Will a Rental Crackdown Reset DVC Resale Prices?

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

The key word is "selling". They are selling the units, not holding them as in investment. And did you know that if a broker strips 3 years of points, they cannot sell the contract to another buyer until all the trips based on those points have been taken. If they close before the trip has been taken, those reservations are canceled.

If it wasn’t clear from my post, they are renting (stripping) tens of thousands of points between the buying and selling…and yes, they cannot close until rentals are completed but presumably they are borrowing the points to current UY, using webscraping tools and bots to snatch rooms in the near future, and then selling the contracts 7-12 months after acquiring them.

 

[Tatebeck]

Plus, a confirmed reservation doesn’t become a rental until a guest name is changed…so, how would DVC go about knowing if the walked room is a renters if the owners name stays on it until later in the game?

In my example, after modifying the reservation a few times by walking, they wouldn't be able to change all of the guest names anymore. If the required guest would not be there to physically check in, then they would have to cancel the reservation. They could still add or change family and friends, but they would have to be there as well. So it would actually account for that.

I doubt there's a way for them to 100% boot out of all of the "commercial" renters because there will still be some that use some of their points but still rent a lot and toe the line. I think it would still be nice if there was a way to keep people in those situations from constantly walking to popular dates just to secure renters. My example would still add additional benefit even if they start rooting out the low hanging fruit of huge contracts that rent out all of their points each year. And actual members can still rent, just not after walking the date more than a week or two

 

[Lorana]

The key word is "selling". They are selling the units, not holding them as in investment. And did you know that if a broker strips 3 years of points, they cannot sell the contract to another buyer until all the trips based on those points have been taken. If they close before the trip has been taken, those reservations are canceled.

A commercial seller likely has a membership that is their "rental membership" where they transfer all the points they are stripping to be used for rentals. That would free them to sell the stripped contracts without having to wait for all the rental trips to occur.

 

[Disdreaming479]

This is why I think that DVC will not have to limit modifications (walking) in order to curb the biggest commercial renters. They have all of the data about how the points are being moved around in order to strip and flip.

 

[Cfabar1]

Until DVC feels that somehow this is impacting Disney's ability to make money in a meaningful way (either they feel it is preventing new units from being sold and/or they feel they could profit more by steering customers to book from them) they are not going to address this issue.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Until DVC feels that somehow this is impacting Disney's ability to make money in a meaningful way (either they feel it is preventing new units from being sold and/or they feel they could profit more by steering customers to book from them) they are not going to address this issue.

I think that we have reached that point. They didn’t care in 2021-2023 during peak revenge travel, but now they are having to aggressively discount during 2024, so they want to crackdown because renters have other options which is depressing occupancy rates at their resorts.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

This is why I think that DVC will not have to limit modifications (walking) in order to curb the biggest commercial renters. They have all of the data about how the points are being moved around in order to strip and flip.

Stopping walking is not going to help much (and might even hurt legitimate owners)— sophisticated rental enterprises can beat out real owner-users every morning at 8AM with webtools designed to help them snag reservations faster than even the fastest human.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

That still takes away flexibility and adds an extra time premium for members. Member services opens an hour after online reservations do so I I have 7 days booked and want to add an 8th I have to wait an hour. Additionally I have to take time out of my work day to call, be placed on hold for an indefinite amount of time, and member services has to pay a cast member to help me do something that I could have done online by myself.

It seems in all the recent threads complaining about walking and 11 month availability, someone suggests limiting or disallowing any modifications to reservations which significantly limits the flexibility for members and which potentially increases the time/hassle for member services to help those members on the phone.

I suspect the fix for walking would be a lot more problematic and limiting for members. All I’m saying is we need to be careful what we wish for.

As a side note, we have never rented our points and don’t intend to. I have also walked exactly 1 reservation in our 15 years of ownership. We though routinely tweak a reservation to add a day here or there.

The posts have for the most part talked about limiting the number of times one can change an online reservation, like to 5. Not eliminating it entirely. How many non walking reservations have legitimately needed more than 5 modifications?

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Stopping walking is not going to help much (and might even hurt legitimate owners)— sophisticated rental enterprises can beat out real owner-users every morning at 8AM with webtools designed to help them snag reservations faster than even the fastest human.

Talk has been to also eliminate commercial enterprises, which means they would no longer be able to snag those reservations.

 

[Sammie]

Interesting...but what I see is the value in renting is dissappearing as prices per point rise and disney offers really good cash incentives.

Exactly and much more flexible cancellation. I just lost $1800 dollars on a beach rental due to a medical emergency.

 

[Matty B13]

Here’s what I observe whether it be by Disney or any other entity … the ‘fix’ turns out to be worse than the ‘problem’ … don’t like walkers then learn to beat them at their own game ….

But the walkers are the renters though in most cases picking up the best units on the best dates, so I actually think DVC will do something about it. You can't go on any Disney Facebook page now without a "Confirmed Reservation" post about a specific weekend, even the brokers/rental sites now have pages of Confirmed Reservations that they advertise. So either they have their lawyers send letters to these firms and individuals, or they do the easy thing and end
on-line modifications...... I'm guessing they take the easy route.

 

[Sandisw]

In my example, after modifying the reservation a few times by walking, they wouldn't be able to change all of the guest names anymore. If the required guest would not be there to physically check in, then they would have to cancel the reservation. They could still add or change family and friends, but they would have to be there as well. So it would actually account for that.

