I do not know if this is true, but it is interestingly:
I do not like the direction this is going in. TBH, I have never been convinced that all these unilateral changes that they have been doing to resale contracts are legal in the first place, and I am surprised that no one has challenged this in court.
So based on this and assuming these rules remain intact I could stay at Riviera with my current points but if I buy a future resale contract I could only stay at the original 14?
I suppose this points to note changes coming in time which sucks. But right now this won’t impact me.
Still, given that I am an owner, I have an interest in how this goes moving forward and will follow closely.
Why would anyone want to buy Rivera direct? It will limit your ability to ever sell?
It certainly sounds that way.
In a way, it sounds like it is harkening back to the days of traditional timeshare days. I am not surprised by this. The fact is many buy into a timeshare points system with no intention of ever using that resort necessarily, but trading to other resorts. That puts more strain on those resorts in terms of demand. This change makes that a little more difficult.
I don’t know if pricing has been released for Riviera, but perhaps it will end up being slightly cheaper to encourage buying into it…but with the knowledge you can’t (easily) trade out of it.
They are covenants and deed restrictions, legal in the Several States.
Yes, but they keep changing them unilaterally. I can see it being OK if that is what the contract stated when you sign it, but the then say “Hey - guess what? If you sell your contract to someone after this date they cannot do X.”
This raises a good point. While it might not, technically, change the contract for the resale purchaser, since they didn’t have a contract to begin with, it fundamentally changes the perceived value of the property from the time it was purchased. In a sense, someone may buy a property under the express intention to eventually be able to sell it at some later date (not necessarily wisest financial decision, but nonetheless certainly possible). But with such changes in place, it effectively strips away some of the perceived resale value of the property, thereby having the potential to impact the original purchaser. They have no say in the matter, and Disney effectively undercuts the value of their resort. Hmm. I’m not lawyer (and I’ve never played one on TV) but it does seem like it has the potential for legal ramifications.
This change would prevent me from buying the newer DVC resorts. When I purchased Copper Creek I added my son on the deed since I knew that it would be his in the future. Although I did not purchase with the idea of selling, I knew if he did not want it he could sell it when I am gone. I believe that ability to sell will be impacted by this change.
Absolutely it will. I wonder what the reasoning is. It feels short sighted.
If I had to wager a guess, it is because Disney wants to reduce resale so as to increase their sales of new properties.
The resale market is strong and vast. If that is their goal I think they are shooting themselves in the foot.
But how much does DISNEY benefit from resale? If everyone is just selling everyone else their existing properties, it means Disney isn’t selling NEW properties, which is where they make their initial investment back. Those resale properties are already sold and people will either come and spend money, or rent to others to come and spend money. So, if you sell your property to someone else, it means Disney didn’t sell a property to them.
The new stuff is selling like hotcakes. They are not suffering sales. The only thing not to sell out quickly is Aulani, which suffers from its location, not easily reached by a large part of their market.
What they get in benefit is the resale purchaser visiting and spendingmoney there, that they otherwise would not nearly as often get to do. If they kill the resale market, sure they will suffer in other areas.
Not to mention the resale market allows people to get into DVC (and visit more and spend more) at a price that is far more affordable than what Disney is currently offering.
They are fools to try to kill resale if that is their goal. But I feel there is something more at work here, I just can’t reason what it is.
Maybe they will find buyers but I never would have signed a 50 year contract at my age knowing that I was locking someone into that one resort. With Copper Creek my son will have the ability to sell the contract and that will allow the new buyers to stay at any of the DVC resorts. I absolutely love WL but I think it would have been a deal breaker for me if a resale was limited to WL- especially since it seems like it is impossible to book it in December.
But the spending happens, either way, is my point. If you buy but don’t want to go, you rent out points and the renters come and spend money. In the meantime, the owner still pays normal dues, either way. Or, they don’t rent because they decide to come on property themselves. But the ability to resale doesn’t impact any of that. So for Disney, it is all the same.
I guess that’s my point. Those who already own don’t make Disney any more/less money other than residuals (which as I mentioned above, would happen regardless most of the time). But if they can reduce the number of times a property sells through resale and shift those buys to new ownership instead, Disney benefits greatly because not only will they make profit that they won’t make from resale, but they then have an ADDITIONAL property to earn residuals from.
I don’t have any doubt about that. Although, I’m not sure they are trying to kill it…just reduce it. Even a shift of 5% results in a very large profit for Disney. Still, I can’t help but believe that to make new DVCs attractive, they might have two options. One, build some DVCs that are actually more “value” priced, but less convenient. Two, build some DVCs that are far more PREMIUM experiences that offer exclusives only found there (I’m thinking akin go the Star Wars Hotel ideal, etc).
Did I misread the article? I thought it was saying that the original 14 could, after the change, exchange within the original 14 still. BUt it is for NEW DVCs that they can’t exchange with the original 14. So, your son will still be able to sell the unit to someone who can trade for AKL, Poly Villas, BW Villas, etc. But they wouldn’t be able to trade with Riviera, nor could Riviera trade for WL.
Nope. With DVC we will visit multiple times a year and perhaps ALSO buy cash trips. Without, we visit once a year.
As to the resale - they can always buy back and sell at their higher cost!
I get that. Point is, if you buy enough points to do that, but don’t use them, typically people will rent out the points to someone else who will then spend the money. Are there a lot of people who own a DVC and just don’t go and also don’t rent the points? I’m guessing not. So, Disney picks up residuals either way.
But Disney makes more by selling something new at $20,000 (or whatever) than buying back something for $15,000 and then selling it for $20,000. In one case, it is a gain of $20,000 plus ADDITIONAL residuals. In the other case, it is a gain of $5000, with residuals unchanged.