RoFR back??

[Robbie Cottam]

Great reputation, but I had to replace mine within 3 years. I am not a fan.

I don’t buy any kitchen appliance that cost more than a car payment ….
but I bought an expensive car

 

[Genie+]

Whether DVC used rofr to help prop resale pricing used to be heavily disputed. Is there more agreement on that now?

I’m wondering if they decided to use cycles of rofr. Let things happen naturally then step in where value is below their estimates or strategically to enhance active sales. Cycles could reduce their cash outlay.

Look at Copper Creek which still was getting rofr’d when the rest started to pause. Did they think it was undervalued?

 

[Spivey378]

I’d much rather have the McRib be back than RoFR.

 

[john7994]

I’d much rather have the McRib be back than RoFR.

Too far ... some things didn't need to have ever existed

 

[lilsonicfan]

Great reputation, but I had to replace mine within 3 years. I am not a fan.

Oh no! I haven't had a single problem with my Bosch since 2016, fingers crossed.
I do scrape before loading (I don't wash before, just scrape) and clean out the filter monthly or so.

Re: contract being ROFR'ed at $145, that buyer might even be relieved since they could buy at $161 with all of the incentives, direct, if they are in the US.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

Whether DVC used rofr to help prop resale pricing used to be heavily disputed. Is there more agreement on that now?

They never had before. It will be interesting to see whether they continue this pattern!

 

[CarolMN]

I'm trying to understand why on God's green earth they would do this. The spread between this and their net sales price barely pays the marketing expenses.

It's been said before (and has been mostly overlooked or ignored), but I believe it has to do with the unit number of the contracts. If they have a few points in a particular unit from the original building, they probably need more from that unit to have enough to sell at least a minimum size contract. Unit numbers are very difficult for us to know/track, so the decisions seem random to us. So far, no one has reported a VGF2 buyback, so that theory makes sense to me.

I strongly doubt the decisions are random. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[maui22]

It's been said before (and has been mostly overlooked or ignored), but I believe it has to do with the unit number of the contracts. If they have a few points in a particular unit from the original building, they probably need more from that unit to have enough to sell at least a minimum size contract. Unit numbers are very difficult for us to know/track, so the decisions seem random to us. So far, no one has reported a VGF2 buyback, so that theory makes sense to me.

I strongly doubt the decisions are random. JMHO. YMMV.

Couldn’t the occompt website be used? Example, we are in the ROFR process. I looked up the sellers name and can see their contracts they have. I can’t look right now, but I am almost positive it shows the unit number. If ROFR is executed on our contract, I will post the unit. In the coming weeks/months after that, it would be interesting to see when DVD sells a contract using the unit.

 

[Royal Consort]

It's been said before (and has been mostly overlooked or ignored), but I believe it has to do with the unit number of the contracts. If they have a few points in a particular unit from the original building, they probably need more from that unit to have enough to sell at least a minimum size contract. Unit numbers are very difficult for us to know/track, so the decisions seem random to us. So far, no one has reported a VGF2 buyback, so that theory makes sense to me.

I strongly doubt the decisions are random. JMHO. YMMV.

That would make sense but they are not selling points deeded to the original building. Therefore that theory, at least in this instance, doesn't seem to apply.

 

[disneylandtour]

Yes, Ron’s mother’s name is Karen and that name appears to bought several BCV and AKL in 2007 and 2008.

But at Grand Flo they'd be so much closer to the wedding pavilion and the memories of Ron's wedding there.

 

[disneylandtour]

Some news. And one thought:

Fidelity had two buybacks this week as well.

Also, I've had brokers tell me that overseas contracts are less likely to be bought back because of the tax paperwork that follows those sales.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

Some news. And one thought:

Fidelity had two buybacks this week as well.

Also, I've had brokers tell me that overseas contracts are less likely to be bought back because of the tax paperwork that follows those sales.

A user on another DVC board did an analysis of hundreds of buybacks and found this wasn’t true. But it is a widely believed theory.

 

[disneylandtour]

A user on another DVC board did an analysis of hundreds of buybacks and found this wasn’t true. But it is a widely believed theory.

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that.

 

[Sandisw]

That would make sense but they are not selling points deeded to the original building. Therefore that theory, at least in this instance, doesn't seem to apply.

Even though they may not be selling those now, if the unit matches points they do have and need, it would make sense to snatch them up. They can’t control when a specific unit might come across the desk so it may mean grabbing when they can.

 

[lovethesun12]

Just saw another VGF (125 pt / $135PP) was taken today. Different resale group than the ones yesterday.

I saw this too which led me here, lol. The broker who posted it is awesome so no doubt in my mind it’s true.

The resorts they usually target come in cycles and this time it’s VGF.

 

[disneylandtour]

Even though they may not be selling those now, if the unit matches points they do have and need, it would make sense to snatch them up. They can’t control when a specific unit might come across the desk so it may mean grabbing when they can.

@Sandisw
Do you think this is an effort to allocate some rooms for purposes other than DVC? If Disney can control the entire contract, it can create a wing of fully (or mostly) cash rooms.

