Is Disney Trying to Cut Down on the Resale Market, or Keep it Strong?

Ben E N

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
With the move to the 75 point minimum to get direct benefits, there seems to be a lot of talk about Disney trying to cut down on resale contracts. I can see some logic to them trying to do this, but actually think that they want to keep the resale market strong, as it benefits them to have strong resale value more than to get a few extra bucks here and there via a direct sales contract.

Why they would want to keep it strong:

1. When people buy in, they for the most part know that they can sell their contracts for most of their value back, if not a profit. A strong resale market ensures this. If the resale market were to dip significantly, it would give more people pause about buying in. I know that the strong resale market acted as a bit of a safety net when I bought my points. I never plan to sell them, but it is comforting to know that I will be able to if the need ever comes up. This is not the case with many other timeshares.

2. Allowing people to easily sell their contracts if they are priced right on the resale market cuts back on foreclosure costs. It also ensures that MFs are nearly 100% covered, meaning that they can keep their dues as low as possible, and make this a stronger selling point for those looking to buy in for the first time.

3. ROFR still allows them to flip a contract whenever they want. By having people sell their points when they are done with them, Disney ensures themselves a limitless supply of points at any resort that they want to sell.

4. A strong resale market justifies an increase in direct sales prices, which ultimately benefits Disney. They just raised their prices on all of their resorts except for Vero, which happens to be the cheapest priced resale contract right now. While these high prices may push a few more people to consider resale for now, they will have no choice but to buy new if they want to get into Riviera. Disney makes the most money off of new property sales, not flipping ROFR'd contracts for new ones. If BCV resales are going for $195/pt, then Disney will have no problem moving Riviera points for $225 or more each. If, on the other hand, BCV were selling for $100 on the resale market, it would drive many more people to look there than to even consider spending $180 per point at Riviera.

There are also reasons why Disney would want to undercut the resale market, but I find those to be a lot less convincing. I think this move to 75 points is just their way of making sure that they get their piece of the pie, but also allowing others to get theirs in order to benefit everyone. I may be reading this wrong, but that's how I see this all working out.
 
Yes.


(They want both, they want to encourage new buyers to buy direct and also want the resale market strongish)
 
With the move to the 75 point minimum to get direct benefits, there seems to be a lot of talk about Disney trying to cut down on resale contracts. I can see some logic to them trying to do this, but actually think that they want to keep the resale market strong, as it benefits them to have strong resale value more than to get a few extra bucks here and there via a direct sales contract.

Why they would want to keep it strong:

1. When people buy in, they for the most part know that they can sell their contracts for most of their value back, if not a profit. A strong resale market ensures this. If the resale market were to dip significantly, it would give more people pause about buying in. I know that the strong resale market acted as a bit of a safety net when I bought my points. I never plan to sell them, but it is comforting to know that I will be able to if the need ever comes up. This is not the case with many other timeshares.

2. Allowing people to easily sell their contracts if they are priced right on the resale market cuts back on foreclosure costs. It also ensures that MFs are nearly 100% covered, meaning that they can keep their dues as low as possible, and make this a stronger selling point for those looking to buy in for the first time.

3. ROFR still allows them to flip a contract whenever they want. By having people sell their points when they are done with them, Disney ensures themselves a limitless supply of points at any resort that they want to sell.

4. A strong resale market justifies an increase in direct sales prices, which ultimately benefits Disney. They just raised their prices on all of their resorts except for Vero, which happens to be the cheapest priced resale contract right now. While these high prices may push a few more people to consider resale for now, they will have no choice but to buy new if they want to get into Riviera. Disney makes the most money off of new property sales, not flipping ROFR'd contracts for new ones. If BCV resales are going for $195/pt, then Disney will have no problem moving Riviera points for $225 or more each. If, on the other hand, BCV were selling for $100 on the resale market, it would drive many more people to look there than to even consider spending $180 per point at Riviera.

