DVC rental crackdown?

[Fido Chuckwagon]

First, I have to believe that the Disney salesperson(s) knew full well that the multiple week owner was indeed buying them to rent out those weeks and may even have used that in the sales pitch. In light of their knowing that, it seems questionable to now say that those multiple weeks' owners can't rent those weeks out. Personally, I think that's pretty nasty of Disney under the circumstances.

I think you’re misunderstanding the DVC system. DVC is not weeks-based, it is points-based. While it is possible in some rare circumstances to get points that can also be used as a fixed week, that is not the norm.

It seems to me, knowing even the tiniest bit about Disney reservations, that the owner can continue to be the "lead name" and add the renters as additional guests during whatever week, assuming that the total would not then exceed the total occupancy limit of that unit. Indeed, from what I understand about Disney, the non-lead-names, if they happen to arrive first, can even check in at the front desk if they wanted. And, of course, they can certainly gain entry to their unit if there's an advance check-in resulting in a cell phone getting "pinged" when the unit has been cleared by housekeeping.

This would be a bad idea for a lot of reasons, for both the owner and the renter. This would give the owner access to the renter’s room. This would give one or the other the access to the other’s credit card for purchases, etc. I just don’t see this becoming widespread.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

And the reason I'm trying to scheme my way around the Disney police is not because it will impact me in any way. I just don't like resort managements and resort families that become adversaries. Timesharing is hard enough without having management become your enemy.

This isn’t management becoming the enemy. This is something that the majority of membership has been clamoring for. Whatever side of the rental debate you are on, it is simply a fact that lots of DVC members complain, loudly, about availability, and to a lesser extent, rentals.

 

[Dean]

This isn’t management becoming the enemy. This is something that the majority of membership has been clamoring for. Whatever side of the rental debate you are on, it is simply a fact that lots of DVC members complain, loudly, about availability, and to a lesser extent, rentals.

And the reality is that even if they eliminated renting completely it would be unlikely to have much effect on availability. It's more of a function of those members not understanding the realities of what they bought than rentals taking options away from them.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

And the reality is that even if they eliminated renting completely it would be unlikely to have much effect on availability. It's more of a function of those members not understanding the realities of what they bought than rentals taking options away from them.

Maybe. But when Wyndham did this it sure as heck improved availability across the Wyndham system.

The following two facts are sort of sad but unfortunate truths in timesharing:

1. Availability gets better when there is more breakage; and
2. There is more breakage when there is a less efficient, or nonexistent, mechanism for owners to rent their excess points.

Right now Disney has a hyper-efficient rental market. With practically no effort, any owner can rent and not only recoup their annual dues, but also get a premium on top. That is unheard of in every other timeshare system. Acts that make the system less efficient, and therefore increase breakage, could certainly have an impact on availability.

 

[kanerf]

There is an easy fix for all of this. DVC should allow owners to sell their unused points back. This way they (DVC) can rent out these rooms as they see fit and charge whatever they want and the seller gets funds they can use for MFs or whatever they want. I am not sayin that all point rentals should stop, but have this as an alternative.

 

[dioxide45]

There is an easy fix for all of this. DVC should allow owners to sell their unused points back. This way they (DVC) can rent out these rooms as they see fit and charge whatever they want and the seller gets funds they can use for MFs or whatever they want. I am not sayin that all point rentals should stop, but have this as an alternative.

But Disney would probably never pay what private rentals pay. Is there also a large enough market to pay Disney rates vs. what a private owner is willing to rent for?

 

[kanerf]

But Disney would probably never pay what private rentals pay. Is there also a large enough market to pay Disney rates vs. what a private owner is willing to rent for?

True, but many would accept the lower fee to avoid any potential hassles with renting.

 

[andre10056]

I think you’re misunderstanding the DVC system. DVC is not weeks-based, it is points-based. While it is possible in some rare circumstances to get points that can also be used as a fixed week, that is not the norm.


