February direct sales but also debate about trusts

[Jimmy Geppetto]

What is BPK? And how does that tie into VGF? Sorry I can't thinknof what that is.
In terms of the cabins, if the plan is to add reflections to the same association, then maybe it might work, but I don't think that's their plan. I think disney thought they could get an entire new group into dvc, thinking all the fort lovers would buy there. That's why I think it's a major miss. It's a niche group and from that group how many want to buy in to dvc?

BPK = Big Pine Key (the building at VGF which was converted to DVC rooms)

VGF = Villas Grand Floridian. Aka GFV.

 

[dvc lover 1970]

BPK = Big Pine Key (the building at VGF which was converted to DVC rooms)

VGF = Villas Grand Floridian. Aka GFV.

Thank you, I always just called in VGF 2 - now I know

 

[Sandisw]

What is BPK? And how does that tie into VGF? Sorry I can't thinknof what that is.
In terms of the cabins, if the plan is to add reflections to the same association, then maybe it might work, but I don't think that's their plan. I think disney thought they could get an entire new group into dvc, thinking all the fort lovers would buy there. That's why I think it's a major miss. It's a niche group and from that group how many want to buy in to dvc?

I am confident that 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.

While it definitely appears Poly tower won’t be resort number two, I think future ones will be, including potentially expansions at current DVC sites.

 

[walt34]

I am confident that 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.

While it definitely appears Poly tower won’t be resort number two, I think future ones will be, including potentially expansions at current DVC sites.

I wonder whether we'll see one multi-site trust overall or a instead a few separate trusts, that combine resorts that are connected in a way (e.g. location).

Let me give an example: if CFW sell poorly, building a new tower at Ford Wilderness and adding that to a FW-trust would be a smart move. People would buy into this trust and get the option to either book the cabins or the tower (between 11 and 7 months). This could make the CFW-points more attractive and enable DVD to sell them better in combination than separate associations for the cabins and a tower.

Another option could be to combine several of the 2042-resorts into a trust to be able to rebuild them in stages. When BCV and BWV expire, you probably can't sell them individually right away for another 50-years - the buildings are probably getting to old for that (for 50 years) and selling them as is would make it impossible to build more modern buildings (room-types, higher buildings for more villas) in place of the existing buildings. But what they could do is combine BCW and BWV into a 'Crescent lake trust'. Tear down one of the two (e.g. BCV) but immediately start selling points to the Crescent lake trust (with a 50 years runtime). New owners could than start using the still existing building of BWV immediately and when the new building at BC goes online, DVD could tear down BWV and the trust users could use the new BC building while BWV is rebuilt. When the new building at BWV is finished they start selling the next round of points for the Crescent lake trust.
This would enable DVD to keep selling new (trust points) while still being able to replace both buildings over time (which would generate more points to sell, if the new buildings have more villas than the old ones do).

It's purely speculation but would be a good use of the legal options they've added to the CFW trust framework.

If they go in the several separate trusts direction, the first new trust property we'd see would probably be a tower at FW.

 

[dioxide45]

I wonder whether we'll see one multi-site trust overall or a instead a few separate trusts, that combine resorts that are connected in a way (e.g. location).

I still think the trust was setup simply because that is how they had to do it with the cabins. With the trust they conveyed land, not individual units to the trust. They really couldn't deed mobile homes over to a trust and they couldn't sell fractionals of each individual cabin because at some time during the life of the property, the cabins will be hauled away in favor of new cabins being brought in to replace them. The cabins are a unique type of ownership within DVC and required a unique setup of ownership structure.

They could have just as easily created a trust for Disneyland Hotel, but they didn't. I guess we will find out in a few years when or if they ever decide to build another standalone DVC property.

 

[walt34]

I still think the trust was setup simply because that is how they had to do it with the cabins. With the trust they conveyed land, not individual units to the trust.

I am not a (US) lawyer so I can't judge whether the trust was necessary for the cabins or not (I've seen reasonable arguments in both directions here). But what we do know is that the legal framework for the CFW goes beyond just establishing a single site trust - it lays the groundwork for more. Whether this is for a specific plan that they are implementing or just the work of a diligent lawyer keeping as many options open for DVD is - of course - pure speculation.

I was just giving a few business reasons why a trust might make business sense for DVD further down the road.

