What the HECK is going on???!!

[crisi]

I don't feel that members should hold back and not reserve high demand times, this is not an emotional issue for me but it is for some. Different people bought for different reasons. Some may specifically have bought to rent out, others may be like me and own more points than they will consistently use. ......

Additionally, in some ways this is like a resort mug thread, or calling your 38 month old child 2 for the purpose of theme park tickets, or five in a room, or taking food out of a buffet....technically, renting out points for commerical purposes is something DVC has written into the contract as a no no. (Enforcable and legal or not, its in the contract - and interestingly enough, receiving compensation for points on a casual basis is allowed - its going into the renting points business that isn't). DVC chooses not to enforce it - like they choose not to enforce many of their "rules." But to some people, if the rule is there, it is an affront if anyone breaks the rule - regardless of if it hurts them or not.

 

[Dean]

technically, renting out points for commerical purposes is something DVC has written into the contract as a no no. (Enforcable and legal or not, its in the contract - and interestingly enough, receiving compensation for points on a casual basis is allowed - its going into the renting points business that isn't). DVC chooses not to enforce it - like they choose not to enforce many of their "rules." But to some people, if the rule is there, it is an affront if anyone breaks the rule - regardless of if it hurts them or not.

But what is the rule? DVC doesn't have a definition of "commercial" renting. We could each come up with one but it would simply be our impression.

 

[drakethib]

One thing I wish I would have been able to "crystal ball" when I first bought was how many members were going to be willing to provide low cost WDW vacations to complete internet strangers. All you have to do is mention some sob story in yout R/T board request for your $8/point deluxe vacation (earn an additional $1-2 discount if your request involves a child's illness) . .

Ahhh the art of haggling.

All the renter needs to do is say no to the person.

I know this sounds harsh but if $100 - $200 is going to cause someone not to be able to take the trip, they really need to look at their situation and see if they should be going at that particular time.

I am the first one who will look for a bargain, but I will not put my family or my bills in jeopardy for a trip anywhere

 

[rogerram]

All the renter needs to do is say no to the person.

exactly correct. No one has to accept an offer unless they want to. People can tell any story they want, but it takes the person who owns the points to make the deal. No one is twisting your arm and making you do it, but if you do, then that is your business. I'm still confused as to why what anyone does to rent their points is other people's business. You aren't making my or their loan or dues payments, so you have no say in the matter.

 

[TCPluto]

Rental pricing should reflect a percent discount from rack rate (including taxes). A 50% discount from rack rate can equal $12-15/point. Still an incredible deal.

Exactly.

 

[psu4glory]

seems to me that this thread has clearly shown the line that has been drawn in the sand on this issue....

on one side are those that seem to view managing their DVC points as a business. some on this side of the line have even purchased more points than they know they'll use with the following thought in mind: if and when they rent points, they will do so with the sole purpose of making a profit. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...and these folks should feel free to advertise their points to renters at $12, or $15, or $20/pt if they'd like. good luck to them.

i, however, am on the other side of the line. i bought into DVC b/c my wife and i love disney. if i wanted to make money, i would've put my $17,000 somewhere else. i hope it never happens, but if the time ever comes when i HAVE to rent my points, i don't plan on looking at it as a money-making venture. if i, b/c of my circumstances, can help someone experience WDW who otherwise could not afford the investment that DVC requires, that's my "profit"....

my humble opinion...those on both sides of this line should ultimately respect the goals of those on the other.....

 

[Shawn]

I'm not taking either side here. Just an observation.

Disney's ROFR works to maintain the resale value of the DVC. I've heard no one complain about this. In fact, it's a selling point. It benefits DVC members who sell their contracts, and it benefits Disney when they sell new DVC contracts. It's artificial though, it monkeys with pure market based capitalism. And it's seen as a good thing.

When it comes to renting points though, there is no such monkeying, and it's whatever the buyers and sellers agree on.

I do wonder how DVC owners who feel point rentals should stay just as they are now would feel if ROFR were discontinued and the sale of DVC contracts went by the same rules. Would they be as accepting to see the value of their contracts suddenly drop by 30% say?