This would be a bad idea for a lot of reasons, for both the owner and the renter. This would give the owner access to the renter’s room. This would give one or the other the access to the other’s credit card for purchases, etc. I just don’t see this becoming widespread.

I think you’re misunderstanding the DVC system. DVC is not weeks-based, it is points-based. While it is possible in some rare circumstances to get points that can also be used as a fixed week, that is not the norm.


This would be a bad idea for a lot of reasons, for both the owner and the renter. This would give the owner access to the renter’s room. This would give one or the other the access to the other’s credit card for purchases, etc. I just don’t see this becoming widespread.

Exactly whose credit card would be charged is of course an issue to resolve. If it would be the lead name's, assuming the owner would be the lead name, then that wouldn't work (for the owner!, it would work great for the guest ). If it's whoever checks in and presents their card at the front desk, not a problem. But even in the event that it would be the lead name's credit card, that's when you make someone else the lead name and, as an owner, simply be one of the named guests in that room (assuming the other people plus the owner would not exceed the occupancy limit of the room). "It's definitely for personal use as I'm actually going to be there, just not the first to arrive".

As far as the owner having access to the room, if the owner lives in Northern Idaho, that may not be a big concern.

However, I'm not sure that a guest paying megabucks would appreciate having the owner even in name only on a total named occupant list. So it may work best if Rick or Cindy makes the reservation on behalf of a relative or friend.

As far as the system being a points system, I was under the impression that someone may most likely have purchased whatever "value" (points, weeks, whatever, makes no difference) they now own via a Disney sales rep. And hence I felt new restrictions on renting to be unfair in light of the salespeople knowing, that it was obvious, that the buyer would be renting their "value" out. But others have responded by saying that the big renter-outers purchased resale so there was likely no Disney salesperson involved. If so, no "betrayal" (quote unquote) on the part of the overall Disney marketing team.

I truly didn't expect so many "points" (or whatever) being available resale. Why the heck would people re-sell cheaply when they can get so much value via renting their units out?

Which brings me to a new issue: will the market value of Disney Vacation Club ownerships be higher or lower with restrictions on renting? I think the answer is obvious. Or maybe not so obvious. You can't earn the megabucks from renting out, but perhaps people will pay more if there's theoretically greater availability.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

But Disney would probably never pay what private rentals pay. Is there also a large enough market to pay Disney rates vs. what a private owner is willing to rent for?

Also, occupancy rates are historically low right now for the hotel side of Disney. Disney doesn’t want people’s excess points. They have plenty of their own inventory to rent out.

 

[iftravel]

More restriction leads to less value, that’s for sure. Think Condo vs Co-op. But the management teams at co-ops may think differently.

 

[andre10056]

More restriction leads to less value, that’s for sure. Think Condo vs Co-op. But the management teams at co-ops may think differently.

Personally, I may have been very interested in buying....no...investing in...a DVC ownership based upon what kind of rents people were getting. And the high prices seemed very reasonable in light of those annual positive cash flows. But now......

 

[andre10056]

Another interesting aspect to this is Redweek just shifted so that everything is now verified with Owner Services (I've heard a lot about 3 way calls, etc.). And yet, Redweek calling to confirm an ownership before advertising to the public might be deemed an admission that you're now engaging in, or arguably engaging in, a commercial rental.

So Redweek as it turns out may have taken themselves out of the Disney rental market...and it's the Disney kind of "low hanging fruit" multiple listing opportunities that may have convinced Redweek to make the change to "verification only" in the first place.

 

[dioxide45]

Another interesting aspect to this is Redweek just shifted so that everything is now verified with Owner Services (I've heard a lot about 3 way calls, etc.). And yet, Redweek calling to confirm an ownership before advertising to the public might be deemed an admission that you're now engaging in, or arguably engaging in, a commercial rental.