There are also reasons why Disney would want to undercut the resale market, but I find those to be a lot less convincing. I think this move to 75 points is just their way of making sure that they get their piece of the pie, but also allowing others to get theirs in order to benefit everyone. I may be reading this wrong, but that's how I see this all working out.

I think Disney is simply trying to give their sales associates more tools to help them sell direct points. People love it when they feel they are getting extras. I think some would buy directly from Disney if all they received was two extra towels in their villa.

I can hear them at the pool relaxing saying “We really wanted those two extra towels so we bought directly from Disney.”
 
I think Disney is simply trying to give their sales associates more tools to help them sell direct points. People love it when they feel they are getting extras. I think some would buy directly from Disney if all they received was two extra towels in their villa.

I can hear them at the pool relaxing saying “We really wanted those two extra towels so we bought directly from Disney.”

Yes. That's exactly how I see it too. This change to 75 points is more of a small nudge to get a few more people to go direct, rather than a bomb thrown in there to completely disrupt the resale market and try to push everyone to go direct. Once the 25th hits, I really doubt we will see too much of an impact on resale prices one way or another.
 


As was said, yes, they want both.

To balance all of that, the direct market brings them cash - a LOT of cash that they can use to finance capital expansion. When they build a new DVC hotel, they still own it, we lease it from them - but we more than pay for the initial costs of building it. Then we pay for ongoing maintenance, while they take the depreciation over the life of our contracts. AND they benefit from time value of money. Its a money machine that Disney would like to perpetuate for eternity.

And building more DVC resorts rather than ROFRing the old ones and reselling the points gives them more vacationers that are tied to Disney. More rooms that are an almost guaranteed fill, even if the economy tanks. That population of guests will ensure that fixed costs of running the parks are covered.
 
I mean, if the change increases demand for direct points AND hits resale pricing it's a double win for Disney.They get to sell more direct points and ROFR resale points cheaper for a bigger profit margin. I don't think they want resale values to plunge drastically, but if they fell 20-30% I don't think they'd sweat it. (Not that I think the'll fall that much)
 
I mean, if the change increases demand for direct points AND hits resale pricing it's a double win for Disney.They get to sell more direct points and ROFR resale points cheaper for a bigger profit margin. I don't think they want resale values to plunge drastically, but if they fell 20-30% I don't think they'd sweat it. (Not that I think the'll fall that much)

Although I always thought as much as they pick off a few contracts through ROFR, they must get a lot more super cheap contracts through foreclosure.
 


I think Disney is simply trying to give their sales associates more tools to help them sell direct points. People love it when they feel they are getting extras. I think some would buy directly from Disney if all they received was two extra towels in their villa.

I can hear them at the pool relaxing saying “We really wanted those two extra towels so we bought directly from Disney.”
Agree 100%! It's perception as well as belonging to a "club." Disney effectively created "2nd class owners" by instituting the first changes and now these even further that perception. There are no amount of perks that would want me to be in "that club" for that price! I'll happily be in my own club with my 340 points for the same cost as their 145. I'll be in my Copper Creek Cabin relaxing for a week while they're in a 1 bedroom for the same cost. :) That's MY kind of club
 
1. When people buy in, they for the most part know that they can sell their contracts for most of their value back, if not a profit. A strong resale market ensures this. If the resale market were to dip significantly, it would give more people pause about buying in. I know that the strong resale market acted as a bit of a safety net when I bought my points. I never plan to sell them, but it is comforting to know that I will be able to if the need ever comes up. This is not the case with many other timeshares.

I wouldn't make such a blanket assumption. In many cases, people are buying in to get cheaper hotel rooms for the next 50 years, with no thought of ever selling. Even those that consider selling, do so with a fairly long future window ("10 years from now, I'll worry about that...")

3. ROFR still allows them to flip a contract whenever they want. By having people sell their points when they are done with them, Disney ensures themselves a limitless supply of points at any resort that they want to sell.

For this reason, Disney would prefer very low prices in the resale market. Buy for pennies and sell for $235 per point yields a better margin that buy for $140 and sell for $189.


