Will a Rental Crackdown Reset DVC Resale Prices?

[sethschroeder]

It is curious that these seemingly commercial enterprises secure the majority of certain rooms/dates. Either this kind of contract ownership is happening on a major scale, or they have some kind of major advantages. Probably some of both.


Interesting point.

Its not hard they are not trying to actually do their own reservation. You have 3000-4000 points per account and you have a system in place each morning to secure the walking rights.

Heck wouldn't be surprised that some of these groups have automated systems that book on their behalf at the exact timing of the DVC server clocks.

As an example there are plenty of automation that can be done on sites to buy up supply of items so this would be really no different and nothing that DVC does for account authentication couldn't be outsourced to a bot to solve. There is actually funny ideas that bots are actually better at solving those spam pop-ups than humans lol.

Wasn't there a big huff and puff around Taylor Swift recently around bots and resellers buying up all the supply of tickets?

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Only CFW has the more strict contract language. I don't expect a "cracking down".

Someone last night pointed out the harsher language is also in the Rivieria contract

 

[eandt]

No hearts and minds are going to be changed in the walking debate. If you don’t bump into walkers, I understand how you wouldn’t care. A better answer is “doesn’t affect me don’t care”, instead of pretending it’s not happening. I promise you it’s happening at my resorts, both during school breaks and also from Thanksgiving to New years. So I guess if it only happens 11 weeks out of 52 it’s not a big deal? That’s 20 percent of available booking periods. You can tell a walker instantly, so long as you aren’t booking on the same week they land on. The supply and demand argument is wrong. I’m not only affected if I want the same week they are walking to, every week UP to that week is affected. If they want December 1-8 and I want Nov 23-30, I can’t go on November 23 and boom 23-30. I have to wait until November 24 to book 23, 25 to book 24, one nerve wracking day at a time until they pass my week. It’s frankly bullcrap, I’m not sure how people could not understand.








That is exactly the point. Everyone should have a 100% equal chance on the day they want to reserve their room in a first come first served scenario. I will go so far as to say DVD has a legal obligation to ensure owners have equal footing for booking a day. Walkers have a 100% chance and the non walkers have a (number of rooms left/number of people wanting to reserve) chance.

You do have an equal chance … just out walk the walkers ….

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Its not hard they are not trying to actually do their own reservation. You have 3000-4000 points per account and you have a system in place each morning to secure the walking rights.

Heck wouldn't be surprised that some of these groups have automated systems that book on their behalf at the exact timing of the DVC server clocks.

As an example there are plenty of automation that can be done on sites to buy up supply of items so this would be really no different and nothing that DVC does for account authentication couldn't be outsourced to a bot to solve. There is actually funny ideas that bots are actually better at solving those spam pop-ups than humans lol.

Wasn't there a big huff and puff around Taylor Swift recently around bots and resellers buying up all the supply of tickets?

Very likely what is happening here.

 

[Genie+]

You do have an equal chance … just out walk the walkers ….

Except my contract says I have an equal chance at 11 months.

I should not have to prepare and decide on my trip at 15 months and devote time and energy to play DVC Olympics.

It’s DVC’s responsibility to uphold the contract.

 

[Sandisw]

This is the last reminder. I have had to delete several posts again for people discussing specific websites information without the website link and in specific one that is not allowed to be discussed.

If any further posts are shared about specific confirmed reservations out there, the thread will need to close and I will be issuing warnings.

 

[Sandisw]

Except my contract says I have an equal chance at 11 months.

I should not have to prepare and decide on my trip at 15 months and devote time and energy to play DVC Olympics.

It’s DVC’s responsibility to uphold the contract.

And your contract has not been violated. The contract says any room can be booked 11 months out.

But where does it say once it’s booked, an owner is required to keep it for X days or can’t change it the next day if they want?

And yes, I know it’s the principal of it all but the point will always remain that majority of the rooms walked that people get shut out of and don’t get via waitlist or stalking are the ones that have too high demand.

Before anyone says it, I know you shouldn’t have to go back in but when you put in the waitlist right at 11 months, and it truly was walkers, then that will fill within a very short time.

 

[kboo]

Speaking with my economist’s hat on, whenever there is a huge demand for a product, causing many people to snap it up and resell it for more money, what that tells us is that the product is priced too low. And raising the points per night for value and tower studios, lowering them for other room categories, raising the cost of staying during early December, and lowering the cost during the summer, would go a long way towards balancing supply and demand and making it easier for everyone to get the reservations they want.

And they did do that...its possible it still needs adjusting...