The Disneyland Hotel would not dispute those reasons: this is a new building, could be sold for 50 years which does sell well (enough) - no reason to make it more complicated. Neither does the Poly tower require a different solution: PBV is young enough so that the tower can be added to the existing association and we can be pretty certain that it will sell well on its own.

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder whether we'll see one multi-site trust overall or a instead a few separate trusts, that combine resorts that are connected in a way (e.g. location).

Let me give an example: if CFW sell poorly, building a new tower at Ford Wilderness and adding that to a FW-trust would be a smart move. People would buy into this trust and get the option to either book the cabins or the tower (between 11 and 7 months). This could make the CFW-points more attractive and enable DVD to sell them better in combination than separate associations for the cabins and a tower.

Another option could be to combine several of the 2042-resorts into a trust to be able to rebuild them in stages. When BCV and BWV expire, you probably can't sell them individually right away for another 50-years - the buildings are probably getting to old for that (for 50 years) and selling them as is would make it impossible to build more modern buildings (room-types, higher buildings for more villas) in place of the existing buildings. But what they could do is combine BCW and BWV into a 'Crescent lake trust'. Tear down one of the two (e.g. BCV) but immediately start selling points to the Crescent lake trust (with a 50 years runtime). New owners could than start using the still existing building of BWV immediately and when the new building at BC goes online, DVD could tear down BWV and the trust users could use the new BC building while BWV is rebuilt. When the new building at BWV is finished they start selling the next round of points for the Crescent lake trust.
This would enable DVD to keep selling new (trust points) while still being able to replace both buildings over time (which would generate more points to sell, if the new buildings have more villas than the old ones do).

It's purely speculation but would be a good use of the legal options they've added to the CFW trust framework.

If they go in the several separate trusts direction, the first new trust property we'd see would probably be a tower at FW.

The trust has been set up to allow one trust association to oversee multiple resort use plans.

So, they already are set to run it any way they want. Each resort use plan can have property added to it at one or multiple locations which gives even more flexibility.

So, they can do all individual use plans for each component site if they want but then have some enhanced access amongst other trust properties.

They could add properties from more than one site to the same plan and those now become “home resort”. It no longer requires it to be an indivual location. So, as you say, they can take BWV and BCV in 2042, add them to the trust model under the same vacation plan and sell immediate access to both while they slowly upgrade and renovate.

And, we still don’t know how the Poly tower operating costs are going to impact PVB. Everyone is assuming that it won’t impact them, but honestly, they could

 

[Sandisw]

I still think the trust was setup simply because that is how they had to do it with the cabins. With the trust they conveyed land, not individual units to the trust. They really couldn't deed mobile homes over to a trust and they couldn't sell fractionals of each individual cabin because at some time during the life of the property, the cabins will be hauled away in favor of new cabins being brought in to replace them. The cabins are a unique type of ownership within DVC and required a unique setup of ownership structure.

They could have just as easily created a trust for Disneyland Hotel, but they didn't. I guess we will find out in a few years when or if they ever decide to build another standalone DVC property.

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.

 

[dvc lover 1970]

I wonder whether we'll see one multi-site trust overall or a instead a few separate trusts, that combine resorts that are connected in a way (e.g. location).

Let me give an example: if CFW sell poorly, building a new tower at Ford Wilderness and adding that to a FW-trust would be a smart move. People would buy into this trust and get the option to either book the cabins or the tower (between 11 and 7 months). This could make the CFW-points more attractive and enable DVD to sell them better in combination than separate associations for the cabins and a tower.

Another option could be to combine several of the 2042-resorts into a trust to be able to rebuild them in stages. When BCV and BWV expire, you probably can't sell them individually right away for another 50-years - the buildings are probably getting to old for that (for 50 years) and selling them as is would make it impossible to build more modern buildings (room-types, higher buildings for more villas) in place of the existing buildings. But what they could do is combine BCW and BWV into a 'Crescent lake trust'. Tear down one of the two (e.g. BCV) but immediately start selling points to the Crescent lake trust (with a 50 years runtime). New owners could than start using the still existing building of BWV immediately and when the new building at BC goes online, DVD could tear down BWV and the trust users could use the new BC building while BWV is rebuilt. When the new building at BWV is finished they start selling the next round of points for the Crescent lake trust.
This would enable DVD to keep selling new (trust points) while still being able to replace both buildings over time (which would generate more points to sell, if the new buildings have more villas than the old ones do).

