Why does Disney delay DVC referb's ?

[Naplesgolfer]

Yes, that's exactly correct. I don't have a contract handy but the language is in there. The only thing your DVC purchase guarantees is the right to a booking window for your home resort only for some period of time ahead of general booking.

People always wind up surprised at the little details that seem inconceivable but are very spelled out. For example, your AKV purchase doesn't even guarantee animals. That's definitely in the contract. It also states that you should not buy your timeshare with the expectation of the existence of a nearby theme park - if Disney World parks close, you are still on the hook for the life of the contract.

I agree the contract's give them the right to stop trading in and out of resorts and many other things, other than your room and a booking window ( which could be shortened). But those are really nuclear options, put in by legal teams to protect the company in every scenario they could envision. If they stop Trading , Animals etc , etc their ability to sell new direct points would be destroyed . So very, very unlikely.

 

[Doberge]

The thing is though the DVC refurbs are meant to be done on a 7 year cycle. The refurbs of non-DVC resorts shouldn’t impact on this. And whereas there was likely a genuine shortage of available workers, the DVC refurbs should really at least have been done on the original schedule, even if it was two years late.

I understand why it made sense to do the Poly studios with the rest of the resort. And same with the Boardwalk. But nonetheless DVC members pay dues annually, part of which goes to fund the refurbs. DVC are now sitting on that money, earning interest on it, with zero benefit to the owners.

Members at BRV have every reason to feel aggrieved by the delay. Especially since now it looks like BWV may “jump the queue” ahead of them.

I agree with this, especially that it doesn't necessarily need to be a choice between DVC and non-DVC, but this is a Disney that claims it isn't moving forward at this time with some projects because of "cash flow implications." A parks and resorts profiting billions of dollars penny pinching and likely diverting crews from DVC to non-DVC to avoid paying higher costs to hire additional crews, all to save the non-DVC resorts some reno costs.

The other unnecessary choice was to prioritize the Grand Floridian conversion over Boulder Ridge. Disney could have returned GF rooms to hotel inventory for a few more months, but instead they chose to knock the project out faster to start selling GF points faster. Makes sense for cash flow but shoves more dirt in face of Boulder Ridge owners.

 

[striker1064]

I agree the contract's give them the right to stop trading in and out of resorts and many other things, other than your room and a booking window ( which could be shortened). But those are really nuclear options, put in by legal teams to protect the company in every scenario they could envision. If they stop Trading , Animals etc , etc their ability to sell new direct points would be destroyed . So very, very unlikely.

The likelihood is not really the point though. The point is that if it ever gets to the nuclear option, Disney has it - and any bellyaching from members is not their problem, because they've already bought in and are the ones on the hook for dues.

I also think you severely underestimate direct demand. People buy direct points constantly despite resale being a significantly better option. I bet they could limit it to home resort only and people would still line up around the block.

 

[correcaminos]

I agree with this, especially that it doesn't necessarily need to be a choice between DVC and non-DVC, but this is a Disney that claims it isn't moving forward at this time with some projects because of "cash flow implications." A parks and resorts profiting billions of dollars penny pinching and likely diverting crews from DVC to non-DVC to avoid paying higher costs to hire additional crews, all to save the non-DVC resorts some reno costs.

The other unnecessary choice was to prioritize the Grand Floridian conversion over Boulder Ridge. Disney could have returned GF rooms to hotel inventory for a few more months, but instead they chose to knock the project out faster to start selling GF points faster. Makes sense for cash flow but shoves more dirt in face of Boulder Ridge owners.

I agree on VGF conversion. They absolutely did not need to do that one at this time. It has me wondering if RR restrictions are hurting still compared to what they expected and wanted an easy sell. I know RR is still active enough in resale but thay is one people are wary of buying direct. At least conversations with my DVC buddies has me thinking that. I sorta wonder if theyb realized what they did with restrictions on RR and that's why VGF and maybe even PVB will be done how they are nharder to change a whole resort.

I also wish they'd just hurry up and clean up Ft Wilderness with retirement home Reflections. That one obviously was bumped. Question is did they find a sinkhole or was the mixed use seen as a bad idea. Obviously they think DVC will keep selling. While I have a resale I am waiting to close on, more PVB is likely in my future if they do what they did at VGF, SSR, and AKL.

