February direct sales but also debate about trusts

[dioxide45]

Because the cabins are considered real property being attached to the land..they are not trailers or mobile homes…they could have been sold outside of a trust model.

The fact that when they need refurbishment they get replaced isn’t any different than the units we have a fractional ownership to in condo units.

I think this project just happened to be the one they decided would be the first one to shift this way, not to mention, it may have made it easier to have the cabins this way.

Manufactured homes are not real property unless they go through through very specific process in order to be deemed fixed real estate. It is very different than painting some walls and switching out furniture.

 

[Chili327]

the move to a trust is the move they will be doing as new resorts come on line and the whole DVC model will shift.

Hypothetically, how does resale work with the trust?
I assume Disney has to Rofr a contract to get them back into the system?
And what about selling from the trust, same as regular resale, you'd be selling the same trust system, that you purchased direct?

I don't think it will cost Disney much ,
especially if they make it all dvc and make it much bigger. As much as we like BCV, it already seems outdated and 18 years from now who knows what the standards will be.

Outdated doesn't mean it needs to be torn down to the studs or completely torn down though. Think about all the buildings around the world that were built before 1980. lol

 

[maui22]

I suggest waiting for dvcnews data, but wanted to give a quick glance on March sales at orange county Florida.

Looking like 94 CFW deeds showed up in March. That's slightly higher than February, but not a large increase.
I think March total Orange County deeds is slightly lower than February.

It's possible the total points are higher in March than February, but initial glance looks like sales may be slowing.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I suggest wait for dvcnews data. Just wanted to give a quick glance on March.

Looking like 94 CFW deeds showed up in March. That's slightly higher than February, but not a large increase.
I think March total Orange County deeds is slightly lower than February.

It's possible the total points are higher in March than February, but initial glance looks like sales may be slowing.

That's "slightly higher than February" but also comparing a whole month to a single week, right?

 

[JackosinDIS]

That's "slightly higher than February" but also comparing a whole month to a single week, right?

It was 9 workdays in Feb vs 20 in March, so you would expect at least double the number of deeds recorded if sales remained consistent, which they clearly have not! I think it was 60 something deeds in Feb, so could reasonably have seen 120 for March, so napkin math says a 25% decrease (unless all of the deeds sold in March were 300+ point contracts!)

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

It was 9 workdays in Feb vs 20 in March, so you would expect at least double the number of deeds recorded if sales remained consistent, which they clearly have not! I think it was 60 something deeds in Feb, so could reasonably have seen 120 for March, so napkin math says a 25% decrease (unless all of the deeds sold in March were 300+ point contracts!)

That is a much more precise version of the very rough math I was working out in my head. But also, I assume it could be skewed by savvy direct buyers who pay over 90 days and several other variables I'm not thinking of.

 

[maui22]

That's "slightly higher than February" but also comparing a whole month to a single week, right?

CFW was slightly higher in deeds. First CFW contract showed up on 2/16, so March sales had significantly more days but should have been at least double if total contracts held steady.

I didn't actually look at each deed. One thing that I always find funny is how often the person entering the records will in accidentally flip the grantee and grantor. DVD sale should have Disney as the grantor and buyer as the grantee. When it's flipped, it should be Disney receiving the contract back. I assume the county still uses manual data entry because I looked at a few of the ones I thought were Disney receiving contracts back, it was actually DVD selling. February, the county seemed to have more of the slip ups in contracts, but again I didn't open each one to see the actual contract.

 

[JackosinDIS]

That is a much more precise version of the very rough math I was working out in my head. But also, I assume it could be skewed by savvy direct buyers who pay over 90 days and several other variables I'm not thinking of.

Yeh I guess it may be skewed by delayed payments, but that would also apply for Feb sales so should in theory be apples to apples. Either way, looks like it’s going to take a LONG time to sell out. But maybe that’s not a concern for Disney.

