How do you know for sure what youre buying?

[ELMC]

Originally Posted by bumbershoot

We don't know how long ago the poster you quoted was looking. Might not have been quite the difference it is now.

I thought about that, which is why I quoted direct prices lower than what they are now and resale prices higher than what they are now. The gap in today's figures is even larger.

[Caren90]

I believe that the more information that can be found on the internet pertaining to direct vs. resale, the more difficult it is for a "guide" to make a sale stick to the end.

I would be interested to see how many people sign on the dotted line with pixie dust in their eyes, only to come home and do some internet research and then cancel their direct purchase. My guess would be that there may be more of this happening over the past 5-10 years than previously.

That is the problem with so many resorts and points floating around in the marketplace. Too many points (resale) available plus fewer direct buyers mean more aggressive and dishonest sales tactics.

Stephen

[disbound09]

IMHO the cost vs value is with resales. With that said changes that can be made by disney as was with 2011 changes are there. If they make too many changes they will face a backlash by DVC owners

[Missyrose]

Originally Posted by Caren90

I believe that the more information that can be found on the internet pertaining to direct vs. resale, the more difficult it is for a "guide" to make a sale stick to the end.

I would be interested to see how many people sign on the dotted line with pixie dust in their eyes, only to come home and do some internet research and then cancel their direct purchase. My guess would be that there may be more of this happening over the past 5-10 years than previously.

That is the problem with so many resorts and points floating around in the marketplace. Too many points (resale) available plus fewer direct buyers mean more aggressive and dishonest sales tactics.

Stephen

The problem for the salespeople is the ever-growing gap between direct and resale prices. I could understand people paying 10 or 20 percent more for direct contracts. But Disney keeps raising the price of their points and the cost of resale keeps falling, so it becomes difficult to justify paying twice as much for a direct contract than you would pay for resale.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by ELMC

Not to split hairs, but I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment that your "guide" (read: salesperson) gave you the "straight honest truth". Assuming you were looking at a standard 160 point AKV contract priced at $125 per point, the potential savings by buying resale could very well have been $8,000+ (assuming resale at $70 per point). That certainly sounds like more than "a few thousand dollars" to me. To me it sounds like he raised the objection before you could and then glanced over it in order to minimize the impact of the difference.

No problem, I understand splitting hairs is part of internet message boards. It was not an AKV contract, that wasn't the price, that wasn't the number of points, it wasn't raised before I could object and it wasn't glanced over. You weren't there and I didn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation, so I don't expect you to know how it went down. I'm just saying it was an honest presentation without resorting to scare tactics that I have seen quite a few people report. You don't have to believe me.

[chalee94]

Originally Posted by disbound09

IMHO the cost vs value is with resales. With that said changes that can be made by disney as was with 2011 changes are there. If they make too many changes they will face a backlash by DVC owners

they've also made a number of changes that affected both direct and resale purchasers, such as taking away free valet parking (surprise - park for free, wake up the next morning and get charged!) and reallocating the point charts (lots of sunday to thursday DVC owners suddenly couldn't stay as many nights as they used to).

so far, DVC has borne any "backlash" with no ill effects...

[GrnMtnMan]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned title insurance and estoppel letters in this thread. Those are the things that assure you that you are getting what you agreed to in the contract.

The estoppel letter is a statement by DVC clearly explaining what the seller 'owns' and the status of the ownership...meaning are dues up to date, and how many points have been used or banked. The title company compares this information with the contract and only transfers ownership and money if the two things are in agreement.

Title insurance would get you your money back if there was some unknown issue with the seller's ownership.

[ELMC]

Originally Posted by bighoo93

No problem, I understand splitting hairs is part of internet message boards. It was not an AKV contract, that wasn't the price, that wasn't the number of points, it wasn't raised before I could object and it wasn't glanced over. You weren't there and I didn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation, so I don't expect you to know how it went down. I'm just saying it was an honest presentation without resorting to scare tactics that I have seen quite a few people report. You don't have to believe me.

In order to put your comments in perspective, would you care to share the resort, price per point, number of points and timeline as to when this happened? Obviously I was just giving an example because you did not share this information in your initial post.

[bighoo93]

Originally Posted by ELMC

In order to put your comments in perspective, would you care to share the resort, price per point, number of points and timeline as to when this happened? Obviously I was just giving an example because you did not share this information in your initial post.

Not really, because giving a detailed account of the conversation wasn't the point. It was an honest presentation without the scare tactics and deception that some have reported here. I repeat what I said in my first post: it was pretty much the straight honest truth. You can disagree or not believe me or whatever else if you like. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not interested in debating what constitutes "a few."