 

[Doberge]

I agree on VGF conversion. They absolutely did not need to do that one at this time. It has me wondering if RR restrictions are hurting still compared to what they expected and wanted an easy sell. I know RR is still active enough in resale but thay is one people are wary of buying direct. At least conversations with my DVC buddies has me thinking that. I sorta wonder if theyb realized what they did with restrictions on RR and that's why VGF and maybe even PVB will be done how they are nharder to change a whole resort.

I also wish they'd just hurry up and clean up Ft Wilderness with retirement home Reflections. That one obviously was bumped. Question is did they find a sinkhole or was the mixed use seen as a bad idea. Obviously they think DVC will keep selling. While I have a resale I am waiting to close on, more PVB is likely in my future if they do what they did at VGF, SSR, and AKL.

I think enough people have shied away from Riviera to purchase other resorts that it at least caught the attention of Disney. (I don't have the data, but someone e like i<3riviera may have data on Riviera as a percentage of sales compared compared to copper creek as a percentage before riviera).

Yes, I think the GF conversion helps them in this regard because it effectively kicks the can down the road. There's chatter of Poly being its own new association similar to Boulder Ridge vs. Copper Creek, but I think they'll want to roll it into existing association to avoid torpedoing Theobald association because it'd be a harder sell for both resorts to have old studios and bungalows in one association separate from the new tower. People buying with tower will want to book bungalows and "traditional" Poly, and existing Poly owners will want to book one and two bedroom tower rooms. Lumping together is both better for owners and Disney, and it kicks new restrictions further down the road.

 

[correcaminos]

I think enough people have shied away from Riviera to purchase other resorts that it at least caught the attention of Disney. (I don't have the data, but someone e like i<3riviera may have data on Riviera as a percentage of sales compared compared to copper creek as a percentage before riviera).

Yes, I think the GF conversion helps them in this regard because it effectively kicks the can down the road. There's chatter of Poly being its own new association similar to Boulder Ridge vs. Copper Creek, but I think they'll want to roll it into existing association to avoid torpedoing Theobald association because it'd be a harder sell for both resorts to have old studios and bungalows in one association separate from the new tower. People buying with tower will want to book bungalows and "traditional" Poly, and existing Poly owners will want to book one and two bedroom tower rooms. Lumping together is both better for owners and Disney, and it kicks new restrictions further down the road.

I'm watching the Polynesian like a hawk. I told my guide either I will sell my current or I will just add on. I have heard the chatter, but so far the only suggestion why they think it could be different is because they didn't spell it out like VGF. I do remember confusion with AKL too though. Not really with SSR as that wasn't sold out too before adding on. People forget VGF isn't the first expansion. CCV was actually more of an anomaly compared to the others. But no matter i will do what it takes to get what I want. I do think they'll want it together in the end, but they can change their mind.

I have a friend considering RR because they love it. In a group text you can tell that the restrictions are a big consideration. Contrary to what some think for some it is. Much like end contract for CCV vs BRV is big for some. I know that lured me from BRV to CCV. Fortunately that was the family favorite of the two.

It isn't quite as cut and dry as some think. While I suck up some kool aid, I'm still descerning lol

 

[i<3riviera]

i<3riviera may have data on Riviera as a percentage of sales

I have something coming out in the near future you might enjoy

as a preview, it's really hard to look at direct sales and draw any conclusions because there are so many variables; however, there are a few interesting points related to RVA ...

• in its first 52 weeks, RVA sold better than all Walt Disney World resorts in their first 52 weeks except BCV, SSR, and BLT
• the % of sales for RVA in late 2019 / early 2020 (pre-COVID-19 effects) were slightly lower than the % of sales peak for PVB and CCV
• RVA's % of sales were higher for the first ~5 months relative to the first ~5 months of PVB and CCV
• in 2021, roughly 40% of RVA sales were to existing members, the other 60% were new members

there are all sorts of caveats when looking at direct sales though and you can make your head spin considering the nuances; time of year, other resorts actively being sold, DVD's pricing strategy, global recession / pandemic, etc.; a wise man once said ...

I think the monthly sales data tells more about the person trying to interpret the numbers than the numbers say about sales.

another approach is to view the direct sales through the lens of DVD; are they happy with the sales? obviously we can't ask them, well we can but they won't tell us

what would they do if they were not happy with sales? by far the easiest thing would be to reduce the effective price of RVA (base - incentives) to attract more buyers; save the COVID-19 adjustment in the summer of 2020, RVA net prices have almost exclusively increased with every release of new price sheets even when AUL had some pretty aggressive offers (Fall 2021)

I doubt at this point anyone knows with certainty the future of resale restrictions, including DVD; about 40% of RVA has sold so it's likely already cost positive (or nearly there) which means there isn't strong incentive to change strategy; Disneyland Tower is likely to have resale restrictions but they won't be of much consequence in that location; if the PVB tower has them (new association) it's fair to assume they are here to stay; if the PVB tower does not have them (same association) I wouldn't read too much into it (like VGF2)

I'm watching the Polynesian like a hawk.

me too, it will be interesting to see how it turns out!