There's also only so much you can adjust - Christmas at VGF got more expensive from 2019 to 2024 - and still, Christmas is one of the hardest times to book at VGF in any size unit. I suppose you could reduce demand by taking away the gorgeous Christmas decorations and the gingerbread house... (sarcasm)

There's a reason the value rooms at AKV cost less than the standard rooms - even if you made them cost slightly more points, someone would want them to save on points/"win" at getting a value room. The thrill of the chase or being able to say you snagged a hard-to-get room is part of the
"fun" and it would make things easier for individual owners not to have to compete with more limited inventory because 1000s of commercial renting points are also being used maximally.

It used to be - not even so many years ago, that you'd encounter longtime owners who were unaware of how to maximize the value of their points and maybe just let their points go unused. There were more resale contracts available that were partially and fully loaded. If there were more loaded/partially loaded contracts for sale because they weren't being stripped and flipped, I'm not sure resale prices would go down. The distribution would probably be bimodal unless/until Disney is able to deter the strip-and-flippers. (Not sure how they'll do that but it seems even putting in language about commercial renters might dampen that behavior).

Ya know, this wouldn't be a problem if everyone just bought more points and stayed in 1BRs... cmon you standard studio walkers ... full kitchen, washer/dryer ... ooh - ahhh... go ahead, try it sometime... book a 1BR 4 months out.... you might like it!

LOL but you're right. All of these proposed rules and penalties, in addition to costing money to implement, disproportionately hurt owners with fewer points, the "DVC poor" as it were, who may not have enough points to make a backup booking or book the nights in varying size rooms and views and stalk/waitlist until you get what you want.

I'm pretty sure Disney has more visibility into the commercial renters than we do, and hopefully this will lead to more loaded contracts for resale, or at least more variety so the points aren't like 0-0-0. LIke why would I pay 50,000 for a large but stripped contract?

 

[New Mouse]

There's a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law.

If I have 0 chance at booking something 11 months out at 8am, DVC is wrong based on the contract they created.

It wouldn't be the first time they were on the wrong side of a legal debate.

 

[Sandisw]

There's a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law.

If I have 0 chance at booking something 11 months out at 8am, DVC is wrong based on the contract they created.

It wouldn't be the first time they were on the wrong side of a legal debate.

No one has 0% chance, unless the rooms are pulled for refurbishment.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Martin Niemöller is either rolling in his grave, or popping popcorn...

 

[davidhr]

I find it funny to see people asking for rooms to be more expensive to "lower" the demand for those rooms, when there's already a more expensive category lol

If you want AKV Value room to be more expensive so you get a chance to book them, why not book a Standard View instead? The solution you want already exists!

 

[Nabas]

I find it funny to see people asking for rooms to be more expensive to "lower" the demand for those rooms, when there's already a more expensive category lol

If you want AKV Value room to be more expensive so you get a chance to book them, why not book a Standard View instead? The solution you want already exists!

Nobody wants more expensive rooms. Instead, almost everybody wants the cheapest rooms and complains about walkers being the problem when they don't get those cheapest rooms and have to settle for Standard rooms.

Those same people do not want Standard rooms because they cost a lot more than Value rooms. They get upset because they end paying 4 or 5 points per night for those Standard rooms because they could not get the much cheaper Value rooms that they wanted.

However, if you bring the point-per-night of two closer together, then the smaller (and significantly fewer in number) Value rooms become much less desirable. If, for example, a Standard View rooms costs only 1 more point per night than a Value room, then it's not a big deal to have to settle for a Standard View when you don't get a Value room.

Supply and demand. When something is really cheap, most want that more than something that is very similar but costs a lot more.

 

[sndral]

I don't think prices will tank because of ROFR, that's the whole reason Disney has it. But if one or two big rental agencies get shut down, I could see the resorts evening out.

Because DVC has abandoned exercising ROFR when there have been economic downturns & resale prices were falling (especially during the 07/08 era,) I don’t think price support for resales is the ‘whole reason Disney has it.’

To be clear, there is no rule against paid rentals. Section 5.1 of the DVC Membership Agreements (including CFW's) expressly allow renting, subject to the last two sentences (which in the past Disney has indicated will only be triggered if you're making 20+ third-party rentals):

5.1 Club Member Rentals. A Club Member may make a reservation to use a Vacation Home for the Club Member's own use, make their use available to family or friends or guests, or rent them solely through the Club Member's own efforts. Neither DVD's, DVCM's nor the Association's approval of a rental by a Club Member is required after a reservation has been made in the renter's own name, and Club Members are permitted to rent their occupancy rights on terms and conditions that they may establish. No rental assistance is being offered by the TWDC Companies. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations affecting occupancy, and the renting Club Member will be responsible for the acts or omissions of the renters, or any other person or persons permitted by the Club Member to use the Vacation Home. The TWDC Companies do not in any way represent or promote that a particular Vacation Home can be rented, or if it is rented, that any particular rental rate can be obtained for such rental. Except for DVD, DVCM, or any of the TWDC Companies, use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described in the [Condominium][Resort] Documents is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" may include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that DVCM or the Board determines constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice.

