owners an advantage at that resort over resale. If people want to stay there only it still makes sense to buy resale or direct, under this hypothetical, because you still get an advantage over other DVC resort owners.

 

[nkosiek]

Perhaps. Though if Disney gives direct riviera buyers 11 months, resale 9 months and other DVC owners 7 months (as they hypothetical stated above) it really does little to negate what we see with BWV and BCV where they are booked mostly by direct owners there. The only thing it does is give direct owners an advantage at that resort over resale. If people want to stay there only it still makes sense to buy resale or direct, under this hypothetical, because you still get an advantage over other DVC resort owners.

I don't disagree but then MS doesn't have to deal with angry direct owners complaining about resale buyers who came in and made is SOOOOO much harder for them to get a reservation at 11 months or even 10 months.

 

[crvetter]

I don't disagree but then MS doesn't have to deal with angry direct owners complaining about resale buyers who came in and made is SOOOOO much harder for them to get a reservation at 11 months or even 10 months.

True but I just think that is the way the system works. As a direct owner at a resort I feel differentiating this way is a complete 180 from the way the system works and is to pander to direct owners. It’s all a sales tactic and I don’t think resale owners ever harmed the system. In fact they helped the system because there was a resale value to a contract.

I actually don’t see them changing home resort priority for direct vs resale owners. What I think they want to avoid is people buying the cheapest points exclusively to stay at more expensive resorts. Basically I think the change is to “quarantine” a failed resort. Now that is what they define as failed. I was pretty much told this was exactly the motive. Though I blame Disney for this issue they need to make resorts compelling on their own and not phone it home.

 

[TexasChick123]

True but I just think that is the way the system works. As a direct owner at a resort I feel differentiating this way is a complete 180 from the way the system works and is to pander to direct owners. It’s all a sales tactic and I don’t think resale owners ever harmed the system. In fact they helped the system because there was a resale value to a contract.

I actually don’t see them changing home resort priority for direct vs resale owners. What I think they want to avoid is people buying the cheapest points exclusively to stay at more expensive resorts. Basically I think the change is to “quarantine” a failed resort. Now that is what they define as failed. I was pretty much told this was exactly the motive. Though I blame Disney for this issue they need to make resorts compelling on their own and not phone it home.

I completely agree with all that you said above.

 

[TexasChick123]

I decided to send an email instead. I feel like then I can get out all the confusion in writing and cite certain parts of the POS, and they (hopefully) will send it along to an appropriate person for clarification. Maybe it'll take a few days to hear back, but that won't change anything for me.

 

[skier_pete]

This would stink if you bought resale at Riviera. I hope they don’t do this.

But of the many things they could do - it would actually be pretty fair - you are spending a bunch extra to buy direct - why shouldn't that give you an advantage over the resale buyers? Even if you made it 11 months direct, and 10.5 months resale.

Remember, everything that Disney has done is for one purpose - to sell the newest timeshare resorts. It's not that they want to hurt resale buyers - but that's ends up being the result of selling to direct buyers. This is why they don't mind grandfathering older resale buyers - those people have already bought, who cares. It's the future buyers.

Something like this is done throughout timeshare systems. I know the other timeshare I own through vacation villages - I get access as follows:
13 months - home week
12 months - home resort
11 months - home group of resorts
10 months - ALL resorts

Wouldn't really see it as a major issue as long as resale buyers get a shot before all of DVC. It would definitely push DVC resale further down the table though if you can only book at your home resort AND you can't book as early as direct owners.