 

[nickys]

I have something coming out in the near future you might enjoy

as a preview, it's really hard to look at direct sales and draw any conclusions because there are so many variables; however, there are a few interesting points related to RVA ...

• in its first 52 weeks, RVA sold better than all Walt Disney World resorts in their first 52 weeks except BCV, SSR, and BLT
• the % of sales for RVA in late 2019 / early 2020 (pre-COVID-19 effects) were slightly lower than the % of sales peak for PVB and CCV
• RVA's % of sales were higher for the first ~5 months relative to the first ~5 months of PVB and CCV
• in 2021, roughly 40% of RVA sales were to existing members, the other 60% were new members

there are all sorts of caveats when looking at direct sales though and you can make your head spin considering the nuances; time of year, other resorts actively being sold, DVD's pricing strategy, global recession / pandemic, etc.; a wise man once said ...


another approach is to view the direct sales through the lens of DVD; are they happy with the sales? obviously we can't ask them, well we can but they won't tell us

what would they do if they were not happy with sales? by far the easiest thing would be to reduce the effective price of RVA (base - incentives) to attract more buyers; save the COVID-19 adjustment in the summer of 2020, RVA net prices have almost exclusively increased with every release of new price sheets even when AUL had some pretty aggressive offers (Fall 2021)

I doubt at this point anyone knows with certainty the future of resale restrictions, including DVD; about 40% of RVA has sold so it's likely already cost positive (or nearly there) which means there isn't strong incentive to change strategy; Disneyland Tower is likely to have resale restrictions but they won't be of much consequence in that location; if the PVB tower has them (new association) it's fair to assume they are here to stay; if the PVB tower does not have them (same association) I wouldn't read too much into it (like VGF2)


me too, it will be interesting to see how it turns out!

Quick question. When you refer to “sales” are you referring to the number of points sold or the revenue?

If, as I suspect, it’s the no. of points sold, didn’t the minimum for new buyers increase for RVA? Having been down quite low for CCV, for example, they bumped it up to 150. That could account for some, not all, the increase.

Would be interesting to compare number of deeds recorded, for example, to see the number of people buying in. Also, from what I read at the time it went on sale, there were quite a few owners who added on a small contract at RVA to use to stay there. So again it would be interesting to see how many points were sold as add-ons vs new.

 

[i<3riviera]

Quick question. When you refer to “sales” are you referring to the number of points sold or the revenue?

If, as I suspect, it’s the no. of points sold, didn’t the minimum for new buyers increase for RVA? Having been down quite low for CCV, for example, they bumped it up to 150. That could account for some, not all, the increase.

Would be interesting to compare number of deeds recorded, for example, to see the number of people buying in. Also, from what I read at the time it went on sale, there were quite a few owners who added on a small contract at RVA to use to stay there. So again it would be interesting to see how many points were sold as add-ons vs new.

for sales I mostly focus on points; you're right they did increase the minimum for new owners over time; I'm not sure of the impact because I don't know if there were a ton of smaller initial deeds and I believe most of the people getting the smaller deeds we non-qualified owners that wanted to pick-up a member benefits (blue card)

the last time I looked into this in detail was about a year ago (data through Dec 2020) and median RVA contract size for new owners (x.000 contract) was 150 points with an average contract size of 167 points; however, I didn't account for split contracts (2x 100 point contracts would show up individually instead of 1x 200 point purchase); the point minimums at the time were ...

• 75 points initial RVA sales
• 100 points Sep 2019+
• 125 points Oct 2020+

... so folks seemed to generally buy more than the minimum anyway; in fact, only ~30% of the deeds through Dec 2020 were 100 points or less and I know a significant number were split part of a split purchase (so 2x 100 points, 2x 75 points, etc.)

