Will a Rental Crackdown Reset DVC Resale Prices?

[Sandisw]

My issue with walking is when you never have a chance to book a room type. While, it’s a small subset of the resort and DVC as a whole, the AKV Club and value rooms are never bookable at 11 months out even at 8 am. This is because the reservations are booked out multiple days in advance.

I don’t think there is a great answer to this problem without having more club or value rooms added or the spec renting curtailed.

Those rooms in particular though would have the same situation without walking unless DVc doubles the point value for them and even then, it would be tough.

They can’t make those rooms bookable only by owners…so spec renting can’t be stopped unless it’s occurring on memberships that are breaking the rules..which is what I think this new language at CFW is meant to do.

It’s always going to come back to ratio of demand to supply.

 

[GoingSince1990]

My issue with walking is when you never have a chance to book a room type. While, it’s a small subset of the resort and DVC as a whole, the AKV Club and value rooms are never bookable at 11 months out even at 8 am. This is because the reservations are booked out multiple days in advance.

I don’t think there is a great answer to this problem without having more club or value rooms added or the spec renting curtailed.

The answer that would work is to increase the points requirement for those rooms. I can’t help having a sneaking suspicion, however, that the reason for the value rooms being so artificially underpriced is so the DVC guides can say “Hey, the rooms start as low as x points per night!” without mentioning that the rooms priced at “x” are very difficult to actually book.

 

[Brian Noble]

If there really are corporations that own thousands and thousands of points spread across many separate memberships (to get around the maximum points per membership limit), each of those memberships would get a lottery entry and they would still have an unfair advantage with such a system.

This is true, but it is also probably better than if they were to use a bot to mechanically book at the stroke of 8AM, as some may (or may not) be doing now.

And there are other ways to handle the "mega-owners/split accounts" problem, as we've seen suggested in the Cabins POS.

 

[Sykes]

I would not mind if they added +1 Day for the ability to modify 11month reservation, ie we can’t modify a 2 day reservation until 3 days later or a 7 day reservation until 8 days later. This would only encroach on people and business playing DVC Olympics, don’t think it would bother normal users.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines. There are a number of technical changes they could make to combat bad behavior. Another one I was thinking was limiting the ability to change the name of the lead guest on an existing reservation to once per contract per year--you could still rent points as often as you want, but if you've already hit your once per year you can only reserve if you already have the lead guest's name. IMO, that would combat some amount of speculative booking without affecting non-commercial owners too significantly.

 

[GoingSince1990]

This is true, but it is also probably better than if they were to use a bot to mechanically book at the stroke of 8AM, as some may (or may not) be doing now.

And there are other ways to handle the "mega-owners/split accounts" problem, as we've seen suggested in the Cabins POS.

A simple “captcha” would also go a long way towards thwarting any bots.

 

[Sandisw]

The answer that would work is to increase the points requirement for those rooms. I can’t help having a sneaking suspicion, however, that the reason for the value rooms being so artificially underpriced is so the DVC guides can say “Hey, the rooms start as low as x points per night!” without mentioning that the rooms priced at “x” are very difficult to actually book.

I think it also has to do with the size? Many of the ways that points were determined were square footage?

But ,maybe it would be a good poll for AKv owners in terms of what people would think if the CL and value rooms were more expensive?

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines. There are a number of technical changes they could make to combat bad behavior. Another one I was thinking was limiting the ability to change the name of the lead guest on an existing reservation to once per contract per year--you could still rent points as often as you want, but if you've already hit your once per year you can only reserve if you already have the lead guest's name. IMO, that would combat some amount of speculative booking without affecting non-commercial owners too significantly.

I am pretty thst would be a material change to the contract and require a vote of owners.

We are allowed to book for ourselves, family, friends and renters so saying owners can’t later change lead guest would mean those not even renting would be impacted.

 

[Sykes]

I am pretty thst would be a material change to the contract and require a vote of owners.

We are allowed to book for ourselves, family, friends and renters so saying owners can’t later change lead guest would mean those not even renting would be impacted.

IMO, that wouldn't be. You could still book for anyone, but if you wanted to change the lead guest name you would have to cancel the existing reservation and book for them rather than modifying an existing reservation.

 

[@dvcdudes]

I don’t believe they can be talked about on the forums as I believe they are on the filter list, though you should be able to google them.

I’ve included the link here, since if it isn’t ***** out then you can see what we’re talking about. If it is, then we cannot discuss more directly.

https://rentals.*******.com/confirmed-reservations/

Thank you

 

[Sandisw]

IMO, that wouldn't be. You can still book for anyone, but if you want to change the lead guest name you would have to cancel the existing reservation and book for them rather than modifying an existing reservation.

Again, if we are allowed to secure a room for anyone, saying you lose your reservation if you want to give it to a guest which is specifically allowed?

Definitely see that as a material change. Now, if they want to make every change a cancel and rebook, then it might not be allowed as it’s being applied to all reservations.

But, that would be a huge negative to the program and I don’t see the majority of owners wanting that.

Plus, that type of requirement could mean an owner being stuck losing points when an emergency happens and they can’t let someone use it?

 

[Hubalorian]

I am pretty thst would be a material change to the contract and require a vote of owners.

We are allowed to book for ourselves, family, friends and renters so saying owners can’t later change lead guest would mean those not even renting would be impacted.

Would it be a material change? Nothing is saying you can’t make the reservation unless you, family or renter will be using it. It’s not stoping you, it’s just putting a guard rail up against snagging a room to make sure you have it in the circumstance you are able to allow a friend, family or renter to use it.