So Redweek as it turns out may have taken themselves out of the Disney rental market...and it's the Disney kind of "low hanging fruit" multiple listing opportunities that may have convinced Redweek to make the change to "verification only" in the first place.

I think Redweek has long been a third tier site for listing DVC rentals. There are a lot of big brokers in this space that seem to have much of the market share.

 

[andre10056]

I think Redweek has long been a third tier site for listing DVC rentals. There are a lot of big brokers in this space that seem to have much of the market share.

No doubt. But still for the time being a factor in Disney rentals as evidenced by their pages, such as the following:

Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House Timeshare Rentals | RedWeek

Rent directly from Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House owners, starting at just $240/night. By-owner rates often 25 - 50% lower than the resort's!

www.redweek.com

 

[dioxide45]

No doubt. But still for the time being a factor in Disney rentals as evidenced from their pages, such as the following:

Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House Timeshare Rentals | RedWeek

Rent directly from Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo House owners, starting at just $240/night. By-owner rates often 25 - 50% lower than the resort's!

www.redweek.com

I think a big chunk of these come from a specific broker that may have an arrangement with Redweek to list their reservations there. You will notice many are one night reservations. It would seem that it might be difficult to make much of a profit on these when after paying the listing fee and $99 when rented fee. This was discussed here a few years ago and it may be that this broker has some arrangement with Redweek where they don't pay those fees and Redweek just gets the booking fee from the renter.

Even many of the longer reservations (2-3 nights) are from the same broker.

 

[rickandcindy23]

As I said in another thread or maybe earlier in this one, we know two people who do not use their points to go to Disney World. Both have been renting their points on disboards when they have points left at the end of the year. I actually told one of them to buy a Sheraton to trade into other resorts that aren't Disney and rent their points on DVC Rental Store, which I have been doing with a large number of my points but only because we bought points and had use within a few months, and we already had several trips in our future and couldn't do the Disney thing much.

One of our friends is trading in II and enjoying that challenge and bought 5 different Sheratons and are now buying a Marriott for trading purposes. They now frequent Universal Studios, have annual passes and they cannot believe what trading through II is getting and how cheaply they are getting weeks. We all take it for granted, seeing Marriott's Imperial Palms sitting online. Former DVC members are seeing those exchanges and say aloud, "I just got a 3 bedroom Marriott in II for a pittance compared to staying at Disney on my points."

I am always the Disney maniac. We are looking forward to a trip next year to Aulani and Marriott's Ko Olina, if only I could get a Ko Olina week via trade. That is a tough trade lately.

I booked a studio for four weeknights X 2 weeks, so 8 weeknights, OKW to get Extra Magic Hours at Disney for us and the little ones while our son and daughter-in-law do the Universal Studios thing. The little kids are bored with Universal everything. They aren't even 40 inches tall yet.

 

[andre10056]

I think a big chunk of these come from a specific broker that may have an arrangement with Redweek to list their reservations there. You will notice many are one night reservations. It would seem that it might be difficult to make much of a profit on these when after paying the listing fee and $99 when rented fee. This was discussed here a few years ago and it may be that this broker has some arrangement with Redweek where they don't pay those fees and Redweek just gets the booking fee from the renter.

Even many of the longer reservations (2-3 nights) are from the same broker.

Yes. But it's such a long list that, even if they might be a low percentage of the total, there are still a good number of 4, 5, 6, and 7 night rentals. I wonder where that broker gets the one night listings.

In any case, any call to Owners Services to verify whatever as a prerequisite to advertising to the general public will likely not be done in the future, depending upon Disney's definition of commercial renting...or caution about Disney's possibly perceiving that you've entered into the commercial renting world.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Yes. But it's such a long list that, even if they might be a low percentage of the total, there are still a good number of 4, 5, 6, and 7 night rentals. I wonder where that broker gets the one night listings.

