Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[skier_pete]

Aren't you doing all the analysis on room availability? (Amazing analysis, by the way!) I feel like this could be a new exciting project for you once you complete 2 bedroom availability!

Haha - no.

 

[Grumpy6264]

Do you honestly think the resale restriction is a solution at all?? I agree that booking non-home resorts at the 7-month window is becoming more and more challenging, but the resale restriction does NOTHING to fix that. Let's go through a few simplified scenarios here.

1. DRR is a home run & all owners (direct & resale) only stay there. Guess what? None of the L14 owners can stay there because no one is trading out. How does that alleviate the 7-month window for the L14 owners??
2. DRR is another SSR (apology to current SSR owners) & all direct owners book else where while the resale owners are confined there. Since the direct owners will try to scour the L14 resorts (can you imagine someone preferring SSR over DRR? An extreme example, I know) for any available villa, competition at those resorts becomes more intense as a result.
3. DRR is somewhere in between. Since the resale owners can only book there, they have no where to go, which decreases availability there for L14 owners. As the percentage of DRR resale owners increases, the 7-month availability further decreases for L14 owners. While this scenario doesn't put new stress on the L14 resorts, it doesn't really improve it, though.

Can you think of a scenario where the 7-month window would be improved with this restriction? Let's not forget that as DVD/DD continues to sell smaller contracts to accommodate those who are mostly interested in the Tower studios, the pressure on studios at ALL resorts will only increase.

As for what member-friendly policies that might improve this relatively bleak picture, how about improving the experience at the currently "less" desirable resorts? Perhaps increase amenities there to enhance the stay? I don't think a downward adjustment of point structure would hurt either. Since many current members often try to stretch their points by booking the lower point cost, but often less desirable villas (ie: no view), may be they would be willing to stay at one of the less desirable resorts if it means staying an extra day or two?

IMHO, the new resale restriction is an attack on the core of DVC, which is the flexibility that members (you and I included) have come to enjoy and value, which I am not sure it's intentional or not.

No, I don't think that it is a solution. I don't know if there is a solution.

Improving the experience at the "less" desirable resorts would certainly help. There were quite a few people were saying that there was no way that they would be staying at Riveria because it was going to be a Moderate DVC resort. Now that the actual details have come out, it seem like a pretty nice option. Upgrading some of the older resorts and improving their amenities would go a long way to balancing out demand.

Obviously, resorts like the monorail resorts or the Epcot resorts will always have a increase draw due to proximity. That said, if they can increase the draw more evenly across the system, that certainly would be a step in the right direction.

 

[CarolynFH]

So this has probably already been stated in this thread - but in the long run, it feels like these restrictions really screw the DIRECT owner more than the resale owner. I mean, as a DRR resale owner, you KNOW going in that you can only book at this resort. It's part of the deal.

As a DIRECT owner you (a) have no idea what the affect this new restriction will have on your resale value and (b) you have no idea what the long-term affect is on booking the resort. In the second one, what I'm showing is that let's say 15 years from now there enough owner turnover that say 25 % of the resort is resale owners. That 25% knows they have no option but to book their home resort - so they will be fighting tooth and nail to get what they want at 11 months. Direct owners can book out at 7 months, but popular seasons and popular rooms may be even more difficult to get at the home resort. And its likely to only get worse as more and more resale contracts are sold.

Of course, we have no idea what percent of a resorts owners end up as resale owners over time - while the data is technically available it would take someone months to go through it all, but a resort with a lot of resale owners restricted to their home resort will also punish direct purchasers as well.

I agree. I think trading in to Riviera will become more difficult for direct owners and all non-owners there as direct buyers are inevitably replaced by resale buyers - unless DVD manages to corral most of the resales so that they’re purchased from them or from an “authorized reseller” and can therefore trade out. As I’ve said many times over the years (when someone reports they were told by a DVC Guide that resale buyers would retroactively be forbidden from trading out of their home resort), “if they can’t trade out, we can’t trade in.”

 

[LAX]

No, I don't think that it is a solution. I don't know if there is a solution.

Improving the experience at the "less" desirable resorts would certainly help. There were quite a few people were saying that there was no way that they would be staying at Riveria because it was going to be a Moderate DVC resort. Now that the actual details have come out, it seem like a pretty nice option. Upgrading some of the older resorts and improving their amenities would go a long way to balancing out demand.

Obviously, resorts like the monorail resorts or the Epcot resorts will always have a increase draw due to proximity. That said, if they can increase the draw more evenly across the system, that certainly would be a step in the right direction.