I’ve always wondered why the sentence “Neither, DVD’s…approval of a rental…is required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name,…” was written as is. My understanding is the MO of spec renters is to put a placeholder name as lead guest & once they have the reservation rented they change the lead guest, which requires a phone call to MS. This sentence suggests to me that DVC has reserved the right to require approval for reservations not made “in the renters own name.” If I were tasked w/ ferreting out spec rentals I’d be pulling all accounts w/ lead guest changes looking for patterns/abuse & start not approving lead guest changes in the obvious spec rental ones.

 

[davidhr]

Nobody wants more expensive rooms. Instead, almost everybody wants the cheapest rooms and complains about walkers being the problem when they don't get those cheapest rooms and have to settle for Standard rooms.

Those same people do not want Standard rooms because they cost a lot more than Value rooms. They get upset because they end paying 4 or 5 points per night for those Standard rooms because they could not get the much cheaper Value rooms that they wanted.

However, if you bring the point-per-night of two closer together, then the smaller (and significantly fewer in number) Value rooms become much less desirable. If, for example, a Standard View rooms costs only 1 more point per night than a Value room, then it's not a big deal to have to settle for a Standard View when you don't get a Value room.

Supply and demand. When something is really cheap, most want that more than something that is very similar but costs a lot more.

I get your point and, believe me, I understand why people feel this way about it.

But, and this is a big but for me, to me it doesn't make sense to make rooms more expensive just to make people feel better when they don't get them.

 

[Sandisw]

Because DVC has abandoned exercising ROFR when there have been economic downturns & resale prices were falling (especially during the 07/08 era,) I don’t think price support for resales is the ‘whole reason Disney has it.’

I’ve always wondered why the sentence “Neither, DVD’s…approval of a rental…is required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name,…” was written as is. My understanding is the MO of spec renters is to put a placeholder name as lead guest & once they have the reservation rented they change the lead guest, which requires a phone call to MS. This sentence suggests to me that DVC has reserved the right to require approval for reservations not made “in the renters own name.” If I were tasked w/ ferreting out spec rentals I’d be pulling all accounts w/ lead guest changes looking for patterns/abuse & start not approving lead guest changes in the obvious spec rental ones.

I think that clause is saying that we don’t have to ask permission from DvD to rent a reservation. We can do that all on our own.

And, as the rules stand today, there is no limit on changing lead guests name so I don’t think that is the reason for the clause.

 

[eandt]

I find it funny to see people asking for rooms to be more expensive to "lower" the demand for those rooms, when there's already a more expensive category lol

If you want AKV Value room to be more expensive so you get a chance to book them, why not book a Standard View instead? The solution you want already exists!

Most of the complaining and demanding of convoluted rule changes appear to be about a few lower point cost rooms at a few resorts during a couple of weeks of the year .. yet at this moment there is availability in almost every room category at almost every resort for both Thanksgiving and Christmas both inside 11 months …

 

[Sandisw]

I get your point and, believe me, I understand why people feel this way about it.

But, and this is a big but for me, to me it doesn't make sense to make rooms more expensive just to make people feel better when they don't get them.

I agree it doesn’t make sense to do it, but it also doesn’t make sense to start making a whole bunch of rules that penalize owners from making and changing trips either.

So, if demand is too high then the best solution to curb walking or spec renting of high demand rooms is to rebalance the point charts which is, IMO, DVCs responsibility within a points based system.

 

[Nabas]

I get your point and, believe me, I understand why people feel this way about it.

But, and this is a big but for me, to me it doesn't make sense to make rooms more expensive just to make people feel better when they don't get them.

It's not just making one category of room more expensive.

It's also making another category of room less expensive.

The idea is to balance demand.

Personally, I don't want this to happen, but I have a lot of flexibility and can change my dates if I cannot get the room I want for the dates that I want. If I cannot get a BWV Standard room for 11 months from today, I'll keep trying until I do, and adjust my vacation accordingly.

 

[sndral]

I think that clause is saying that we don’t have to ask permission from DvD to rent a reservation. We can do that all on our own.

And, as the rules stand today, there is no limit on changing lead guests name so I don’t think that is the reason for the clause.

I’ve always been curious as to why you can change all the guests on the reservation online except the lead guest - why does DVC require that change to be via phone call, maybe it’s because of the language about when approval is not needed v. when approval may be needed .