 

[Sandisw]

Hypothetically, how does resale work with the trust?
I assume Disney has to Rofr a contract to get them back into the system?
And what about selling from the trust, same as regular resale, you'd be selling the same trust system, that you purchased direct?



Outdated doesn't mean it needs to be torn down to the studs or completely torn down though. Think about all the buildings around the world that were built before 1980. lol

The current POS says that it goes through a similar process…approval of DVD, trust to sell.

Where it could be different, is that a trust use plan is about property activated into that plan. Since the trust allows for more than one component site to be under the same plan, it would appear that a resale contracts could end up with options beyond just one resort.

It’s why I lean that what DVD will do, assuming it happens with future resorts, is add component sites under individual plans, and set up some level of enhanced access.

I guess we will have to wait for the next project to see what DVd could be up to with this new DVC 2.0!

 

[DVCsloth]

Hypothetically, how does resale work with the trust?
I assume Disney has to Rofr a contract to get them back into the system?
And what about selling from the trust, same as regular resale, you'd be selling the same trust system, that you purchased direct?



Outdated doesn't mean it needs to be torn down to the studs or completely torn down though. Think about all the buildings around the world that were built before 1980. lol

I don't think it needs to be torn down but, this would be the time to upgrade the resort and make it bigger.

 

[CarolMN]

It's OK to post an opinion. It is NOT OK to attack another poster. I am removing several posts. Some were removed because they quoted a deleted post. This has been an interesting thread so I am not going to shut it down unless the offending posts continue.

Those of you who have a problem with one of us volunteer mods can send your comments to admin@wdwinfo.com

 

[CastAStone]

You genuinely think Disney will spend billions of dollars to redo a hotel that will continue to sell out regularly at a premium dollar per night? That would be an absolutely awful business decision.

Disney isn’t spending any money on DVC. That’s why they love it. They set up a shell company, it is owned by the future buyers of the resort, not Disney, so they keep it off their books, and they make back the cash in the first 6-12 months the resort is on sale so the cash flow impact is minimal.

And yes, BW’s site is the single most valuable piece of hotel real estate in WDW yet they can’t get anywhere near the pricing it deserves with the current property. I think BCV is too small and BWV is a terrible use of that hyper-premium spot of land, and will be an even worse use of the land in 2041, and I think BWV is almost certainly a tear down, it wouldn’t surprise me to see BCV go that way as well.

BW / crescent lake overall needs a coherent land use plan, a smarter overall layout, and larger retail spaces, while BWI/BWV or whatever goes there next needs indoor access to dining, better indoor common space, a floor layout that flows and provides better access from the rooms to the resort’s infrastructure, and a dozen grand villas. They’ll likely want to add very premium specialty options there too (think Cabins).

I don’t think that land space will look *anything* like what it does today in 2045.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney isn’t spending any money on DVC. That’s why they love it. They set up a shell company, it is owned by the future buyers of the resort, not Disney, so they keep it off their books, and they make back the cash in the first 6-12 months the resort is on sale so the cash flow impact is minimal.

And yes, BW’s site is the single most valuable piece of hotel real estate in WDW yet they can’t get anywhere near the pricing it deserves with the current property. I think BCV is too small and BWV is a terrible use of that hyper-premium spot of land, and will be an even worse use of the land in 2041, and I think BWV is almost certainly a tear down, it wouldn’t surprise me to see BCV go that way as well.

BW / crescent lake overall needs a coherent land use plan, a smarter overall layout, and larger retail spaces, while BWI/BWV or whatever goes there next needs indoor access to dining, better indoor common space, a floor layout that flows and provides better access from the rooms to the resort’s infrastructure, and a dozen grand villas. They’ll likely want to add very premium specialty options there too (think Cabins).

I don’t think that land space will look *anything* like what it does today in 2045.

if they move new properties into a trust, and retain ownership, does that impact how it is recorded n terms of an asset?