That was my point. The resale restriction was never intended to be a fix for any perceived problems with DVC. It was solely intended to increase profit for DVD/DD. I don't know if DVD/DD ever tried to put a spin to justify it, but there is really no reason other greed.

LAX

 

[drusba]

That was my point. The resale restriction was never intended to be a fix for any perceived problems with DVC. It was solely intended to increase profit for DVD/DD. I don't know if DVD/DD ever tried to put a spin to justify it, but there is really no reason other greed.
LAX

Possibly you missed it. DVD/DVC is putting a royal spin on the new resale restriction as part of its explanation and sales process for Riviera. The reason for the resale restriction is because many members who purchased from DVD complained that resale purchasers, who purchased for a lot less, were making it difficult for those purchasers from DVD to reserve rooms. The resale restriction has thus been adopted because members wanted it and needed it.

How could you possibly believe it could be anything else?

 

[Aron1012]

Possibly you missed it. DVD/DVC is putting a royal spin on the new resale restriction as part of its explanation and sales process for Riviera. The reason for the resale restriction is because many members who purchased from DVD complained that resale purchasers, who purchased for a lot less, were making it difficult for those purchasers from DVD to reserve rooms. The resale restriction has thus been adopted because members wanted it and needed it.

How could you possibly believe it could be anything else?

Actually the answer I got from DVCMC was "members wanted differentiation between direct and resale buyers". Yeah sure and how much did you have to pay those "members" to say that? The fact is they had no answer for the direct buyer asking what they got for paying so much more for the same points. So they made an answer

 

[Aron1012]

So this has probably already been stated in this thread - but in the long run, it feels like these restrictions really screw the DIRECT owner more than the resale owner. I mean, as a DRR resale owner, you KNOW going in that you can only book at this resort. It's part of the deal.

As a DIRECT owner you (a) have no idea what the affect this new restriction will have on your resale value and (b) you have no idea what the long-term affect is on booking the resort. In the second one, what I'm showing is that let's say 15 years from now there enough owner turnover that say 25 % of the resort is resale owners. That 25% knows they have no option but to book their home resort - so they will be fighting tooth and nail to get what they want at 11 months. Direct owners can book out at 7 months, but popular seasons and popular rooms may be even more difficult to get at the home resort. And its likely to only get worse as more and more resale contracts are sold.

Of course, we have no idea what percent of a resorts owners end up as resale owners over time - while the data is technically available it would take someone months to go through it all, but a resort with a lot of resale owners restricted to their home resort will also punish direct purchasers as well.

I agree 100% this is much worse for the Direct DRR purchasers as of right now. Of course after 2042, it might be much worse for those L14 resale buyers who purchased after 1/19/19 if they have very few options to trade into.

 

[Frederic Civish]

Look around social media at interest in DRR and see how much reservation there is about the effect of this new restriction on the value of purchasing DRR direct.

The case has been fully made with and among the Influentials that these new restrictions at worse hurt the value of a direct purchase of DRR and at best create significant concern about how things will play out.

From a branding perspective, that might just be 5-10% of people contemplating these concerns now, but this is the base rock from which opinion will crystallize over time.

DVD would be well served, for its own interest, to reverse course here and preserve its brand. Like all such things, time is money.

I honestly don't see how the restrictions they placed on Riviera could POSSIBLY be of any benefit to Riviera owners/purchasers, whether Direct or Resale. It seriously limits Riviera more than ANY of the L14 resorts. First, it decreases resale potential for Direct purchasers. This translates into additional difficulty selling, should they reach the point where they need to sell, but it also, clearly, will decrease the price they will get on their resale. Lose-Lose. And, as more and more people become resale owners, as has been pointed out, it will impact the ability of Direct purchasers to schedule, reserve and use their points at their home resort. Though it is quite possible that MOST Direct purchasers will not know this going in ("Quick, grab those vacationers while Pixie Dust is still in their eyes, and, oh, DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!") I can just see it now: Disney to sales force, "Okay, WE all know the restrictions, but the purchasers don't, so let's all just be quiet about it and slide it through before they notice. After all, we can't truly have INFORMED purchasers now, can we. If we did, they MIGHT not buy, and were would that leave us? Better to have a bunch of unhappy owners later. At least we can point to the contract and say, 'See, you signed right there that you agreed to this! You stupid, stupid person.'"