4. A strong resale market justifies an increase in direct sales prices, which ultimately benefits Disney.

A strong resale market allows Disney to raise direct pricing. However, you should realize that a good chunk of the resale market are current owners buying more points. Many, perhaps the majority of people buying direct don't even know that resale exists.

Disney's move from 25 to 75 for benefits appears to focus more on leveling the play field between entry level contracts (75 now) and the current no-limit for resale. There are likely members whose only contract is a 25 pointer bought resale, which gives them discounts and other benefits, with a minimal maintenance fee.
 
Yes. That's exactly how I see it too. This change to 75 points is more of a small nudge to get a few more people to go direct, rather than a bomb thrown in there to completely disrupt the resale market and try to push everyone to go direct. Once the 25th hits, I really doubt we will see too much of an impact on resale prices one way or another.
This was just closing a swinging wide open loop-door that they left in the last restriction.

One they should have seen coming. One that was advocated by the boards starting the morning of 4/4/16.

I think there’s a third round of restrictions coming, possibly tiers.

This is more like restriction 2.1.

I think DVC cares far less about resale than we give them credit.

For all the reasons mentioned, DVC SHOULD care about resale pricing staying up. And silo or not, they should care that resale buyers are committing to spending thousands at WDW, thus rejuvenating the enthusiasm (spending) invested in the points.

But most likely, they just view resale as the competition, and they’re intent on playing cutthroat. If they go too far, they may reconsider. Until then...
 
I wouldn't make such a blanket assumption. In many cases, people are buying in to get cheaper hotel rooms for the next 50 years, with no thought of ever selling. Even those that consider selling, do so with a fairly long future window ("10 years from now, I'll worry about that...")

I also doubt that most buyers never plan to sell, just as most people who buy home insurance never hope to use it. However, when buying home insurance, people usually check with the provider to make sure they will come through when claims are made. They don't just go with the cheapest offering. Knowing that there is a strong resale market is sort of like that. Guides are more than happy to tout this benefit. I was considering adding on another 25 points direct, and my guide directly told me "That would be a good idea. Those 25 point contracts resell so well, I bet you could make a profit off of it in 10 years." They are using the resale market to help drive their direct sales.

For this reason, Disney would prefer very low prices in the resale market. Buy for pennies and sell for $235 per point yields a better margin that buy for $140 and sell for $189.

I agree there, as long as those cheap contracts came few and far between. If the whole market was driven too low, though, it would force Disney to either ROFR every contract or let too many cheap ones slip by. I think the ROFR process is a great system that Disney has in place, but there is no way they could gobble up 100% of the contracts that came their way. By keeping the market mostly high, they are able to grab the lowest hanging fruit without stuffing their pockets with too many points.

A strong resale market allows Disney to raise direct pricing. However, you should realize that a good chunk of the resale market are current owners buying more points. Many, perhaps the majority of people buying direct don't even know that resale exists.

Disney's move from 25 to 75 for benefits appears to focus more on leveling the play field between entry level contracts (75 now) and the current no-limit for resale. There are likely members whose only contract is a 25 pointer bought resale, which gives them discounts and other benefits, with a minimal maintenance fee.

I will also agree with some, but not all of that statement. If the resale market were ever to collapse, people could make such an easy profit off of renting out points. The economics of buying into DVC, even resale, barely work out in favor of just renting points for many people. DVC renting is already becoming popular. If a major broker was able to offer rental points for $12 each, due to cheap contracts, then that would quickly become the "best kept secret in Disney", with word of it quickly spreading, and still driving direct sales down.


I realize that I worded my initial question horribly. Of course Disney wants there to both by high resale prices and few contracts out there. Ford would love it if GMC was asking $50,000 for their pickup trucks, but only had one per dealer. The question I meant to ask was would Disney rather have high prices or fewer resale contracts, if they had to choose one of the two. I still see them benefitting more from higher prices. That's why I think they made this current move - to get people locked into holding on to bigger chunks of points. It's also why I think grandfathered contracts will stay grandfathered. The more people who are locked into these benefits, the less motivated they will be to resell those particular points.
 