 

[hockeydad21]

Disney isn’t spending any money on DVC. That’s why they love it. They set up a shell company, it is owned by the future buyers of the resort, not Disney, so they keep it off their books, and they make back the cash in the first 6-12 months the resort is on sale so the cash flow impact is minimal.

And yes, BW’s site is the single most valuable piece of hotel real estate in WDW yet they can’t get anywhere near the pricing it deserves with the current property. I think BCV is too small and BWV is a terrible use of that hyper-premium spot of land, and will be an even worse use of the land in 2041, and I think BWV is almost certainly a tear down, it wouldn’t surprise me to see BCV go that way as well.

BW / crescent lake overall needs a coherent land use plan, a smarter overall layout, and larger retail spaces, while BWI/BWV or whatever goes there next needs indoor access to dining, better indoor common space, a floor layout that flows and provides better access from the rooms to the resort’s infrastructure, and a dozen grand villas. They’ll likely want to add very premium specialty options there too (think Cabins).

I don’t think that land space will look *anything* like what it does today in 2045.

While true they get the hotel cost covered quickly, I think it comes down to what is more desirable to Disney - reusing the existing DVC property, but with a significantly higher points chart or to bulldoze and start over with a bigger building and equally high points chart? One is 100% pure profit on day 1, and one is not but could prove to be more beneficial long term.

I always sort of assumed they’d just refurbish it in 2043 and quickly sell it again for another 50 year contract, but now you’ve got me second guessing.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

While true they get the hotel cost covered quickly, I think it comes down to what is more desirable to Disney - reusing the existing DVC property, but with a significantly higher points chart or to bulldoze and start over with a bigger building and equally high points chart? One is 100% pure profit on day 1, and one is not but could prove to be more beneficial long term.

I always sort of assumed they’d just refurbish it in 2043 and quickly sell it again for another 50 year contract, but now you’ve got me second guessing.

It could easily depend on what the economy, hotel occupancy rates, and interest rates are looking like in 16 years.
I also think the crescent lake properties are so beloved they could get a bunch of us existing owners to give them money 2 years in advance (pre-pay the entire construction?) with an attractive discount and then sell the rest of it at even higher rates as construction nears completion.

Mandatory disclaimer: I know nothing of FL timeshare/real estate law, so this is a theoretical idea and not legal advice.

 

[Chili327]

crescent lake overall needs a coherent land use plan, a smarter overall layout, and larger retail spaces, indoor access to dining, better indoor common space

So basically ruin everything that makes it great. lol

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

So basically ruin everything that makes it great. lol

It will still be around a charming lake next to EPCOT (and very close to DHS)….so not everything.

 

[CastAStone]

So basically ruin everything that makes it great. lol

I’m just saying that the Town Center concept is very popular and Boardwalk was a very early attempt at the concept; we’ve learned a lot about what makes those properties work in the 30 years since and Crescent Lake’s current setup doesn’t really allow for it. They did a much better job of the same idea with GCH integration into / separation from DTD at Disneyland (but it could be further improved upon still).

And being required to go outside to get food in a part of the country where it rains 150 days per year seems nuts to me.

 

[CastAStone]

if they move new properties into a trust, and retain ownership, does that impact how it is recorded n terms of an asset?

I haven’t really followed the trust stuff. It would be hard for me to imagine Disney doing anything that didn’t allow them to bury the construction costs, but I don’t know for sure.

 

[skier_pete]

My assumption is that RIV may have helped them find a new model where it is you can own or you can pay cash rates. We don't care, and we get paid either way.

That's also more or less become the Aulani playbook. They clearly have no interest in selling out that resort - I assume it is because they don't mind having cash guests.

But cash guests is still not the cost model for DVC. DVC makes 25 times the money on a room that a cash guest pays, they just make it all up front. It never felt like they should be satisfied with poor sales. Aulani happened that way but a bunch of people got fired over Aulani and they have resigned themselves to the cash for that. If they genuinely PLANNED for the cabins to be a slow sell, that's a legit change in business model.