For Resale purchasers, they know going in that they will ONLY AND FOREVER be able to book at Riviera, where they will have to fight tooth and nail to make their reservations before all those other restricted owners scoop up all the choice slots. Many of them WILL say, "Uh, NO THANKS. I think I will go put my money elsewhere." Others will clearly say, "Okay, I like Riviera. I'm ready to buy. But you ARE going to give me a discount. WHY should I pay full price for this crippled piece of crap?" Of course, as has been pointed out, maybe that is Disney's plan. Cripple the resale market for Riviera, right from the beginning, allowing them to pick up resale contracts at ROFR for pennies on the dollar, with the hope that they can then resell them for full price. Unfortunately, by then the vast majority of potential purchasers will be wise to the horrible restrictions, since the same restrictions will also be on "Reflections (A Lakeside Lodge. Yay!)" and all other future property, and as this knowledge has time to percolate through the potential DVC market, it will have a greater and greater effect. The longer this goes on, the more this will hurt them, and meanwhile, contracts at long term L14 resorts will skyrocket. RESALE CONTRACTS at Grand Californian, BLT, Poly, VGF and CC will be the new Kings of the Hill, and Animal Kingdom and OKW Extended will also be in high demand. So, maybe that is part of their plan, to raise the price of the most recent L14 resorts, while lowering their own costs for resale purchases on Riviera and Reflections. Unfortunately, for them and for the purchasers of Riviera, what they are doing is lowering the price of Riviera resale by DECREASING the value of the product and thus decreasing the demand. And do you honestly think you can decrease the demand at Resale and not have it also decrease the demand at Direct?

Disney has shot themselves in the foot. Honestly, who is running this Ship of Fools. The Keystone cops? The Marx Brothers? Gilligan?

 

[Madame]

WHY should I pay full price for this crippled piece of crap?"

 

[TK-Tampa]

I honestly don't see how the restrictions they placed on Riviera could POSSIBLY be of any benefit to Riviera owners/purchasers, whether Direct or Resale. It seriously limits Riviera more than ANY of the L14 resorts. First, it decreases resale potential for Direct purchasers. This translates into additional difficulty selling, should they reach the point where they need to sell, but it also, clearly, will decrease the price they will get on their resale. Lose-Lose. And, as more and more people become resale owners, as has been pointed out, it will impact the ability of Direct purchasers to schedule, reserve and use their points at their home resort. Though it is quite possible that MOST Direct purchasers will not know this going in ("Quick, grab those vacationers while Pixie Dust is still in their eyes, and, oh, DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!") I can just see it now: Disney to sales force, "Okay, WE all know the restrictions, but the purchasers don't, so let's all just be quiet about it and slide it through before they notice. After all, we can't truly have INFORMED purchasers now, can we. If we did, they MIGHT not buy, and were would that leave us? Better to have a bunch of unhappy owners later. At least we can point to the contract and say, 'See, you signed right there that you agreed to this! You stupid, stupid person.'"

For Resale purchasers, they know going in that they will ONLY AND FOREVER be able to book at Riviera, where they will have to fight tooth and nail to make their reservations before all those other restricted owners scoop up all the choice slots. Many of them WILL say, "Uh, NO THANKS. I think I will go put my money elsewhere." Others will clearly say, "Okay, I like Riviera. I'm ready to buy. But you ARE going to give me a discount. WHY should I pay full price for this crippled piece of crap?" Of course, as has been pointed out, maybe that is Disney's plan. Cripple the resale market for Riviera, right from the beginning, allowing them to pick up resale contracts at ROFR for pennies on the dollar, with the hope that they can then resell them for full price. Unfortunately, by then the vast majority of potential purchasers will be wise to the horrible restrictions, since the same restrictions will also be on "Reflections (A Lakeside Lodge. Yay!)" and all other future property, and as this knowledge has time to percolate through the potential DVC market, it will have a greater and greater effect. The longer this goes on, the more this will hurt them, and meanwhile, contracts at long term L14 resorts will skyrocket. RESALE CONTRACTS at Grand Californian, BLT, Poly, VGF and CC will be the new Kings of the Hill, and Animal Kingdom and OKW Extended will also be in high demand. So, maybe that is part of their plan, to raise the price of the most recent L14 resorts, while lowering their own costs for resale purchases on Riviera and Reflections. Unfortunately, for them and for the purchasers of Riviera, what they are doing is lowering the price of Riviera resale by DECREASING the value of the product and thus decreasing the demand. And do you honestly think you can decrease the demand at Resale and not have it also decrease the demand at Direct?