RVA also has a healthy point chart meaning folks are more likely to buy more points than CCV to get the same stay length; this could arguably have turned away buyers (to resale or just not buying) in addition to encouraging folks to buy more points; PVB having mainly ds would likely have people tend towards lower per contract amounts vs. RVA where they can scale up to 1b or 2b occasionally

I'll see if I can get my data organized to filter out split deeds and figure out the number of buyers to compare; might be a while though!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The thing is though the DVC refurbs are meant to be done on a 7 year cycle. The refurbs of non-DVC resorts shouldn’t impact on this. And whereas there was likely a genuine shortage of available workers, the DVC refurbs should really at least have been done on the original schedule, even if it was two years late.

I understand why it made sense to do the Poly studios with the rest of the resort. And same with the Boardwalk. But nonetheless DVC members pay dues annually, part of which goes to fund the refurbs. DVC are now sitting on that money, earning interest on it, with zero benefit to the owners.

Members at BRV have every reason to feel aggrieved by the delay. Especially since now it looks like BWV may “jump the queue” ahead of them.

It certainly does stink, but the interest earned on the escrow accounts can't be used by Disney or DVC for anything else other than the intended purpose of the escrow account, so the interest earned would go towards the cost of the refurb. The question is, do the accounts earn enough interest to offset the increased costs of supplies and labor caused by the delay? Unless there is a specific requirement stated in the DVC contracts requiring refurbs to be completed on a specific schedule then even that question is a moot point - as much as it may stink for the owners at that particular property (and as an AKL owner, I can certainly sympathize with owners at a resort with rooms that need updating).

 

[LuvtheGoof]

for sales I mostly focus on points; you're right they did increase the minimum for new owners over time; I'm not sure of the impact because I don't know if there were a ton of smaller initial deeds and I believe most of the people getting the smaller deeds we non-qualified owners that wanted to pick-up a member benefits (blue card)

One thing to remember is that the minimum buy in many moons ago was 160 points. It went down and is now back up to 150, so it is still a bit less than it used to be.

 

[nickys]

Also they have now changed the rules again.

First of all, a new buyer must buy at least 150 points. You cannot buy less than that at any esort unless you are adding on.

Also a new buyer can no longer split a contract into smaller amounts than 150 points. So if a new buyer decides to buy 200 points they would at a minimum have to buy one 150 point contract and one 50 point contract.

 

[correcaminos]

Also they have now changed the rules again.

First of all, a new buyer must buy at least 150 points. You cannot buy less than that at any esort unless you are adding on.

Also a new buyer can no longer split a contract into smaller amounts than 150 points. So if a new buyer decides to buy 200 points they would at a minimum have to buy one 150 point contract and one 50 point contract.

That's only for new new right? So if I wanted a 200 contract I can split it into 100 and 100 still. Thinking ahead in case we have to buy new for Polynesian. I'll sell my old small contracts (split into 50 point increments) and buy 200. Or I'll just add on 70 or more but likely keep it as a 70 point contract. I'll have my OKW original buy and CCV even if I sell off first before buying (but would consider financing just to cover my sell time as to not be without points) so won't be new no matter how I do it.

 

[correcaminos]

One thing to remember is that the minimum buy in many moons ago was 160 points. It went down and is now back up to 150, so it is still a bit less than it used to be.

It was even as high as 230 or 240.

 

[nickys]

That's only for new new right? So if I wanted a 200 contract I can split it into 100 and 100 still. Thinking ahead in case we have to buy new for Polynesian. I'll sell my old small contracts (split into 50 point increments) and buy 200. Or I'll just add on 70 or more but likely keep it as a 70 point contract. I'll have my OKW original buy and CCV even if I sell off first before buying (but would consider financing just to cover my sell time as to not be without points) so won't be new no matter how I do it.

Yes, only for someone buying in for the first time. Add-ons can be split to as low as the minimum add-on permitted for that particular resort. So 50 points for most I think.

 

[correcaminos]

Yes, only for someone buying in for the first time. Add-ons can be split to as low as the minimum add-on permitted for that particular resort. So 50 points for most I think.

I think it still depends on the resort and financed or not. I know a MO just did a sub 50 at a sold out resort. I know that all can change though.

But was just checking on the other. If I do more of an add on no big deal as they're all small and even if I do 70 I don't think I want to split lower. Don't need to IMO. But if I buy and resell old then I might want to do 2 or 3 splits. My goal will be roughly 200 points total there.

 

[TheGuyThatMakesSwords]

It's called "float".

You will be billed on your Contract Renewal, for a Contract Refurb.
WDW will wait forever, and collect cash on interest (or investment), on the money you were charged.

Demand specific performance, or a rebate, with interest.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Could it be simply the longer they wait, the longer in the future until they have to do it again?

Just might be nutty enough to be true…