It's purely speculation but would be a good use of the legal options they've added to the CFW trust framework.

If they go in the several separate trusts direction, the first new trust property we'd see would probably be a tower at FW.

They are not going to rebuild BCV or BWV. Both seem to be structurally sound. They will refurb and repackage with much higer point charts and start selling them in 2043. They might stagger them so they have one or two every five years. Maybe BCV with OKW, Then BWV, with WL. Not sure what will happen with VB and HHI, hoping they keep those. But if they put these into a trust, how do MF's work? everyone pays the same? I think they might lose potential buyers as it will make MF's signifcantly more at some resorts. Also if MF's are shared, then how can they justify resale restrictions - unless each will have its own trust and MF's?

 

[hockeydad21]

I wonder whether we'll see one multi-site trust overall or a instead a few separate trusts, that combine resorts that are connected in a way (e.g. location).

Let me give an example: if CFW sell poorly, building a new tower at Ford Wilderness and adding that to a FW-trust would be a smart move. People would buy into this trust and get the option to either book the cabins or the tower (between 11 and 7 months). This could make the CFW-points more attractive and enable DVD to sell them better in combination than separate associations for the cabins and a tower.

Another option could be to combine several of the 2042-resorts into a trust to be able to rebuild them in stages. When BCV and BWV expire, you probably can't sell them individually right away for another 50-years - the buildings are probably getting to old for that (for 50 years) and selling them as is would make it impossible to build more modern buildings (room-types, higher buildings for more villas) in place of the existing buildings. But what they could do is combine BCW and BWV into a 'Crescent lake trust'. Tear down one of the two (e.g. BCV) but immediately start selling points to the Crescent lake trust (with a 50 years runtime). New owners could than start using the still existing building of BWV immediately and when the new building at BC goes online, DVD could tear down BWV and the trust users could use the new BC building while BWV is rebuilt. When the new building at BWV is finished they start selling the next round of points for the Crescent lake trust.
This would enable DVD to keep selling new (trust points) while still being able to replace both buildings over time (which would generate more points to sell, if the new buildings have more villas than the old ones do).

It's purely speculation but would be a good use of the legal options they've added to the CFW trust framework.

If they go in the several separate trusts direction, the first new trust property we'd see would probably be a tower at FW.

The only way either of these resorts gets bulldozed and rebuilt in the next 20+ years is if there is a catastrophic fire to one of them. There’s quite literally no reason for Disney to spend any kind of money rebuilding a beautiful resort that is a constant cash cow for them due to the location.

 

[Cfabar1]

They are not going to rebuild BCV or BWV. Both seem to be structurally sound. They will refurb and repackage with much higer point charts and start selling them in 2043.

This is not stated enough... Lots of people seem to imagine they need to "rebuild" these resorts.... I'm not convinced they need to do anything - especially with these two... They can leave them as is, and make the points chart go up 40% and they'd still sell out quickly.

 

[Sandisw]

They are not going to rebuild BCV or BWV. Both seem to be structurally sound. They will refurb and repackage with much higer point charts and start selling them in 2043. They might stagger them so they have one or two every five years. Maybe BCV with OKW, Then BWV, with WL. Not sure what will happen with VB and HHI, hoping they keep those. But if they put these into a trust, how do MF's work? everyone pays the same? I think they might lose potential buyers as it will make MF's signifcantly more at some resorts. Also if MF's are shared, then how can they justify resale restrictions - unless each will have its own trust and MF's?

To keep resale restrictions they can simple add property to the trust association and sell it under its own resort use plan.

Basically, they set it up however they want, but they continue to keep ownership. What is interesting about the CFW POS, is that it says something to the effect is things can be changed in terms of accommodations.

If property is under its own plan, MFs go wihh the it. If they put more than one component site under the same plan, then MFs will be based on operation of that property.

So, in 2042, they could indeed put both BWV and BCV under the same trust use plan and what you are buying is RTU both of those as home resorts. Restrictions would then be for both.

And, they could simply declare the current units as is into this new model and declare some of each resort, with a point chart and sell immediately. While doing that, they begin the refurb.

We shall see how it all shakes out. Now that it appears Poly tower won’t be using the trust, we will have to wait for the next project to potentially see how they do it.