Full disclosure here:

We are fairly new DVC owners (we purchased 100 points resale at VWL at the end of last summer). We do plan on adding more points in a few years after we save up cash. In the meantime -- I'm considering buying 50 or 100 points and having them transferred into my account when we start planning for our first trip home!

-Shawn

 

[Boo]

Many (myself included) bought into the idea of a Vaction Club. We would primarily use DVC resorts, but there were other WDW resorts, DCL, and other trades available. Since the huge jacking of the point exchanges that took place 2001-2 (and still continues), a member really needs to rent to recieve any dollar fairness for a club trade.


Here Here. We bought into DVC back in 1998 with the expectation that trades would be economically feasible, as we travel to WDW only every other year. That isn't always the case, it really depends on where you stay- it has been said earlier that there are good points and bad points.

For example, we offered my DB our DVC points and guide book so that he could pick and plan his honeymoon as our gift to them. He picked Grand Wailea in Hawaii. To send him for 5 nights was going to be something like 396 points if I remember correctly. The rack rate from the hotel was around $2000. Did I rent my points? You bet I did! At $10/pt it made so much more sense. Would I have preferred to just use points at a comparable level. Of course.

This fall, DH and I are planning a weekend getaway for just the two of us to celebrate 10 years. If we choose to go the Grand Hotel in Michigan it would be better for us to use 110 points vs. the over $1300 hotel rack rate. However, if we decide to go to the American Club in Wisconsin, once again we'd be much better off renting points and paying cash.

I'm disappointed that while Disney makes a big fuss over the trade ability, it's not as wonderful as originally pitched.

 

[Dean]

seems to me that this thread has clearly shown the line that has been drawn in the sand on this issue....

on one side are those that seem to view managing their DVC points as a business. some on this side of the line have even purchased more points than they know they'll use with the following thought in mind: if and when they rent points, they will do so with the sole purpose of making a profit. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...and these folks should feel free to advertise their points to renters at $12, or $15, or $20/pt if they'd like. good luck to them.

i, however, am on the other side of the line. i bought into DVC b/c my wife and i love disney. if i wanted to make money, i would've put my $17,000 somewhere else. i hope it never happens, but if the time ever comes when i HAVE to rent my points, i don't plan on looking at it as a money-making venture. if i, b/c of my circumstances, can help someone experience WDW who otherwise could not afford the investment that DVC requires, that's my "profit"....

my humble opinion...those on both sides of this line should ultimately respect the goals of those on the other.....

One point I'd add is that the idea that planning to rent at the highest possible price and even owning extra points with the idea of renting is not necessarily what I'd call a business, more of a hobby and in some cases, a necessity. To me it'd take a lot of points (more than the individual maximums) and a formal approach more than just advertising on DIS, TUG, etc to make it a business. But that was my point earlier, there is no formal definition.

 

[DrTomorrow]

One point I'd add is that the idea that planning to rent at the highest possible price and even owning extra points with the idea of renting is not necessarily what I'd call a business, more of a hobby and in some cases, a necessity. To me it'd take a lot of points (more than the individual maximums) and a formal approach more than just advertising on DIS, TUG, etc to make it a business. But that was my point earlier, there is no formal definition.

I respectfully disagree. When someone buys more of something than they can consume with the express intent of reselling at a profit, that's going into business. I make beaded & wirework jewely - when I give it away to friends & family, it's a hobby. When I create it with the intent to advertise it for sale - even on a resale web site or eBay - it's a business. I'm on your side with the deliberate vagueness of Disney's "Commercial", but purchasing with the primary intent to resell for profit screams "business" to me.

IMHO - YMMV

 

[TCPluto]

I respectfully disagree. When someone buys more of something than they can consume with the express intent of reselling at a profit, that's going into business.

I'm on your side with the deliberate vagueness of Disney's "Commercial", but purchasing with the primary intent to resell for profit screams "business" to me.

IMHO - YMMV

How do you define profit? Covering MF? Covering MF and and cost of buy in? MF, buy in and loan interest? Anything over MF, buy in, interest, and time invested fall into the category of profit?

