Tired of SSR being blamed

[SL6827]

If SSR alone was charged the additional 2-3 points/night to book elsewhere, that would be a tremendous amount of breakage income for Disney.

Imagine the breakage income if SSR was charged 5-6 points/night to book elsewhere. Or even 4 points? If Disney has not already had this on their radar, I bet they do now.

 

[SL6827]

While it sounds Ike they have the right to do it..just like they can remove any L14 from the club and you would only be able to book your home resort.

If this is really so, then yes, selling was in my best interest. I really thought I knew a lot about DVC when I bought, maybe not.

 

[Sandisw]

Imagine the breakage income if SSR was charged 5-6 points/night to book elsewhere. Or even 4 points? If Disney has not already had this on their radar, I bet they do now.

I do not know if they would be able to legally set things up to end up with empty rooms to increase breakage,

if they created a tiered system, I think it would be very tough to decide how to value resorts. Many here are suggesting that owners at SSR would be the ones asked to pay more when trading, but how do you decide and determine trading power at other places. Who is to say that VGF should have the best vs. RIV vs BWV?

if I am not mistaken, points still need to balance out in some way. I think it would be a little hard, at this stage of the game, to treat L14 resorts, even with a 7 month chart, differently.

I just don’t see how it benefits Disney in sales to have to say, “Well, if you buy this resort, you have X trading power, but now we have this new resort to sell you but it won’t trade as well as what we sold you last year“

 

[crvetter]

if I am not mistaken, points still need to balance out in some way. I think it would be a little hard, at this stage of the game, to treat L14 resorts, even with a 7 month chart, differently.

For the booking power within 7 months (i.e. booking at a non-home resort) does not need to balance out to the total number of points sold for all the resorts involved. So in essence the the 7 month point charts (or ratio of Home Resort to DVC Vacation points) can lead to a higher number of points required than the home resort vacation points. No balancing of the points needs to be considered. I believe the only restriction they tied themselves to is that a single use day on the BVTC point charts can't change more than 20% YOY (outside special days: holidays, etc).

 

[SL6827]

To me, the most valuable DVC is the BCVs. Love that pool!

 

[Sandisw]

If this is really so, then yes, selling was in my best interest. I really thought I knew a lot about DVC when I bought, maybe not.

Yup. People get to trade for home resort because the resort is part of the club. At any time, Disney reserves the right to eliminate a resort from the BVTC. if so, then owners of the resort can’t trade any more.

Now, with Rivera, they may have different language that allows direct owners of points to trade and resale owners not since obviously the resort is part of the club. Once I get my new paperwork for RIV, I’ll have to see how it reads!

 

[Sandisw]

For the booking power within 7 months (i.e. booking at a non-home resort) does not need to balance out to the total number of points sold for all the resorts involved. So in essence the the 7 month point charts (or ratio of Home Resort to DVC Vacation points) can lead to a higher number of points required than the home resort vacation points. No balancing of the points needs to be considered. I believe the only restriction they tied themselves to is that a single use day on the BVTC point charts can't change more than 20% YOY (outside special days: holidays, etc).

I figured you’d have the answer to that. So, if they want to rank resorts and change the trading power, it sounds like there is very little to limit it. Thank you once again!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

For the booking power within 7 months (i.e. booking at a non-home resort) does not need to balance out to the total number of points sold for all the resorts involved. So in essence the the 7 month point charts (or ratio of Home Resort to DVC Vacation points) can lead to a higher number of points required than the home resort vacation points. No balancing of the points needs to be considered. I believe the only restriction they tied themselves to is that a single use day on the BVTC point charts can't change more than 20% YOY (outside special days: holidays, etc).

Wow!,, Thank you!!

 

[crvetter]

Wow!,, Thank you!!

I should be clear that I personally don't think these options would necessarily be taken by DVC easily. I consider these all sort of nuclear options to their product to a degree. Removing a resort from BVTC (the club) is likely never to happen because if so they destroy all buyer confidence in their product.

As for the 7 month (trading relative power) they could potentially do it , I suspect they have no desire to do so. If they wanted to they would have already. I guess in about two months we will have some idea what DVC plans on doing going forward. Fingers crossed it is the right thing (increase studios, decrease 1 beds, and possibly adjust 2 beds a tiny bit up), but we know they want to avoid that scenario because it would actually end up decreasing the lockoff premium. Also I do believe a more robust waitlist procedure would do wonders to the system.

 

[Bing Showei]

if they created a tiered system, I think it would be very tough to decide how to value resorts. Many here are suggesting that owners at SSR would be the ones asked to pay more when trading, but how do you decide and determine trading power at other places.

It could simply be a mathematical value determined by data. A completely blind system that doesn’t look at intangible values and simply assigns a trade ratio based on the points of that resort traded vs. how many points are traded into that resort.