 

[DVCsloth]

They are not going to rebuild BCV or BWV. Both seem to be structurally sound. They will refurb and repackage with much higer point charts and start selling them in 2043. They might stagger them so they have one or two every five years. Maybe BCV with OKW, Then BWV, with WL. Not sure what will happen with VB and HHI, hoping they keep those. But if they put these into a trust, how do MF's work? everyone pays the same? I think they might lose potential buyers as it will make MF's signifcantly more at some resorts. Also if MF's are shared, then how can they justify resale restrictions - unless each will have its own trust and MF's?

The only way either of these resorts gets bulldozed and rebuilt in the next 20+ years is if there is a catastrophic fire to one of them. There’s quite literally no reason for Disney to spend any kind of money rebuilding a beautiful resort that is a constant cash cow for them due to the location.

I think it will be the perfect time to rebuild both BCV and BWV. I would think that they would make the building into some sort of tower and resell both for a premium. 2042 is still a long way off and there will be lots of changes by then.

 

[hockeydad21]

I think it will be the perfect time to rebuild both BCV and BWV. I would think that they would make the building into some sort of tower and resell both for a premium. 2042 is still a long way off and there will be lots of changes by then.

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.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

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.

Not if redoing BCV means they can sell twice as many floors and add many rooms with views.
I guess this logic technically holds for BWV as well, but it’s already so much bigger. I’m not sure they would want to double the size.

 

[DVCsloth]

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.

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.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

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.

I don’t think it’s outdated, but I do hate that you can’t get a fifth person in the one bedrooms. Oh, also, the bathroom layout is a little bit psychotic.

 

[walt34]

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.

The most valuable aspect is the location, not the building. You can't get closer to Epcot than BCV. If DVD wants to maximise the money they can make in 2042, they need more rooms, a modern room layout and a building that can be sold for 50 years. All of these three probably can't be achieved with a quick flip.

 

[dvc lover 1970]

To keep resale restrictions they can simple add property to the trust association and sell it under its own resort use plan.

Basically, they set it up however they want, but they continue to keep ownership. What is interesting about the CFW POS, is that it says something to the effect is things can be changed in terms of accommodations.

If property is under its own plan, MFs go wihh the it. If they put more than one component site under the same plan, then MFs will be based on operation of that property.

So, in 2042, they could indeed put both BWV and BCV under the same trust use plan and what you are buying is RTU both of those as home resorts. Restrictions would then be for both.

And, they could simply declare the current units as is into this new model and declare some of each resort, with a point chart and sell immediately. While doing that, they begin the refurb.

We shall see how it all shakes out. Now that it appears Poly tower won’t be using the trust, we will have to wait for the next project to potentially see how they do it.

It would be interesting to see if they put BW and BC in the same association - that would end the which one is better war, but it would also make it close to impossible to book BCV dedicated 2 bedrooms, and the std. view BWV studios - As one who always books the 2 bedrooms, i am not sure how i feel about that, unless they change BWV to have some dedicated 2 bedroom units. Also I would not be happy if I was planning to buy for BC and always go BW or planning for BW and always got BC. I don't think thats a good idea or move for DVC - but at that point it will be up to my kids.

 

[Sandisw]

It would be interesting to see if they put BW and BC in the same association - that would end the which one is better war, but it would also make it close to impossible to book BCV dedicated 2 bedrooms, and the std. view BWV studios - As one who always books the 2 bedrooms, i am not sure how i feel about that, unless they change BWV to have some dedicated 2 bedroom units. Also I would not be happy if I was planning to buy for BC and always go BW or planning for BW and always got BC. I don't think thats a good idea or move for DVC - but at that point it will be up to my kids.

Just to help with understanding of the trust, any property put under there, even if it has its own vacation use plan is all one association.

That is one key difference this set up allows. Right now, each resort is its own association. The trust is the same..it is one association

It can manage though several different properties because the property doesn’t get sold to those buying.

Right now it’s just CFW cabins that are managed by the trust association. But they can add future resorts to it, and even if they have they have their own plans, they are all still part of the same association

So, they could decide to add BWV and BCV as component sites with their own plan or part of the same one..but no matter which way, it would all be part of the same association.

The point is that a move in this direction would change the product in what we have now. You buy into the plan but understand that it allows them to add more than one component site to your plan and if that happens, you have access to more than one

So, it’s definitely possible if they head this way with a trust model, that one doesn’t choose the resort in the same way.

Those buying into the Csbins Resort plan are actually buying a RTU the cabins as well as any property they add to that same plan.