I also doubt that most buyers never plan to sell, just as most people who buy home insurance never hope to use it. However, when buying home insurance, people usually check with the provider to make sure they will come through when claims are made. They don't just go with the cheapest offering. Knowing that there is a strong resale market is sort of like that. Guides are more than happy to tout this benefit. I was considering adding on another 25 points direct, and my guide directly told me "That would be a good idea. Those 25 point contracts resell so well, I bet you could make a profit off of it in 10 years." They are using the resale market to help drive their direct sales.



I agree there, as long as those cheap contracts came few and far between. If the whole market was driven too low, though, it would force Disney to either ROFR every contract or let too many cheap ones slip by. I think the ROFR process is a great system that Disney has in place, but there is no way they could gobble up 100% of the contracts that came their way. By keeping the market mostly high, they are able to grab the lowest hanging fruit without stuffing their pockets with too many points.



I will also agree with some, but not all of that statement. If the resale market were ever to collapse, people could make such an easy profit off of renting out points. The economics of buying into DVC, even resale, barely work out in favor of just renting points for many people. DVC renting is already becoming popular. If a major broker was able to offer rental points for $12 each, due to cheap contracts, then that would quickly become the "best kept secret in Disney", with word of it quickly spreading, and still driving direct sales down.


I realize that I worded my initial question horribly. Of course Disney wants there to both by high resale prices and few contracts out there. Ford would love it if GMC was asking $50,000 for their pickup trucks, but only had one per dealer. The question I meant to ask was would Disney rather have high prices or fewer resale contracts, if they had to choose one of the two. I still see them benefitting more from higher prices. That's why I think they made this current move - to get people locked into holding on to bigger chunks of points. It's also why I think grandfathered contracts will stay grandfathered. The more people who are locked into these benefits, the less motivated they will be to resell those particular points.
Well written and I agree. I hadn't thought of the grandfathered contracts becoming more valuable by keeping instead of buying, but that's absolutely true! Not only is Disney having people buy more points, but keeping long-time owners well... continued long-time owners.
 
I also doubt that most buyers never plan to sell, just as most people who buy home insurance never hope to use it. However, when buying home insurance, people usually check with the provider to make sure they will come through when claims are made. They don't just go with the cheapest offering. Knowing that there is a strong resale market is sort of like that. Guides are more than happy to tout this benefit. I was considering adding on another 25 points direct, and my guide directly told me "That would be a good idea. Those 25 point contracts resell so well, I bet you could make a profit off of it in 10 years." They are using the resale market to help drive their direct sales.



I agree there, as long as those cheap contracts came few and far between. If the whole market was driven too low, though, it would force Disney to either ROFR every contract or let too many cheap ones slip by. I think the ROFR process is a great system that Disney has in place, but there is no way they could gobble up 100% of the contracts that came their way. By keeping the market mostly high, they are able to grab the lowest hanging fruit without stuffing their pockets with too many points.



I will also agree with some, but not all of that statement. If the resale market were ever to collapse, people could make such an easy profit off of renting out points. The economics of buying into DVC, even resale, barely work out in favor of just renting points for many people. DVC renting is already becoming popular. If a major broker was able to offer rental points for $12 each, due to cheap contracts, then that would quickly become the "best kept secret in Disney", with word of it quickly spreading, and still driving direct sales down.


I realize that I worded my initial question horribly. Of course Disney wants there to both by high resale prices and few contracts out there. Ford would love it if GMC was asking $50,000 for their pickup trucks, but only had one per dealer. The question I meant to ask was would Disney rather have high prices or fewer resale contracts, if they had to choose one of the two. I still see them benefitting more from higher prices. That's why I think they made this current move - to get people locked into holding on to bigger chunks of points. It's also why I think grandfathered contracts will stay grandfathered. The more people who are locked into these benefits, the less motivated they will be to resell those particular points.
One comment on WDW gobbling up all cheap contracts in ROFR if they killed off the resale market:

Wyndham recently proved the model.

