DVC RESALES
DVC RESALES

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Vacation Club > Purchasing DVC
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-28-2012, 12:46 PM   #76
tjkraz

DVC Owner SSR
 
tjkraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBub View Post
Don't discount the fact that the member fees only went up .08pp for next year for SSR. Great value.
The prior year it went up $.18 or 4.8%.

Looking at one year doesn't say anything meaningful about past or future trends.
__________________
-- Tim

DVC owner at SSR, BWV and VGC
tjkraz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 04:07 PM   #77
DizBub
Totally Addicted
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Washington, IL
Posts: 2,057

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjkraz View Post
The prior year it went up $.18 or 4.8%.

Looking at one year doesn't say anything meaningful about past or future trends.
Still much better than the .28 or 6.52% hit that we BLT owners got. Over 6% two years in a row.........not a good trend.
DizBub is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 11-28-2012, 04:50 PM   #78
tjkraz

DVC Owner SSR
 
tjkraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBub View Post
Still much better than the .28 or 6.52% hit that we BLT owners got. Over 6% two years in a row.........not a good trend.
I can appreciate the sticker shock but it's still just 2 years out of 50. If you're making a purchasing decision (which is the topic here), is there any reason to believe that BLT dues will continue to increase at a higher rate than SSR or any other resort?

All DVC resorts provide essentially the same services. There are variances in building materials and furnishings which will lead to differing refurb timelines. Property taxes will vary.

But the biggest cost--salaries and benefits--should rise at the same pace for all properties (at least, all at WDW.) They are all subject to the same utility prices, gas prices (transportation) and other similar factors.

The last two years at BLT strike me more as an adjustment than anything else. In fact, I'm certain the 2012 increase was an adjustment--we don't yet have any details for 2013. BLT is a younger resort with management that is still searching for the right balance in certain areas. Case in point--the front desk additions in late 2012.

The '13 dues should be taken into consideration when performing any price analysis. But I think it would be foolish to assume BLT increases of 6% annually vs. 1.5% at SSR going forward.
__________________
-- Tim

DVC owner at SSR, BWV and VGC
tjkraz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 05:03 PM   #79
DougEMG
DIS Veteran
 
DougEMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,754

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjkraz View Post
I can appreciate the sticker shock but it's still just 2 years out of 50. If you're making a purchasing decision (which is the topic here), is there any reason to believe that BLT dues will continue to increase at a higher rate than SSR or any other resort?

All DVC resorts provide essentially the same services. There are variances in building materials and furnishings which will lead to differing refurb timelines. Property taxes will vary.

But the biggest cost--salaries and benefits--should rise at the same pace for all properties (at least, all at WDW.) They are all subject to the same utility prices, gas prices (transportation) and other similar factors.

The last two years at BLT strike me more as an adjustment than anything else. In fact, I'm certain the 2012 increase was an adjustment--we don't yet have any details for 2013. BLT is a younger resort with management that is still searching for the right balance in certain areas. Case in point--the front desk additions in late 2012.

The '13 dues should be taken into consideration when performing any price analysis. But I think it would be foolish to assume BLT increases of 6% annually vs. 1.5% at SSR going forward.
At some point the benefits of the high rise will kick in and the MF increases come into line with all the other resorts. If BLT owners are lucky, maybe within the next year or two. If I owned there I wouldn't start panicking yet.
__________________
DougEMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 05:56 PM   #80
DizBub
Totally Addicted
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Washington, IL
Posts: 2,057

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjkraz View Post
I can appreciate the sticker shock but it's still just 2 years out of 50. If you're making a purchasing decision (which is the topic here), is there any reason to believe that BLT dues will continue to increase at a higher rate than SSR or any other resort?



The '13 dues should be taken into consideration when performing any price analysis. But I think it would be foolish to assume BLT increases of 6% annually vs. 1.5% at SSR going forward.
Had we known when we bought BLT how much we would like SSR we probably would have bought there instead. Would have saved a bundle in up-front costs. My advice to new buyers would be to seriously consider SSR resale just because it does seem to be the all around best combination of buy-in costs and MFs and you can stay at other resorts at 7 months.