I think renting DVC for what one would traditionally term a "profit" doesn't happen too much.

How would one determine if the intent of another was to purposely purchase more points than they could, or would, normally use? I think the answer is that you cannot.

 

[gothmommie]

Just my 2 cents...

As long as you have people that are willing to rent for less than $9 a point there will be people seeking those people. Simple supply and demand - and is well known that some reputable (it's not all shisters) Dis-ers rent for less than $9 per pt. for some reason. (One lady told me she really wasn't hung up on price and $8 was 'great' - this lady was awesome to rent with, had a contract, took a credit card, very responsive - a brilliant transaction all the way around)

We rented 3 times before purchasing - all 3 times were seamless transactions, wonderful folks. We paid by bank check twice and credit card once. Prices were $8 per pt for all 3 reservations - 2003 to 2005.

While I understand that it may be annoying if you post that you are seeking $11 a point and people ask you if you will take $8 surely you can just disregard their email/PM - just as I disregarded those replying to my bargain basement post (I figured anyone taking offence to my offered price needn't apply) which also required references that offered to sell pts. to me above my asking price.

It's all about choice.

That said haggling when you've been firm about what you will take/what you won't is very annoying, no doubt.

Personally, I can't see us ever renting points out. We were 'good' renters - paid immediately, in full, never changed reservation, used our room keys as no-charge/keys only, and didn't break anything in the room. Not sure I trust others though given all the posts on the Dis... I'd transfer pts. if I had 'em (not likely as I like to use 'em) but rent, I don't think so.

 

[Dean]

I respectfully disagree. When someone buys more of something than they can consume with the express intent of reselling at a profit, that's going into business. I make beaded & wirework jewely - when I give it away to friends & family, it's a hobby. When I create it with the intent to advertise it for sale - even on a resale web site or eBay - it's a business. I'm on your side with the deliberate vagueness of Disney's "Commercial", but purchasing with the primary intent to resell for profit screams "business" to me.

IMHO - YMMV

Under your definition, anyone who bought more points than they currently needed and planned to rent any out to cover their expenses would be a "commercial renter". And anyone who advertised even a single time they had to rent would also fall under your definition.

Lets assume for a second that the issue was enforceable and that DVC wanted to enforce it. And using the language in the POS which talks about a pattern of rentals, one would have to look at multiple weeks over several years to even start to trigger a concern. And given the nature of the internet and ebay, anyone who wants to sell anything even one time, frequently uses these options so I don't think we could use advertising in these ways as part of the definition. Remember ANYONE who gets compensation for a stay is a renter. So if your family pays part of your expenses on a stay with you, that is technically a rental. So if you did that more than once, under your definition, you would likely be in the commercial group yourself. Or anyone where say two families bought together but only one is on the deed would be doing a rental anytime they took money for dues, loan payments, etc from the other party. Yes I know they are somewhat absurd, but if we're only looking at the rules they are accurate.

Dr. T, not aimed at you as I don't think it applies to you. I think it's funny how so many people get worked up about what other people do with their points. When the only negatives I can think of is that there might be a time up for rental that that person wanted and couldn't get and even then it's unlikely they would have gotten what they wanted anyway. And before anyone asks, I don't feel that members are likely to take better care of the place than renters though the reverse may possibly be true in some cases. It just "feels wrong" to some or invades their perception of what a "club membership" should feel like and then they grasp for any straw they can to justify those feelings. It's just like the idea that if someone else gets a perk that is for members, it somehow hurts my membership because I am not special anymore, remember few member perks actually cost DVC anything, even indirectly.

 

[my4kids]

Here's a crazy thought... stop opening the thread and making yourself miserable every day if you don't have any interest in it!

I do have interest...I was just hoping it would fizzle out before I decided to chime in...I guess I'm scared of conflict. But oh well, here we go, now I'm gonna chime in....

1. $9-$10 a point IS a great deal compared to rack rate...but I don't think that rack rate is going to set the market price. As a soon to be renter, I really appreciate that someone who can not use their points would share the magic with others, but if points were $15 or more...I would say "thanks but no thanks" and just skip any involved risk and pay rack for smaller accomadations though Disney.

