Dean
DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
That's correct. It's not actually DVD's intent (remember DVD is not the same as DVC) to devalue what we currently own but to direct new buyers away from resale and towards resale. The end effect is the same though. That was the intent of ROFR as well but that's an ineffective process to do so.The only thing erroneous is this response.
On March 21 a property will have a value of less then what it was on March 20. It has been well documented that Disney changed the benefit to devalue the current value of ownership to increase Disney's profit.
Properties will have one value on or before March 20; They will have a lesser value on and after March 21. That is factual, not an assumption. So for one to state the value did not have an actually value that was greater prior to this change is disingenuous at best, hyperbole at worst.
Not only is it not their responsibility, they have you sign paperwork that you acknowledge that you are not buying expected resale or rental gains. I would somewhat disagree on ROFR. It's not about establishing a resale value per se but rather keeping resale value high enough so you are comfortable buying retail. It is not, as some erroneously think, mainly about buying up cheap resale contracts. To say DVC is worthless resale is a stretch, it will be less, we don't yet know how much less.My view is that although they have the power, I would refrain from calling it a right. It is not reasonable in any stretch of the imagination for Disney to not have a responsibility for resale value.
ROFR is solely about establishing a certain re-sale value. Maintaining and updating properties is partially about retaining retaining a re-sale value. Changing benefits was solely about lowering the value so Disney can profit at current owners expense.
In my opinion Disney has also devalued direct purchase ownership and in the long run my effect sales. By making a DVC ownership worthless on the secondary market they have taken away a key purchasing point.
To make this about one's personal situation is no applicable. As I've noted, this change likely affects me more than most because I do have a moderately large contract I've been planning to sell. I likely won't now but will cont to mostly rent it instead.king974:
Many on the boards claim that many (some even say most) direct buyers don't even look into resale and/or don't care about resale as they claim they are likely never going to sell (as I have said, I hope these people's lives continue without any possible financial issues that may cause them to have to sell). I find this absolutely baffling and amazing. If one buys 250 points at BLT for $110 that is a $27,500 purchase!! People buy home theater systems in the thousands and spend hours and hours researching which is the best. People spend hours reseaching what car to buy some of whom even think about resale. (Toyota's advertising talks about it.) The list goes on and on. To think that someone makes a $27500 purchase without wondering what would happen if they have to sell, makes no sense to me at all unless one has unlimited funds.
I can't think of any action that was reasonable that this BBS would have liked given that simply adding on perks for retail purchases wouldn't even move the needle. Drawing purely from direct timeshare experience here are some things I can think of and I bet you wouldn't like any of them.Disney could have taken many actions other then the action they did take.
They could have lowered the price point they are charging per point for one thing. Lowering the price of direct sales to bring them in line with what the market can sustain would have been the fairest action. What Disney did is akin to a car manufacture saying we are not going to make spare parts for your model car any longer thus killing any residual re-sale value forcing a buyer to buy a new car if they wanted to get a full value.
Disney could have offered incentives to increase new sales. 0% interest loans for example.
They also could have increased the amount of times they executed ROFR. That in turn would have raised the cost of re-sales and made them less attractive to buyers.
Increasing overseas marketing. The dollar is at a low which makes overseas purchases cheaper.
Disney could have cut overhead and costs at DVC thus lowering annual dues, which have been skyrocketing. That in turn would have made sales more affordable for a wide range of buyers and possible slowed the amount of people looking to sell off ownerships. Less ownerships for sale translates to higher re-sale cost.
Disney had many options. They chose to devalue current owners values on the secondary market instead.
- A VIP system where those who buy retail get added benefits based on how many points they own while those that buy resale don't.
- Removal of all exchange options (RCI & BVTC).
- More pay to play to keep dues down.
- More aggressive tactics to get people in to tour, esp from the resorts and parks. How about knocks on the door and multiple phone calls per day.
- More aggressive sales techniques.
- Developer preview stays, maybe $299 and a timeshare tour get you 4 nights in a studio.
- Higher Transfer fees (? in FL) but some companies charge as much as 10% of the retail purchase price.
- Developer deposits to RCI.
- Force you to go through a tour desk as part of the check in process and encourage signing up for a tour then.