Before, if you wanted out, you had to either stop paying dues and eventually be foreclosed with a huge negative credit rating hit, or pay thousands to unload your contract worth pennies on the dollar.

Several years ago, Wyndham introduced Access points, where they grouped all resorts into a pool and allowed using the 13 month window in proportion to their ownership of the pool.

For example, if DVC created a pool where the pool owned 15% of BWV, then 15% of BWV would be avail to all pool (access) owners at the 11 month window. Owners of access points pay a composite MF representative of the pool. The pool would own points at all resorts and owners could book in the same percentages as the pool owns at each resort.

This program has been so successful for Wyndham (reselling pennies on the dollar points new again) that they’ve instituted an “Ovations” program to allow owners to give them back their contracts instead of having to pay to unload them.

Wyndham just repackages all the points being handed back to them and sells them new. And now their salesmen advertise that unlike other timeshares, you won’t get stuck with Wyndham; you can give your points back whenever you’re through with them!

Believe me, Wyndham at the moment is ecstatic that their points are so worthless resale that their owners are willing to hand them over to be resold at full price.
 
Last edited:
One comment on WDW gobbling up all cheap contracts in ROFR if they killed off the resale market:

Wyndham recently proved the model.

Before, if you wanted out, you had to either stop paying dues and eventually be foreclosed with a huge negative credit rating hit, or pay thousands to unload your contract worth pennies on the dollar.

Several years ago, Wyndham introduced Access points, where they grouped all resorts into a pool and allowed using the 13 month window in proportion to their ownership of the pool.

For example, if DVC created a pool where the pool owned 15% of BWV, then 15% of BWV would be avail to all pool (access) owners at the 11 month window. Owners of access points pay a composite MF representative of the pool. The pool would own points at all resorts and owners could book in the same percentages as the pool owns at each resort.

This program has been so successful for Wyndham (reselling pennies on the dollar points new again) that they’ve instituted an “Ovations” program to allow owners to give them back their contracts instead of having to pay to unload them.

Wyndham just repackages all the points being handed back to them and sells them new. And now their salesmen advertise that unlike other timeshares, you won’t get stuck with Wyndham; you can give your points back whenever you’re through with them!

Believe me, Wyndham at the moment is ecstatic that their points are so worthless resale that their owners are willing to hand them over to be resold at full price.

That’s really interesting. I wonder what we all think pennies on the dollar means in terms of $/points for each of us. Would it be <$100 or <$50 or <$25.
 
One comment on WDW gobbling up all cheap contracts in ROFR if they killed off the resale market:

Wyndham recently proved the model.

Before, if you wanted out, you had to either stop paying dues and eventually be foreclosed with a huge negative credit rating hit, or pay thousands to unload your contract worth pennies on the dollar.

Several years ago, Wyndham introduced Access points, where they grouped all resorts into a pool and allowed using the 13 month window in proportion to their ownership of the pool.

For example, if DVC created a pool where the pool owned 15% of BWV, then 15% of BWV would be avail to all pool (access) owners at the 11 month window. Owners of access points pay a composite MF representative of the pool. The pool would own points at all resorts and owners could book in the same percentages as the pool owns at each resort.

This program has been so successful for Wyndham (reselling pennies on the dollar points new again) that they’ve instituted an “Ovations” program to allow owners to give them back their contracts instead of having to pay to unload them.

Wyndham just repackages all the points being handed back to them and sells them new. And now their salesmen advertise that unlike other timeshares, you won’t get stuck with Wyndham; you can give your points back whenever you’re through with them!

Believe me, Wyndham at the moment is ecstatic that their points are so worthless resale that their owners are willing to hand them over to be resold at full price.


The graph shown here: http://tug2.net/timeshare_advice/timeshare-system-comparison-chart.html is why Disney would want to avoid this situation. They use their resale value as a selling point. Disney is not competing against other timeshares. They are competing against hotel stays, both on and off property, and need to show potential buyers why it is worth a ton of money upfront to buy into their hotels when they could just save the money and stay at more or less the same resorts whenever they want at a per night cost. It's a totally different economy where they have to show that the value of these timeshares will stay strong over time, not drop down to "low" like Wyndham did.
 