I doubt there's a way for them to 100% boot out of all of the "commercial" renters because there will still be some that use some of their points but still rent a lot and toe the line. I think it would still be nice if there was a way to keep people in those situations from constantly walking to popular dates just to secure renters. My example would still add additional benefit even if they start rooting out the low hanging fruit of huge contracts that rent out all of their points each year. And actual members can still rent, just not after walking the date more than a week or two

Having an owner be required to be present for a reservation would be against the POS in a big way.

So, there is no way they can do that. They have the power to have rules that a reasonable to weed out those using their membership for anything other than personal use.

Some renting is allowed under personal use so I will go back and say the same as before.

I walk a reservation and get it booked. It’s for me. 3 months before the trip I have an emergency and can’t go. I want to rent it and it’s my only rental and now I can’t because I modified too many times?

There is no need to do any of that. All DVC needs to do is simply monitor the memberships they feel could be in violation and go from there.

Changing the modification rules to be punitive to owners is not a step forward for the program.

 

[Sandisw]

The posts have for the most part talked about limiting the number of times one can change an online reservation, like to 5. Not eliminating it entirely. How many non walking reservations have legitimately needed more than 5 modifications?

Is it 5 within the first month? Or for the entire time. And what modification counts? Does changing room size count? Waitlist?

How does DVC design which modifications lock you out and which ones don’t.

 

[Sandisw]

But the walkers are the renters though in most cases picking up the best units on the best dates, so I actually think DVC will do something about it. You can't go on any Disney Facebook page now without a "Confirmed Reservation" post about a specific weekend, even the brokers/rental sites now have pages of Confirmed Reservations that they advertise. So either they have their lawyers send letters to these firms and individuals, or they do the easy thing and end
on-line modifications...... I'm guessing they take the easy route.

Ending the online modification would be a costly one for DVc because it means more CMs and less profit because what we pay them is a fixed rate.

There is no way they will go backwards like that because it costs them a lot of money.

I think the new language is enough to put some on notice and that alone might be enough to slow things down.

DVC has a responsibility to do things in the best interests of the owners and making it harder to change reservations is not going to be seen by many as a good move.

 

[Cfabar1]

I might be willing to support new reservations can be made online. Modifications must be made by calling member services. People could always add a day or days on the end by making a new reservation online and having MS combine the reservations.

 

[Sandisw]

I might be willing to support new reservations can be made online. Modifications must be made by calling member services. People could always add a day or days on the end by making a new reservation online and having MS combine the reservations.

As I just poared, that costs DVC money from its profits and it won’t happen, especially when they don’t need to do that.

 

[Tatebeck]

Having an owner be required to be present for a reservation would be against the POS in a big way.

So, there is no way they can do that. They have the power to have rules that a reasonable to weed out those using their membership for anything other than personal use.

I don't think it would be against anything to require that a guest that is on actually the guest list is the one that checks in... lol. Don't they basically do that already? Can you check in for someone who is not on a reservation with you? I don't think so. It would just stop you from transferring the entire stay to someone else after a certain number/type of modification.

I walk a reservation and get it booked. It’s for me. 3 months before the trip I have an emergency and can’t go. I want to rent it and it’s my only rental and now I can’t because I modified too many times?

In this scenario, you would get a warning that you must finalize and cannot modify at least 1 guest anymore and one of those confirmed guest(s) will have to be present to check in. If something happens and you cannot go, you cancel the booking and book something else for yourself for the future or cancel and book a reservation for rent with whatever reservations are left.

I still see no problem with that. If you would have to cancel the heavily modified booking and rebook/rent out a less popular reservation to use up your points while those original days go to a member with a waitlist, then that actually sounds great to me! I'd much rather have the actual owners getting the best accommodations that they want and letting the renters pick over the scraps that are left.

Buying in is a much bigger commitment than renting, the access should be better too. If everyone could easily rent confirmed reservations every year for the most popular times without the huge up front cost, then what would be the point of actually buying in?

 

[eandt]

Having an owner be required to be present for a reservation would be against the POS in a big way.

So, there is no way they can do that. They have the power to have rules that a reasonable to weed out those using their membership for anything other than personal use.

Some renting is allowed under personal use so I will go back and say the same as before.

I walk a reservation and get it booked. It’s for me. 3 months before the trip I have an emergency and can’t go. I want to rent it and it’s my only rental and now I can’t because I modified too many times?

There is no need to do any of that. All DVC needs to do is simply monitor the memberships they feel could be in violation and go from there.

Changing the modification rules to be punitive to owners is not a step forward

The posts have for the most part talked about limiting the number of times one can change an online reservation, like to 5. Not eliminating it entirely. How many non walking reservations have legitimately needed more than 5 modifications?

We actually modify a lot whether it be adding a day eliminating a day or changing resorts … I don’t want limits on that nor do I want to have to make a phone call every time I want to make a change … this sounds like a cluster imo

 

[AstroBlasters]

Some of these ideas would make the whole program too onerous to commit to. Buyers plan to own this thing for decades… they need the flexibility or no one would want to buy and the entire resale market will crash….

“The medicine is worse than the disease”

 

[RichVIII]

Until DVC feels that somehow this is impacting Disney's ability to make money in a meaningful way (either they feel it is preventing new units from being sold and/or they feel they could profit more by steering customers to book from them) they are not going to address this issue.

This. All this.