You could also take your chances with canceling and rebooking as well

 

[Sykes]

Plus, that type of requirement could mean an owner being stuck losing points when an emergency happens and they can’t let someone use it?

That's what the once per year change is for--maybe it should be twice? I'm not sure the right number--but if the owner is having multiple emergencies each year then maybe they should be purchasing travel insurance more often. Aside from that, Member Services already has broad discretion to make exceptions for genuine emergencies--they often already do it when people miss a banking window or have to cancel at the last minute due to an emergency.

 

[Sandisw]

Would it be a material change? Nothing is saying you can’t make the reservation unless you, family or renter will be using it. It’s not stoping you, it’s just putting a guard rail up against snagging a room to make sure you have it in the circumstance you are able to allow a friend, family or renter to use it.

You could also take your chances with canceling and rebooking as well

Yes, I do because the contract doesn’t distinguish with who can be on a reservation and that I don’t see them being able to pick and chose.

Again, DVC has the responsibility to set up rules in the best interest in running the program for the owners as a whole and you can’t tell me that forcing owners to cancel and rebook every reservation is good.

The contract does not limit how many reservations can be for others and saying that the lead guest can not be changed after x times is doing just that.

 

[Sandisw]

That's what the once per year change is for--maybe it should be twice? I'm not sure the right number--but if the owner is having multiple emergencies each year then maybe they should be purchasing travel insurance more often. Aside from that, Member Services already has broad discretion to make exceptions for genuine emergencies--they often already do it when people miss a banking window or have to cancel at the last minute due to an emergency.

The post is that these types of changes are creating things that make the program and use of DVc worse and not better

As I said, I simply do not agree and never will thst all these ideas the penalize owners for changing names or dates is a good thing.

And hopefully, DVC agrees.

 

[Nabas]

Those rooms in particular though would have the same situation without walking unless DVc doubles the point value for them and even then, it would be tough.

They can’t make those rooms bookable only by owners…so spec renting can’t be stopped unless it’s occurring on memberships that are breaking the rules..which is what I think this new language at CFW is meant to do.

It’s always going to come back to ratio of demand to supply.

For AKV Club, AKV Value, and BWV Standard in particular, demand far exceeds supply.

IMO, the only way to solve this is to reallocate points and make these high-demand rooms more expensive.

For example, if a BWV Standard View was only 1 point per night less than a Garden/Pool View Studio, you'd see nearly all these problems go away.

Instead, a BWV Standard View Studio is 9 points for a weeknight in January, while a Garden/Pool View is 15 points. 6 points per night is a huge difference!

Change the point charts so that a BWV Standard View Studio is 13 points per night while a Garden/Pool View Studio is 14 points. Do that and complaints that "I cannot get the room I want" would mostly disappear.

 

[Sykes]

The post is that these types of changes are creating things that make the program and use of DVc worse and not better

As I said, I simply do not agree and never will thst all these ideas the penalize owners for changing names or dates is a good thing.

And hopefully, DVC agrees.

IMO, these theoretical kinds of changes would make DVC worse for a small handful of DVC powerusers (and power-abusers) who are vastly overrepresented on these boards, and better for the vast majority of members.

I tend to agree, however, that DVC will never do it, because they have only a passing interest in cracking down on abuse (after all, most of it it hurts members rather than Disney).

 

[CWTC]

IMO, these theoretical kinds of changes would make DVC worse for a small handful of DVC powerusers (and power-abusers) who are vastly overrepresented on these boards, and better for the vast majority of members.

I’m not sure I would be classified a power user nor power abuser. We make 2-3 trips per year and generally stay in our home resorts which we book around month 11. We have never rented our points out to anyone and I have walked exactly 1 reservation in the 15 or so years that we have owned (and that was for a 7 month). Does that make me a power user? Or a power abuser? Regardless, as an owner, I should be able to add a day to a reservation without penalty and I should be able to add or remove my mother in law from our room reservation without penalty (as examples).

Edited to add: I would hazard a guess that most members would be upset if they were not allowed to modify a reservation at all once it was made. That seems overly restrictive and punitive.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

I think it also has to do with the size? Many of the ways that points were determined were square footage?

But ,maybe it would be a good poll for AKv owners in terms of what people would think if the CL and value rooms were more expensive?

Yea, the value rooms are a catch-22. They are fewer points because the rooms are smaller and more like a hotel room than a DVC villa (that might be our opinion rather than fact!), and people who want to stretch their points for an extra night's stay, book them. If you put the points equal to a regular studio, then no one would bother with them except as a last-minute option!

As for the AKV Club rooms, those points are already much higher than other AKL points. And if they add on more rooms with access to the Club, then you'll have Club guests complaining the lounge is too full and not attractive! Pros and cons. Pros and cons.

 

[Sandisw]

IMO, these theoretical kinds of changes would make DVC worse for a small handful of DVC powerusers (and power-abusers) who are vastly overrepresented on these boards, and better for the vast majority of members.

I tend to agree, however, that DVC will never do it, because they have only a passing interest in cracking down on abuse (after all, most of it it hurts members rather than Disney).

And, I bet if you curtial the businesses who may be renting a lot who might be walking, the other changes would not be needed.

DVC has the power to hold memberships accountable without doing one thing that plays any role in changing the program.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

I find the term abuse interesting. Unless I'm missing something or over-simplifying, people who make reservations for the sake of just renting them out for money are actually breaking rules identified in their contract(s). People who make a reservation and then modify it are NOT breaking any rules - they're making a reservation at 11 months based on points they have and a room they want. Modifying is not against the rules....

Crack down (if possible) on the regular/business reservation renters-for-profit, and the 'walking' situation will improve.