The graph shown here: http://tug2.net/timeshare_advice/timeshare-system-comparison-chart.html is why Disney would want to avoid this situation. They use their resale value as a selling point. Disney is not competing against other timeshares. They are competing against hotel stays, both on and off property, and need to show potential buyers why it is worth a ton of money upfront to buy into their hotels when they could just save the money and stay at more or less the same resorts whenever they want at a per night cost. It's a totally different economy where they have to show that the value of these timeshares will stay strong over time, not drop down to "low" like Wyndham did.
They’re comparing direct to CRO, not resale. If they tanked resale values, they just wouldn’t mention them.

Honestly, if they tanked values so hard that they could ROFR them dirt cheap and resale them at current prices, they could afford a ton more in perks to both make the money and tank the resale market.

Try this:

Necessary 160 (more likely 320) points direct to qualify, no grandfathering resale:

1. Free APs.

2. 2 extra FPs per day/per guest when member checks in.

3. 50% off dining plans.

4. 2 extra hours in a different park each night (different park than EMH park).

5. Lounge in each park, each lounge with concierge type concessions.

How on earth will they pay for all that? By acquiring ROFR at $20/point and reselling at $150.

They could make that profitable, but to do so, they’d have to destroy the resale market.

Yeah yeah, it’ll always be a room. So is Wyndham and I paid $1200 bucks for 399,000 points, total, including transfer fees and closing. That’s about 3 weeks in a 1 BR at Bonnet Creek.

If DVC acquired 150,000/month at $20 and sells them at $150, that’s $250 million/yr. plus the $350 mil/yr they’re making at new resorts (another 150k/month). They would be the only market, for all intents.

It would be enough for them to dedicate $150,000,000 to perks and still increase their annual profit by 50%.

If I’m the DVC VP, and DVC sales are now bringing in $450 million, net, instead of $350 million, I’m the king. (More because much of that $150 mil in perks is adding to the bottom line of other divisions.)

Screw resale.
 
Last edited:
They’re comparing direct to CRO, not resale. If they tanked resale values, they just wouldn’t mention them.

Honestly, if they tanked values so hard that they could ROFR them dirt cheap and resale them at current prices, they could afford a ton more in perks to both make the money and tank the resale market.

Try this:

Necessary 160 (more likely 320) points direct to qualify, no grandfathering resale:

1. Free APs.

2. 2 extra FPs per day/per guest when member checks in.

3. 50% off dining plans.

4. 2 extra hours in a different park each night (different park than EMH park).

5. Lounge in each park, each lounge with concierge type concessions.

How on earth will they pay for all that? By acquiring ROFR at $20/point and reselling at $150.

They could make that profitable, but to do so, they’d have to destroy the resale market.

Yeah yeah, it’ll always be a room. So is Wyndham and I paid $1200 bucks for 399,000 points, total, including transfer fees and closing. That’s about 3 weeks in a 1 BR at Bonnet Creek.

If DVC acquired 150,000/month at $20 and sells them at $150, that’s $250 million/yr. plus the $350 mil/yr they’re making at new resorts (another 150k/month). They would be the only market, for all intents.

It would be enough for them to dedicate $150,000,000 to perks and still increase their annual profit by 50%.

If I’m the DVC VP, and DVC sales are now bringing in $450 million, net, instead of $350 million, I’m the king. (More because much of that $150 mil in perks is adding to the bottom line of other divisions.)

Screw resale.