 

[DVCSearch]

Hey friends - as the author of the post referenced on page 9 that I'm not allowed to quote because the anti-spam filter doesn't seem to like me, I'll add in with what I learned manually reviewing hundreds of contracts on the Orange County site. (Could a Mod ping me and help get that fixed so I can quote post 175 and 176?)

First things first: I do think that a more accurate description of the dataset is "Contracts where Disney was the Grantee, but it wasn't a foreclosure, and it wasn't a transfer in-lieu of foreclosure." and not necessarily that 100% of them are ROFR. There are definitely a couple in there that aren't ROFR, and are instead likely a buyer with buyer's remorse where Disney stepped in. (Looking at you, Doc 20230419978 at VGF and you Doc 20230005622 at RIV). But I do believe that most of them are ROFR until someone can give a better explanation for what's going on with them.

Foreclosures have a really distinct format. They are multi pages. There are newspaper filings of notice posted. Etc. Example of what a foreclosure looks like: Doc 20230380053

"Surrendered" Contracts when the owner gives it up in lieu of foreclosure also have a very distinct look to them. They are filed as "Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure". They look like this: Doc 20230381144

I didn't include any of those ("foreclosure" or "warranty deed transfer in lieu of foreclosure") in my dataset. All of the ones that I DID include look more like this: Doc 20230009656. This format looks just like a direct purchase agreement, but in reverse (where Disney is the grantee instead of the grantor). On most of them it even has the little palm tree and Mickey icons where input is needed just like everyone would recognize from when they bought direct.

So short of there being some other program that none of us have heard of where Disney proactively tries to directly buy contracts nearing distress, but AREN'T considered transfers in-lieu of foreclosure, I don't know what else they would be but ROFR.

I'm always eager to learn more! So if anyone has insight that I'm missing, I'm all ears!

Note: I tried to include direct links to the contracts referenced above, but the anti-spam filters prevented the reply :-( If you do a google search for orange county florida official records search you should be able to find the county website and search for the doc numbers I called out above.

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw
Do you think this is an effort to allocate some rooms for purposes other than DVC? If Disney can control the entire contract, it can create a wing of fully (or mostly) cash rooms.

No. Once units have been declared into the condo association and sold, they can’t be taken back out.

The reason they’d want to have points in a unit is for future sales.

If units are never declared, then they can keep them. Take RIV… there are still about 100 rooms not yet part of the condo association. DVD could decide not to do that and keep RV the size it is..not that I think they will.

 

[Sandisw]

Hey friends - as the author of the post referenced on page 9 that I'm not allowed to quote because the anti-spam filter doesn't seem to like me, I'll add in with what I learned manually reviewing hundreds of contracts on the Orange County site. (Could a Mod ping me and help get that fixed so I can quote post 175 and 176?)

First things first: I do think that a more accurate description of the dataset is "Contracts where Disney was the Grantee, but it wasn't a foreclosure, and it wasn't a transfer in-lieu of foreclosure." and not necessarily that 100% of them are ROFR. There are definitely a couple in there that aren't ROFR, and are instead likely a buyer with buyer's remorse where Disney stepped in. (Looking at you, Doc 20230419978 at VGF and you Doc 20230005622 at RIV). But I do believe that most of them are ROFR until someone can give a better explanation for what's going on with them.

Foreclosures have a really distinct format. They are multi pages. There are newspaper filings of notice posted. Etc. Example of what a foreclosure looks like: Doc 20230380053

"Surrendered" Contracts when the owner gives it up in lieu of foreclosure also have a very distinct look to them. They are filed as "Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure". They look like this: Doc 20230381144

I didn't include any of those ("foreclosure" or "warranty deed transfer in lieu of foreclosure") in my dataset. All of the ones that I DID include look more like this: Doc 20230009656. This format looks just like a direct purchase agreement, but in reverse (where Disney is the grantee instead of the grantor). On most of them it even has the little palm tree and Mickey icons where input is needed just like everyone would recognize from when they bought direct.

So short of there being some other program that none of us have heard of where Disney proactively tries to directly buy contracts nearing distress, but AREN'T considered transfers in-lieu of foreclosure, I don't know what else they would be but ROFR.

I'm always eager to learn more! So if anyone has insight that I'm missing, I'm all ears!

Note: I tried to include direct links to the contracts referenced above, but the anti-spam filters prevented the reply :-( If you do a google search for orange county florida official records search you should be able to find the county website and search for the doc numbers I called out above.

Scratch what I was saying....the warranty deed does have the symbols for the contract that I had taken via ROFR. But, DVD has bought contracts back from owners without it being ROFR, or foreclosure.

I have also read over the years that if mistakes are made, and a new deed needs to be done, it can show up in a way it looks like a sale back to DVD.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

At least for VGF!! They are trying to force direct sales

I think this is the only thing that makes sense...on the surface anyway.

but I believe it has to do with the unit number of the contracts. If they have a few points in a particular unit from the original building, they probably need more from that unit to have enough to sell at least a minimum size contract.

Could you expand on this? It sounds very interesting. Why would they need to sell points from a certain unit and aren't units in the tens of thousands? Would a few points make that big of a difference? Thanks.