If resort A has 85% of the owners trading out, then that resort would be assigned a low value metric. If resort B has only 15% of the resort trading out to other resorts, then that resort would be assigned a high value metric.

It could be argued that new resorts, for lack of data, will maintain a 1:1 “until more data is available” which conveniently wouldn’t happen until the resort is sold out, as then there would be accurate data to plot owner behaviors. This would not be unlike how ADs on actively sold resorts don’t raise much until sold out when they have a better sense for what operating costs actually are. That both instances work in favor of the developer is purely coincidental.

Trading out of resort A may carry an additional point penalty whereas trading out of Resort B would would bear no penalty.

Such a setup could potentially affect booking behavior in terms of discouraging or encourage trading according to raw numbers of ownership behavior.

I do not know if they would be able to legally set things up to end up with empty rooms to increase breakage,

That can’t be the primary objective, but if the objective is to modify booking behavior to address an imbalance in the system, and they just happen to increase breakage, so be it. This was the retracted 2020 reallocation.

 

[Sandisw]

It could simply be a mathematical value determined by data. A completely blind system that doesn’t look at intangible values and simply assigns a trade ratio based on the points of that resort traded vs. how many points are traded into that resort.

If resort A has 85% of the owners trading out, then that resort would be assigned a low value metric. If resort B has only 15% of the resort trading out to other resorts, then that resort would be assigned a high value metric.

It could be argued that new resorts, for lack of data, will maintain a 1:1 “until more data is available” which conveniently wouldn’t happen until the resort is sold out, as then there would be accurate data to plot owner behaviors. This would not be unlike how ADs on actively sold resorts don’t raise much until sold out when they have a better sense for what operating costs actually are. That both instances work in favor of the developer is purely coincidental.

Trading out of resort A may carry an additional point penalty whereas trading out of Resort B would would bear no penalty.

Such a setup could potentially affect booking behavior in terms of discouraging or encourage trading according to raw numbers of ownership behavior.

That can’t be the primary objective, but if the objective is to modify booking behavior to address an imbalance in the system, and they just happen to increase breakage, so be it. This was the retracted 2020 reallocation.

But couldn’t that potentially hurt smaller resorts if using percentage? For example, Poly or CCV who have a large number of points sold attached to cabins and bungalows.. The trading out there could come higher due to that which reduces its value? And those resorts are pretty popular .

I can not see how Disney can sell a resort and say to people, that their trading power could change down the road. More, I don’t think they would want to do that. Trading to all other resorts is a big selling point and a tiered trading system devalues that quite a bit.

But I do not believe that the difficulty of 7 month trades is so imbalanced that people are losing a ton of points and can.t book anything at all, at all times of the year.

People who are frustrated the most have to be people who are simply not getting the rooms at the more popular resorts like they used to and have not adjusted when and how they book to keep up with the many, many factors that play a role in why things have tightened for trades.

I have yet to book at 7 months and not been able to find something to trade into other than what I have booked except for a December booking. Every other time, there were studio choices that went beyond SSR or OKW. The times i have had trouble finding studios was when I tried to book in January or February around this time of year.l3 to 4 months out.

Obviously, those that don’t own at a SSR would welcome trying to limit SSR owners from trading as easily as other resorts that have been deemed more popular.

But as I mentioned earlier, that type of tiered system would really reduce resale value for SSR, which would allow people to buy more points there, which would give them the ability to absorb the additional points without issue, putting us right back where we are in a few years.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I totally fail to see the issue here. Folks complaining about Members trading out of their home resort and filling certain rooms, when that is exactly what they are trying to do themselves.

Baffling.

 

[Sandisw]

I totally fail to see the issue here. Folks complaining about Members trading out of their home resort and filling certain rooms, when that is exactly what they are trying to do themselves.

Baffling.

OMG. You just summed it up in one paragraph! Love it,

 

[BWV Dreamin]

The analysis here has been outstanding!! Carry on please.....

 

[crvetter]

I totally fail to see the issue here. Folks complaining about Members trading out of their home resort and filling certain rooms, when that is exactly what they are trying to do themselves.

Baffling.

I don’t take the thread as people complaining about others trading out. The thread did start about someone stating that other owners felt SSR was responsible for the 7 month issue. Rightfully many expressed that they didn’t feel SSR owners were doing anything wrong but using the system as intended (its DVC’s fault for such a large resort with minimal effort on making it unique).

As far as the views on what could happen at 7 months I take this not as a exercise on it should be done but other owners expressing what could be done.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I don’t take the thread as people complaining about others trading out. The thread did start about someone stating that other owners felt SSR was responsible for the 7 month issue. Rightfully many expressed that they didn’t feel SSR owners were doing anything wrong but using the system as intended (its DVC’s fault for such a large resort with minimal effort on making it unique).

As far as the views on what could happen at 7 months I take this not as a exercise on it should be done but other owners expressing what could be done.