[Dean]

Originally Posted by chalee94

so far, DVC has borne any "backlash" with no ill effects...

And that's the key. If they make changes there will be snarling and complaints but it's unlikely to have any real overall effect. You see periodically here someone who buys retail and pays about double for no reason of value.

Originally Posted by GrnMtnMan

I am surprised nobody has mentioned title insurance and estoppel letters in this thread. Those are the things that assure you that you are getting what you agreed to in the contract.

The estoppel letter is a statement by DVC clearly explaining what the seller 'owns' and the status of the ownership...meaning are dues up to date, and how many points have been used or banked. The title company compares this information with the contract and only transfers ownership and money if the two things are in agreement.

Title insurance would get you your money back if there was some unknown issue with the seller's ownership.

I think many of us assumed them but neither are perfect. It's still possible to have changes to the account after the letter is generated and title insurance only covers the big picture, not short term changes like the points were used.

[ELMC]

I guess the question is when the "backlash" will shift from complaining and griping on message boards over to real action. People can complain all they want, but until it starts to hit Disney in the pocketbook I doubt they'll really reconsider any of the changes they make. A good comparison would be ticket prices. We all complain that they are continuously going up, yet we still go to the parks. I'm sure some people might go less because of the prices, but it clearly hasn't hit a critical mass because the prices keep going up.

[GrnMtnMan]

Originally Posted by Dean

It's still possible to have changes to the account after the letter is generated and title insurance only covers the big picture, not short term changes like the points were used.

A sales contract specifies how many points I am supposed to get when I take ownership. If those points are not there, the ownership will not change or I would have the grounds to make a title insurance claim and/or sue the title company, broker, or seller for breach of contract.

DVC will not allow a change in ownership while their is a existing reservation. And if a seller were to book a reservation between estoppel and closing, they'd have to go on that trip during that window. If the title company didn't catch this when they provided the ownership transfer to DVC, well, then, see above.

The bottom line is that you know what you are getting when buying resale...it's not like buying a used car where you can't truly know the repair history of a car. There's nowhere to hide surprises that are anything but outright and very obvious fraud. And I doubt that the scenario I described above is actually possible. I'd imagine there is some flag on an account once it has entered or passed the ROFR process that makes using the points raise some alarm.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by GrnMtnMan

A sales contract specifies how many points I am supposed to get when I take ownership. If those points are not there, the ownership will not change or I would have the grounds to make a title insurance claim and/or sue the title company, broker, or seller for breach of contract.

DVC will not allow a change in ownership while their is a existing reservation. And if a seller were to book a reservation between estoppel and closing, they'd have to go on that trip during that window. If the title company didn't catch this when they provided the ownership transfer to DVC, well, then, see above.

I realize the risks are low and the protections very good. However, anything that requires you to pursue legal action to try to be whole is a losing proposition in this situation. I believe that most title insurances only cover that you're getting what you listed in big picture, not this years points for example. I am aware of several non DVC timeshares where the week was not available as agreed. We've also seen several reports the last few years where the points were not as agreed and there was back and forth between the seller, broker and buyer. Plus, I'm of the opinion that title insurance is not generally worth the cost with DVC.

[Caren90]

Originally Posted by Missyrose

The problem for the salespeople is the ever-growing gap between direct and resale prices. I could understand people paying 10 or 20 percent more for direct contracts. But Disney keeps raising the price of their points and the cost of resale keeps falling, so it becomes difficult to justify paying twice as much for a direct contract than you would pay for resale.

Good point!

Stephen

[GrnMtnMan]

Originally Posted by Dean

I realize the risks are low and the protections very good. However, anything that requires you to pursue legal action to try to be whole is a losing proposition in this situation. I believe that most title insurances only cover that you're getting what you listed in big picture, not this years points for example. I am aware of several non DVC timeshares where the week was not available as agreed. We've also seen several reports the last few years where the points were not as agreed and there was back and forth between the seller, broker and buyer. Plus, I'm of the opinion that title insurance is not generally worth the cost with DVC.

Not worth $200 for title insurance? Really, on a $10,000-$20,000 purchase?

Anyway, there's a huge difference between caveat emptor and having recourse. And any scenario where you did not get what you agreed to get in the contract, you have recourse.

Not to mention the seller possibly committing fraud (criminal, if they knowingly take the sale money and use the points), and the broker and title professionals putting there licenses and reputations at risk.