Disney has shot themselves in the foot. Honestly, who is running this Ship of Fools. The Keystone cops? The Marx Brothers? Gilligan?

Does it matter? It is clearly about profits and likely, individual bonuses tied to the direct sales. All owners except one lose big, big time.

I have come to the conclusion that they only care about making as much money as possible in 2019 and nothing else right now. Ethics and their reputation are now irrelevant to them as they realized those things are simply hinderences in their pursuit of pure greed. Tomorrow's consequences will be dealt with by whomever has to deal with those down the road.

 

[Frederic Civish]

I think I figured out who the new management is at DVC after reading this thread:

When Disney announced future restrictions on use for Resale market purchasers of the L14, they, at the same time, announced what appears to be even worse, stronger restrictions on Riviera. Naturally, it is these restrictions on Riviera which have continued to get the most attention. So, does anyone think that the announcement of Riviera resale restrictions is a red herring? A stalking goat? Something to grab our attention and get us to focus on that, rather than watching what they are doing to the L14, and challenging them for what they are doing to the L14? Distract us while they steal more of our candy.

So this has probably already been stated in this thread - but in the long run, it feels like these restrictions really screw the DIRECT owner more than the resale owner. I mean, as a DRR resale owner, you KNOW going in that you can only book at this resort. It's part of the deal.

As a DIRECT owner you (a) have no idea what the affect this new restriction will have on your resale value and (b) you have no idea what the long-term affect is on booking the resort. In the second one, what I'm showing is that let's say 15 years from now there enough owner turnover that say 25 % of the resort is resale owners. That 25% knows they have no option but to book their home resort - so they will be fighting tooth and nail to get what they want at 11 months. Direct owners can book out at 7 months, but popular seasons and popular rooms may be even more difficult to get at the home resort. And its likely to only get worse as more and more resale contracts are sold.

Of course, we have no idea what percent of a resorts owners end up as resale owners over time - while the data is technically available it would take someone months to go through it all, but a resort with a lot of resale owners restricted to their home resort will also punish direct purchasers as well.

I think it makes sense that at least 5% to 10% of contracts change hands every year. If you look at the sales figures that are available then this seems reasonable. One website https://www.***************.com/ currently lists over 900 contracts for sale. If you figure that the average owner uses it for 10 or 15 years, then sells it, or people get tired of Maintenance Fees, or Disney shenanigans, or people's health changes, or they die and family members sell the contract, then you could easily see that 10% per year is not too much. But even at 5% per year, that adds up to approximately 50% turnover across a period of 10 years. That is a LOT of turnover, and a lot of owners who did not buy direct.

 

[TexasChick123]

Does it matter? It is clearly about profits and likely, individual bonuses tied to the direct sales. All owners except one lose big, big time.

I have come to the conclusion that they only care about making as much money as possible in 2019 and nothing else right now. Ethics and their reputation are now irrelevant to them as they realized those things are simply hinderences to their pursuit of pure greed. Tomorrow's consequences will be dealt with by whomever has to deal with those down the road.

I guess I’m not shocked because I never thought of Disney as anything other than a large, greedy corporation. When the economy is good, all companies do what they can to maximize profit no matter how it makes them look. A customer is harder to come by in a bad economy, so they backtrack and change up tactics to look like a better company that’s looking out for their customers. They’re all the same, and it’s all nonsense. Look at SWA airlines. They used to be all about “customer satisfaction is our highest priority” or some version of that. Most of that has evaporated in the last few years. They cancel flights left and right even before the Max 8 debacle with nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders and a refund of your money for their fare if you decide to fly with someone else. No vouchers, no extra points, no booking on another airline, nothing.

I bought DVC for one purpose and only one purpose, to stay in a nice 1- or 2-bedroom condo on-site with all the on-site perks for a reduced cost. Thinking DVC is anything more than a Disney branded timeshare is just setting yourself up for disappointment IMO.

 

[TK-Tampa]

When Disney announced future restrictions on use for Resale market purchasers of the L14, they, at the same time, announced what appears to be even worse, stronger restrictions on Riviera. Naturally, it is these restrictions on Riviera which have continued to get the most attention. So, does anyone thing that the announcement of Riviera resale restrictions is a red herring? A stalking goat? Something to grab our attention and get us to focus on that, rather than watching what they are doing to the L14, and challenging them for what they are doing to the L14? Distract us while they steel more of our candy.