2. For people who can't use their points and can't afford to just let points expire, I think that unloading without a loss (or even a small profit)should be fine for them...they are not giving away their prepayed vacation plan, just deferring it until they can take advantage of it. The market price is set by demand....really, I think that if people had to have a villa they would outbid for points to get an advantage over others looking to rent at the same time...and you just don't see that happening...

3. I don't think that people selling for $9 and $10 are really doing a disservice to anyone, I think they just want to unload their points, and they are gonna have a hard time doing it over $11. I don't think the sellers are setting the market low, I think the buyers are. If the product and involved risks were worth that much, we would offer that much. It may very well happen in the near future, but just because it is not happening now does not mean that it is DVC owners who rent at that price who are to blame.

Now there, I went and did it, I chimed in....just my thoughts...if they are not yours as well - I think it is awesome that we can all think differently. Ain't America grand?

 

[Beca]

I do have interest...I was just hoping it would fizzle out before I decided to chime in...I guess I'm scared of conflict. But oh well, here we go, now I'm gonna chime in....

That is SOOO me!!! Don't you just love it when you want to keep quiet, but just CAN'T!!!! I swear,there are times I have actually sat on my hands to keep from responding....ahhh...the curse of being opinionated!!!



Beca

 

[DrTomorrow]

How do you define profit? Covering MF? Covering MF and and cost of buy in? MF, buy in and loan interest? Anything over MF, buy in, interest, and time invested fall into the category of profit?

I think renting DVC for what one would traditionally term a "profit" doesn't happen too much.

How would one determine if the intent of another was to purposely purchase more points than they could, or would, normally use? I think the answer is that you cannot.

I'm quite certain that the IRS has all of your questions answered already. However, you missed the point of my comment, which dealt with intent. IMHO, someone who buys extra points with the primary intent of renting them should be viewed differently than someone who rents out 17 points to avoid losing them to use year issues.

So put a smile on your face and be well!

 

[DrTomorrow]

[Another delightful, informative and coherent comment from Dean omitted.]

Again, I was referring to intent at time of purchase. I bought DVC for (mostly) pre-paid vacations. Someone else mentioned that they bought (extra) DVC points with the sole goal of renting them year after year. IMHO, there is a distinction that can reasonably be made. ITA, not in Disney's eyes, but a distinction nonetheless.

For the record, I could care less what others do with their points; I even disagree with your statement that those who rent for low per point costs "hurt" other owners, as they have zero impact on me. I only chimed in when you seemingly blurred the line between hobby & business outside of the vague world of Disney contract language

Be well!

 

[Dean]

Again, I was referring to intent at time of purchase. I bought DVC for (mostly) pre-paid vacations. Someone else mentioned that they bought (extra) DVC points with the sole goal of renting them year after year. IMHO, there is a distinction that can reasonably be made. ITA, not in Disney's eyes, but a distinction nonetheless.

For the record, I could care less what others do with their points; I even disagree with your statement that those who rent for low per point costs "hurt" other owners, as they have zero impact on me. I only chimed in when you seemingly blurred the line between hobby & business outside of the vague world of Disney contract language

Be well!

There's no way to measure intent, at least not without a full psychological evaluation. You need hard criteria that are reasonable and more than simply arbitrary. Maybe I should have said potentially hurt other members but I think you've seen me post enough to know that in my view, even if it hurts others it doesn't affect the reasonableness of doing so since that was the intent of my post. And for the record, there are really only two eyes that matter in this distinction and they are Disney and the legal system.

 

[Doctor P]

And for the record, there are really only two eyes that matter in this distinction and they are Disney and the legal system.

I would add the IRS, since they are technically separate from the legal system and have an interest in at least some aspects of the question.

 

[Dean]

I would add the IRS, since they are technically separate from the legal system and have an interest in at least some aspects of the question.

I thought about that as I posted but decided I'd include them with the legal system. Unless someone is really doing a lot, I don't think they'd come into play as it be hard to show much of a profit without a major operation.