For all those perks, I would for sure go for it. However, they would also need to offer all those perks to regular hotel, and even some offsite, guests, to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, contracts sink to $80 and people just to gobbling them up at a rate above what Disney is comfy with. They then rent them out for $9 per point to make a profit, and people start staying at a room closer to the MK than any offsite hotel is for the same price as those offsite hotels. This keeps resale floating, but hurts the regular Disney hotel business.
Now, awesome perks would probably drive more people to go direct, but I think the easier route for Disney is what I had previously mentioned. Just give the current holders more great incentives to hold onto their contracts. That keeps them in their hands, which makes the resale market a bit more scarce. Supply and demand would drive resale prices up a bit, which in turn justifies the higher direct sale, especially with the nice added perks. Much cheaper than giving free APs to everyone who stays at a Disney hotel, obviously.
 
For all those perks, I would for sure go for it. However, they would also need to offer all those perks to regular hotel, and even some offsite, guests, to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, contracts sink to $80 and people just to gobbling them up at a rate above what Disney is comfy with. They then rent them out for $9 per point to make a profit, and people start staying at a room closer to the MK than any offsite hotel is for the same price as those offsite hotels. This keeps resale floating, but hurts the regular Disney hotel business.
Now, awesome perks would probably drive more people to go direct, but I think the easier route for Disney is what I had previously mentioned. Just give the current holders more great incentives to hold onto their contracts. That keeps them in their hands, which makes the resale market a bit more scarce. Supply and demand would drive resale prices up a bit, which in turn justifies the higher direct sale, especially with the nice added perks. Much cheaper than giving free APs to everyone who stays at a Disney hotel, obviously.
There are ways to push rental to WDW as well. If DVC created its own exchange program, they could destroy the rental market as well.

If you could, for a set number of extra points, trade your points into a pool in order to get points at another resort inside the 11 month window?

Most casual owners wouldn’t rent.

Then charge nickel and dime fees that make the effective cost to rent out points to be another $4-5 on top of MFs.

I’m not suggesting DVC do any of this. But the idea that DVC needs resales to be high is silly.

NONE of the other timeshares care one bit about resale values.

To the extent resale prices are high, sure they’re going to point it out. But there are other ways they could go.

Shoot. There are much more profitable ways they could go. Once you make the initial decision to toss resale values to the wolves, sky’s the limit.
 
There are ways to push rental to WDW as well. If DVC created its own exchange program, they could destroy the rental market as well.

If you could, for a set number of extra points, trade your points into a pool in order to get points at another resort inside the 11 month window?

Most casual owners wouldn’t rent.

Then charge nickel and dime fees that make the effective cost to rent out points to be another $4-5 on top of MFs.

I’m not suggesting DVC do any of this. But the idea that DVC needs resales to be high is silly.

NONE of the other timeshares care one bit about resale values.

To the extent resale prices are high, sure they’re going to point it out. But there are other ways they could go.

Shoot. There are much more profitable ways they could go. Once you make the initial decision to toss resale values to the wolves, sky’s the limit.

People would just turn into under the table commercial renters. If resale ever got cheap enough, it would directly compete with any hotel business, not the timeshare at Disney business. The balance is close enough right now that I ended up renting to get into Disney, and convinced someone else to rent via David's as opposed to getting a room at the Contemporary. The poster said that a 1 BR at BLT was similarly priced to a regular room at CR. That's with today's rates. If things get cheaper, it ruins the balance between renting and purchasing hotel rooms. Disney cannot write small scale rentals out of their contract. It's built into it. They could ROFR every single contract out there, but that would once again drive the price of those up again.

Disney needs resale to stay high for many reasons. To keep their direct prices justifiable, to keep the Disney name at a premium, and to make the current and future hotel rates justifiable.
 
Agree 100%! It's perception as well as belonging to a "club." Disney effectively created "2nd class owners" by instituting the first changes and now these even further that perception. There are no amount of perks that would want me to be in "that club" for that price! I'll happily be in my own club with my 340 points for the same cost as their 145. I'll be in my Copper Creek Cabin relaxing for a week while they're in a 1 bedroom for the same cost. :) That's MY kind of club
Amen! I like the way you think! I only have 180 points but some day I will add.....resale! I was tempted with rushing for the 25, but it didn't work out and I am fine with it.. I don't think the perks would have helped me enough anyway.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!













Top