I think it makes sense that at least 5% to 10% of contracts change hands every year. If you look at the sales figures that are available then this seems reasonable. One website https://www.***************.com/ currently lists over 900 contracts for sale. If you figure that the average owner uses it for 10 or 15, then sells it, or people get tired of Maintenance Fees or Disney shenanigans, or people's health changes, or they die and family members sell the contract, then you could easily see that 10% per year is not too much. But even at 5% per year, that adds up to approximately 50% turnover across a period of 10 years.

I've done some 'back of napkin' math on the value of that 'candy' in 5- 10 years. It's staggering. (And likely the motivation for this move.) And guess what?Most of it comes from current direct owners, not the resale owners (although the additional breakage that will occur due to the imbalance of resale owners' points allotted to direct buyers is nice piece of the total pot of gold).

 

[ljmiii]

I guess I’m not shocked because I never thought of Disney as anything other than a large, greedy corporation...Thinking DVC is anything more than a Disney branded timeshare is just setting yourself up for disappointment IMO.

What has surprised me is the pace at which DVC has gone from the best timeshare system I own to the worst.

 

[TexasChick123]

What has surprised me is the pace at which DVC has gone from the best timeshare system I own to the worst.

Look back at posts from the last several years. Many of the older owners repeatedly said that no one should buy DVC as an investment and should view it as pre-paying for vacations with a discount. They actually cautioned against buying it as “an investment” with renting and/or selling as DVC could introduce pretty much any restrictions they want. They were right.

 

[Katie L]

What has surprised me is the pace at which DVC has gone from the best timeshare system I own to the worst.

I've not really looked into timeshares beyond DVC - I know about the changes that DVC has done in the last two years. What are some of the great benefits of other timeshares you own?

 

[Frederic Civish]

Does it matter? It is clearly about profits and likely, individual bonuses tied to the direct sales. All owners except one lose big, big time.

I have come to the conclusion that they only care about making as much money as possible in 2019 and nothing else right now. Ethics and their reputation are now irrelevant to them as they realized those things are simply hinderences in their pursuit of pure greed. Tomorrow's consequences will be dealt with by whomever has to deal with those down the road.

Dirty Disney, the Sewer Rat.

 

[Frederic Civish]

I'm just not sure they care. Though I agree in theory.

They would be foolish not to monitor constantly this forum and the other main DVC one.
Companies pay a lot of money for focus groups, this is basically a bigger one for free.

I'm certainly hope that Disney is paying attention to these threads. It is true that we DO NOT know everything. We don't know the actual facts and figures that Disney has. We don't have all the statistics about resales, ROFRs, defaults, demand and other things. BUT, there are a lot of us. We CARE VERY MUCH, and between us, we do know a lot, we see a lot, we analyse a lot and we think and Brainstorm. We are probably flying in the wind on some things, but spot on with other things, AND, I'm sure we look at things in ways that Disney HAS NOT. And I'm sure we SEE some things that Disney HAS NOT.

There is a lot of thought here and some darn good ideas. Disney would do well to not only be aware, but to try to take some of it into account.

An adversarial relationship with owners does not serve owners and it does not serve Disney. I hope Disney can see this and realize that a 'Win-Win" situation is best for them, as well as for us.

I just keep wondering what is the next shoe to drop. They never planned to manipulate the resale market like this. I'm surprised it took til 2016, to start meaningful restrictions when they realized they could. Boiling frog and all that. Would love to see the 5 year roadmap. Ha.

Do you honestly think the resale restriction is a solution at all?? I agree that booking non-home resorts at the 7-month window is becoming more and more challenging, but the resale restriction does NOTHING to fix that. Let's go through a few simplified scenarios here.

1. DRR is a home run & all owners (direct & resale) only stay there. Guess what? None of the L14 owners can stay there because no one is trading out. How does that alleviate the 7-month window for the L14 owners??
2. DRR is another SSR (apology to current SSR owners) & all direct owners book else where while the resale owners are confined there. Since the direct owners will try to scour the L14 resorts (can you imagine someone preferring SSR over DRR? An extreme example, I know) for any available villa, competition at those resorts becomes more intense as a result.
3. DRR is somewhere in between. Since the resale owners can only book there, they have no where to go, which decreases availability there for L14 owners. As the percentage of DRR resale owners increases, the 7-month availability further decreases for L14 owners. While this scenario doesn't put new stress on the L14 resorts, it doesn't really improve it, though.

Can you think of a scenario where the 7-month window would be improved with this restriction? Let's not forget that as DVD/DD continues to sell smaller contracts to accommodate those who are mostly interested in the Tower studios, the pressure on studios at ALL resorts will only increase.