Regardless how large the resort is, EVERYONE has the exact same chance at 7 months. Whether that be one large resort, or three small. The number of rooms competing are the same.

 

[crvetter]

Regardless how large the resort is, EVERYONE has the exact same chance at 7 months. Whether that be one large resort, or three small. The number of rooms competing are the same.

I didn’t disagree and didn’t express that at all. As I stated “SSR owners were doing anything wrong but using the system as intended”

Though the point missed in your statement is the number of rooms competing per resort. That per resort part is the piece that I only was pointing out in that a larger resort was put online that has a higher number of rooms transferring out than any other resort. However, SSR does serve an important purpose to the system IMO, it provides a buffer to absorb additional points in the system and offers a resort for shorter notice trips and provides an affordable option to use uneconomical 1 bedrooms. All in all if there is an issue with SSR it isn’t the owners it’s DVC that is responsible for creating a resort that is inherently different than all other resorts they on boarded at WDW (sans OKW).

 

[Bing Showei]

Regardless how large the resort is, EVERYONE has the exact same chance at 7 months. Whether that be one large resort, or three small. The number of rooms competing are the same.

I agree that size alone doesn’t matter. I also agree that owners complaining about other owners making it hard for them to book at 7-months is an unsavory stew of hypocrisy and entitlement. I had a fun little exchange with a direct SSR owner leveling exactly this complaint as a case against resale SSR owners, in supporting the resale restrictions.

The point that is harder to support, and I get the sense is your bigger point, is the suggestion that SSR points have the same impact on the 7-month competition as BLT, BCV, and BWV combined does by virtue of having roughly the same number of points. The observed availability at SSR just doesn’t support this. The case cannot be made that people are actively trading into SSR at any time of year from any other WDW resort.

If we can agree that at 7-months he booking ability of all points are equal, we should be able to agree that if one had a plan to trade out regularly, SSR is king among the resorts to consider owning in terms of $/point value.

Owners of SSR will often be owners at other home-resorts as well with a policy of using SSR points to roll the dice at 7-months while reserving their other points for stays only at that specific resort between 11 and 7. This is quite simply the smart play within an established system.

All this is to say that SSR points, within the current, Disney-established system, has evolved into a very specific tool that differs from most other resorts. And as such and given its size, affects the exchange system to a degree that no other resort does. No judgment, just a mathematical reality.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree that size alone doesn’t matter. I also agree that owners complaining about other owners making it hard for them to book at 7-months is an unsavory stew of hypocrisy and entitlement. I had a fun little exchange with a direct SSR owner leveling exactly this complaint as a case against resale SSR owners, in supporting the resale restrictions.

The point that is harder to support, and I get the sense is your bigger point, is the suggestion that SSR points have the same impact on the 7-month competition as BLT, BCV, and BWV combined does by virtue of having roughly the same number of points. The observed availability at SSR just doesn’t support this. The case cannot be made that people are actively trading into SSR at any time of year from any other WDW resort.

If we can agree that at 7-months he booking ability of all points are equal, we should be able to agree that if one had a plan to trade out regularly, SSR is king among the resorts to consider owning in terms of $/point value.

Owners of SSR will often be owners at other home-resorts as well with a policy of using SSR points to roll the dice at 7-months while reserving their other points for stays only at that specific resort between 11 and 7. This is quite simply the smart play within an established system.

All this is to say that SSR points, within the current, Disney-established system, has evolved into a very specific tool that differs from most other resorts. And as such and given its size, affects the exchange system to a degree that no other resort does. No judgment, just a mathematical reality.

All your points are correct. i am one who owns SSR but has BWV to use there for specific trips and will now own RIV for specific trips there.

SSR, due to its size, of course, will have more owners looking to trade out than the other resorts. However, I think that when we begin to discuss ways to change this so that people who bought at smaller or more popular resorts have an advantage over SSR owners have a higher chance to get those rooms, we start down a slope that changes the system to benefit certain owners over others.

Now, having a home resort vs, non resort chart, that treats all the same, makes sense if there really was a big problem at 7 months...which there is not. It isn’t as easy as before, but at 7 months, most times of the year, there are rooms available to trade into,

Right now, all members, regardless of home resort, have the same chance. The fact that more of the people trying are SSR owners is what others think is an issue And why ideas come up to lesson that impact. But, in dosing that, what it does is change the product once again to rank resorts so that certain resort owners are deemed more important than others.

Again, for me, I have no problem if they feel they need to create a 7 month chart, but it should be applied to all, and not just those who own at the larger resorts so that people at the smaller resorts have a better chance.

 

[Madame]

They need to change the seasonal charts before going down this road, otherwise I do not see how DVCMC could claim they are upholding their fiduciary duty.

This is a season specific studio problem for the most part. Feb-Sept the 7 month window does not have as many issues. The vast majority of newer owners, specifically retail are looking to save points, simply due to contract size limitations (read price).