In any case, any call to Owners Services to verify whatever as a prerequisite to advertising to the general public will likely not be done in the future, depending upon Disney's definition of commercial renting...or caution about Disney's possibly perceiving that you've entered into the commercial renting world.

Easy to get one-night at a resort with a simple click through on DVC. The one-nights are everywhere and worth it to some people who really just need the one night.

If I had a week at DSS and a week at DVO (through II exchange) but had Saturday check-in for the first week and Sunday for the second week, that extra night would be valuable to me.

 

[frank808]

It seems to me that you “believe” things but don’t know if you are correct. When someone buys hundreds of points at resorts with the intent of renting out those points (DVC is a mostly point-based product not “week based” with the exception of some of the newer resorts offering “fixed weeks”) it would not be a good financial decision to buy from a Disney salesperson, as direct purchase points are way more expensive than resale (very easy for you to look up price comparisons)…with the exception of a couple of super sales they had for OKW and maybe another one, can’t recall. So I think the scenario you present that the Disney salesperson knows full well they are going to rent them out and may even use that as a sales pitch is pretty much off base for the most part (again the exception as I already said). How many times have you sat with a DVC sales person? In my experience (multiple direct contracts with a few resales in between) I have never had a pushy salesperson, never had anyone try to sell me more points to “rent out”.
Just my two cents. Owners since 1997. And I’m not a fan of renting out points on a regular basis. From personal experience, I can say the first 7 or 8 years resort rooms looked great and well taken care of (“pride of ownership”). Once renting out points started to be a thing, I could see a change in the conditions of the rooms. Not no.rmal wear and tear either. Very sad that the constant theft of the nice fiestaware at Boardwalk resulted in getting generic dish ware. I know many owners that have made the same observations.

DVC owner since 2006 and I have had a few presentations at Disneyland and Aulani with reps touting that I should buy more points to rent them to cover dues. My original old guide has never said that. But she has been long gone and I have noticed the newer guides are more standard TS salesperson than the DVC of bygone era. Though I have not attended a presentation since 2020.

Renters are changing the conditions of the rooms and are stealing items is your observation. Might want to blame Disney, as DVC is the largest renter of TS rooms. And the best part is DVC gets free breakage points so can rent points without paying MF on those points.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[frank808]

Maybe. But when Wyndham did this it sure as heck improved availability across the Wyndham system.

The following two facts are sort of sad but unfortunate truths in timesharing:

1. Availability gets better when there is more breakage; and
2. There is more breakage when there is a less efficient, or nonexistent, mechanism for owners to rent their excess points.

Right now Disney has a hyper-efficient rental market. With practically no effort, any owner can rent and not only recoup their annual dues, but also get a premium on top. That is unheard of in every other timeshare system. Acts that make the system less efficient, and therefore increase breakage, could certainly have an impact on availability.

And benefit Disney in the pocket book.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Huskerpaul]

The context for posts #81 and #83 was for timeshare sales, not total sales. The topic of this thread is ostensibly the DVC crackdown on timeshare rentals.

So, to be precise, "In Wyndham, there are twice as many timeshare sales to existing owners versus non-owners."

And my point was I do not believe this is true for DVC. They get many sales from guests visiting the Parks who are looking to make a return trip cheaper. A former DVC Guide (they don't have salespeople like other systems lol) explained he made most of his sales to families visiting and staying in Moderate resorts (you can stay in a Deluxe DVC room for the same price) or already staying in a Deluxe (ou can save up to 50% by staying in a DVC Deluxe room). Another factor is once you buy one contract from DVC direct of at least 150 points, you qualify for all the perks like discounted Annual Passes and Moonlight Magic events. If you want more points, you can buy resale and still have access to those perks. Some resale owners can't resist the FOMO of those perks and buy 150 points direct just for access. DVC is a true timeshare unicorn.