As for what member-friendly policies that might improve this relatively bleak picture, how about improving the experience at the currently "less" desirable resorts? Perhaps increase amenities there to enhance the stay? I don't think a downward adjustment of point structure would hurt either. Since many current members often try to stretch their points by booking the lower point cost, but often less desirable villas (ie: no view), may be they would be willing to stay at one of the less desirable resorts if it means staying an extra day or two?

IMHO, the new resale restriction is an attack on the core of DVC, which is the flexibility that members (you and I included) have come to enjoy and value, which I am not sure it's intentional or not.

LAX

I know the Resale market is huge. I know Disney licks their lips every time they think of it. But, tough luck, Disney, it is a separate market that is not under your control, and it never will be. Just like someone said a while ago, "If I buy a car at a car dealership and then later I decide to go sell the car, then the original dealership that sold me the car has no right to step in and try to control that sale, or receive money off from it to put money in their own pockets." Now, if they had put such a 'control' stipulation in writing, in the purchase contract, right from the beginning, then they certainly could grab themselves a piece of that pie. Of course, I am sure I would have then gone to a different car dealer if that was the case. Because, In essence, I would be paying Disney twice. Once when I bought Direct, and once when I sold my ownership. How is that possibly fair? Get over it, Disney.

No, I don't think that it is a solution. I don't know if there is a solution.

Improving the experience at the "less" desirable resorts would certainly help. There were quite a few people were saying that there was no way that they would be staying at Riveria because it was going to be a Moderate DVC resort. Now that the actual details have come out, it seem like a pretty nice option. Upgrading some of the older resorts and improving their amenities would go a long way to balancing out demand.

Obviously, resorts like the monorail resorts or the Epcot resorts will always have a increase draw due to proximity. That said, if they can increase the draw more evenly across the system, that certainly would be a step in the right direction.

Possibly you missed it. DVD/DVC is putting a royal spin on the new resale restriction as part of its explanation and sales process for Riviera. The reason for the resale restriction is because many members who purchased from DVD complained that resale purchasers, who purchased for a lot less, were making it difficult for those purchasers from DVD to reserve rooms. The resale restriction has thus been adopted because members wanted it and needed it.

How could you possibly believe it could be anything else?

Disney is not out to 'improve the experience' at the less desirable resorts, except when such improvements pay for themselves. A new, nice restaurant at a resort might be a money making proposition. Putting in gondolas to SSR and OKW (as well as Coronado Springs and the All Star resorts) will pay for itself by saving a ton on buses, and bus drivers. But, otherwise, any IMPROVEMENTS will need to come out of Membership Fees, and there is very little incentive for Disney to get too aggressive with that.

 

[ljmiii]

I've not really looked into timeshares beyond DVC - I know about the changes that DVC has done in the last two years. What are some of the great benefits of other timeshares you own?

People buy into timeshares for different reasons. We first bought when we came to discover that hotel suites in prime locations are comparatively rare and are absurdly, mind bogglingly expensive. Paying cash for a stay in a 2BR at the Wilderness Lodge convinced me to buy DVC - first at BCV...then at BLT.

The great benefit of other timeshare systems has been the ability to stay in our other ‘homes’ - beachfront two bedroom villas in Waikiki, Kaanapali, and Poipu - for a fraction of the retail price. We have also stayed at lovely properties in South Beach, SF, DC, and Boston.

That said, every timeshare system is different. HGVC has a home resort advantage (like DVC) but you can only use that advantage for a full week Sat-Sat stay. Moreover, you’re only allowed to rent out a home week stay. So the competition for reservations is far less intense than DVC.

MVCI is a point system overlaid over (mostly) week based properties with separate booking systems for weeks and points. Each have their own trading system and owners can also ‘elect’ to use their weeks as points. Because there are so many properties the competition can range from more intense than DVC to nonexistent.

 

[LAX]

Possibly you missed it. DVD/DVC is putting a royal spin on the new resale restriction as part of its explanation and sales process for Riviera. The reason for the resale restriction is because many members who purchased from DVD complained that resale purchasers, who purchased for a lot less, were making it difficult for those purchasers from DVD to reserve rooms. The resale restriction has thus been adopted because members wanted it and needed it.

How could you possibly believe it could be anything else?

I think I might have read about it here, but didn't realize it's DVD/DD's official stance. Perhaps I never drank enough of DVD/DD's kool-aid nor sniffed enough of pixie-dust to think DVD/DD would only do what's best for the overall membership.

LAX