 

[Dean]

And my point was I do not believe this is true for DVC. They get many sales from guests visiting the Parks who are looking to make a return trip cheaper. A former DVC Guide (they don't have salespeople like other systems lol) explained he made most of his sales to families visiting and staying in Moderate resorts (you can stay in a Deluxe DVC room for the same price) or already staying in a Deluxe (ou can save up to 50% by staying in a DVC Deluxe room). Another factor is once you buy one contract from DVC direct of at least 150 points, you qualify for all the perks like discounted Annual Passes and Moonlight Magic events. If you want more points, you can buy resale and still have access to those perks. Some resale owners can't resist the FOMO of those perks and buy 150 points direct just for access. DVC is a true timeshare unicorn.

Over the years DVC sales has become more and more like other timeshares sales. They may be better than most but they are not the above board group that they once were.

 

[Dean]

Maybe. But when Wyndham did this it sure as heck improved availability across the Wyndham system.

The following two facts are sort of sad but unfortunate truths in timesharing:

1. Availability gets better when there is more breakage; and
2. There is more breakage when there is a less efficient, or nonexistent, mechanism for owners to rent their excess points.

Right now Disney has a hyper-efficient rental market. With practically no effort, any owner can rent and not only recoup their annual dues, but also get a premium on top. That is unheard of in every other timeshare system. Acts that make the system less efficient, and therefore increase breakage, could certainly have an impact on availability.

When they cracked down before and there was a sell off it did not make any difference that was noticeable. MAYBE if they could eliminate renting completely it would make a difference but even then I doubt it'd be much. To make any leeway in renting they'd need to shut down the mechanisms like David's, etc. I suspect a different approach would be far better at improving availability, that of instating minimum stays at least for 7 months and beyond. Also change fees would help as well. Neither would be popular of course.

 

[ljmiii]

More restriction leads to less value, that’s for sure. Think Condo vs Co-op. But the management teams at co-ops may think differently.

As a person who has owned and lived in both in NYC, living in a co-op is almost always *way* better than living in a condo building. But it is true that the ability to finance 90% and looser rental rules inflates the price of condos.

 

[andre10056]

As a person who has owned and lived in both in NYC, living in a co-op is almost always *way* better than living in a condo building. But it is true that the ability to finance 90% and looser rental rules inflates the price of condos.

I, too, worked in Manhattan and owned and lived in Manhattan and Brooklyn. I always avoided living in co-ops.

The form of ownership is different. With a condo, you own that condo as your castle. It's yours and yours alone. The building may have overall rules and regulations, but the rules and regulations that will survive legal scrutiny are those that prohibit someone from adversely impacting neighbors. If what you're doing within your condo does not in any way impact other residents of the building, then you can likely win whatever legal challenge to such rule and/or regulation. You own in fee simple that piece of real estate. You can do what you want with it.

With a co-op, you don't own your apartment in fee simple ownership, meaning you are not the exclusive king of your castle. Instead, you just own a share of the corporation that owns the entire building. As such, the other owners of the corporation can (they might not but they can) very strictly control your life. Indeed. a prospective purchaser almost always has to appear before the Board to be interrogated in order to buy into the corporation. If they don't like you, or they don't feel you've got enough income (or something else that they may not say out loud), they simply give you a thumbs down. You won't be able to purchase, and the seller won't be able to sell to you. In fact, it may not be "you" they didn't like, but the seller. Let's say a seller has to desperately sell his co-op because he's lost his job and won't be able to afford his co-op payments, but an influential Board member hates the seller. That Board member may be able to terrorize that selling owner by giving prospective purchasers the thumbs down over and over.

But here's the worst aspect of owning a co-op, i.e., owning a share of the corporation. A creditor who's owed money can sue YOU if they feel you have the deepest pockets and not sue anyone else to collect the entire building's bills. Each corporation owner is him or herself potentially liable for 100% of the building's expenses.

My apologies to everyone for having posted about something that isn't directly on point of DVC cracking down on renters, although the post above that said "more restrictions lowers value" is, I believe, correct..