That said, I don't regret owning BLT and I'm not panicking quite yet. Waiting for the explanation of why MFs went up so much 2 years in a row. Can understand an occasional adjustment but this seems a bit high.
DizBub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 10:35 PM   #81
Dean
DIS Veteran
 
Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 31,864

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBub View Post
Still much better than the .28 or 6.52% hit that we BLT owners got. Over 6% two years in a row.........not a good trend.
predictable, they were artificially low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBub View Post
Had we known when we bought BLT how much we would like SSR we probably would have bought there instead. Would have saved a bundle in up-front costs. My advice to new buyers would be to seriously consider SSR resale just because it does seem to be the all around best combination of buy-in costs and MFs and you can stay at other resorts at 7 months.

That said, I don't regret owning BLT and I'm not panicking quite yet. Waiting for the explanation of why MFs went up so much 2 years in a row. Can understand an occasional adjustment but this seems a bit high.
This is one of the reasons i feel people are better off underbuying than over buying either in the number of points or the resort. people get set on the emotions and short term and make emotional choices for the new resort or too many points.
__________________
Dean
Dean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:53 AM   #82
crisi
DIS Veteran
 
crisi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 22,743

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean View Post
predictable, they were artificially low.
To expand, Disney follows a pattern - they have to estimate dues when they start selling a resort. They are obligated to make a good faith estimate, but its in their best interest when selling a resort to estimate low - and they do.

Once a resort has a year of operations under its belt, then they have real numbers to work with, and they adjust - but because they don't have a fully operational resort, they are still using some estimates - and whenever they have to estimate, they go a little low - its good for sales.

So for the first year, dues are low, then dues spend a few years going up more than average, and then they level out.

(This is the benefit new buyers get when they come here and ask, because people like Dean have watched Disney open up multiple new resorts - enough to see the pattern. If you come in blind, you look at BLT dues the first year and say "they are low compared to the other resorts!" But it doesn't surprise someone who has watched this five or six times before when the dues go up fairly dramatically over the first three years of operations.)
crisi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:15 AM   #83
tjkraz

DVC Owner SSR
 
tjkraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisi View Post
To expand, Disney follows a pattern - they have to estimate dues when they start selling a resort. They are obligated to make a good faith estimate, but its in their best interest when selling a resort to estimate low - and they do.

Once a resort has a year of operations under its belt, then they have real numbers to work with, and they adjust - but because they don't have a fully operational resort, they are still using some estimates - and whenever they have to estimate, they go a little low - its good for sales.

So for the first year, dues are low, then dues spend a few years going up more than average, and then they level out.
That's a logical (and safe) assumption to make but the numbers really don't demonstrate that pattern consistently.

Here are the first 5 years of dues increases (by percent) for the most recent WDW resorts:

VWL: 0.2 | 4.6 | 6.6 | 4.2 | 3.0
BCV: 5.3 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 4.9 | 3.3
SSR: 1.0 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 3.1
AKV: 1.9 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 8.5
BLT: 2.9 | 2.9 | 8.4 | 6.5

VWL and BCV did have sharp increases early on but more recent resorts did not.

One could argue that DVC intentionally delayed increases while resorts were still selling but that's an imperfect assertion. The 2011-12 increases for AKV and SSR were their highest ever (the 8.5% above for AKV and 4.9% for SSR) but both resorts were still in active sales at that time.

Now SSR is finally out of active sales and the 2013 increase is one of its lowest ever at 1.7%.

Meanwhile that first year BCV increase of 5.3% came while points were still being sold.

The recent increases of 8.5% at AKV and 8.4% at BLT were inflated due to a recalculation of the villa/hotel guest mix at those two shared properties.

I agree that it's in Disney's best interest to estimate low. The SAFE assumption to make is that there will be higher-than-expected increases early on as estimates become reality and resort operations are adjusted.

But overall I'm not sure there's really a pattern. Just looks like some estimates have been better than others.
__________________
-- Tim

DVC owner at SSR, BWV and VGC
tjkraz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 02:08 PM   #84
crisi
DIS Veteran
 
crisi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 22,743

Aulani was so underestimated, as was Vero, that Disney is going to subsidize them for a LONG time.

The only one that doesn't seem to follow the pattern is SSR.

Recalculating the villa/hotel guest ratio is part of that estimating - they have mixed resorts now, what made those two different that their initial allocation of costs was so off? Did DVC suddenly add - or loose - rooms? Did their hotel business at those resorts take a nosedive (and if it did, is that supposed to be DVC's problem?)
crisi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 02:30 PM   #85
disneynutz


Earning My Ears One At A Time
 
disneynutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 18,609

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizBub View Post
Still much better than the .28 or 6.52% hit that we BLT owners got. Over 6% two years in a row.........not a good trend.
The problem is that BLT and Aulani owners thought that they had the better dues deal until Disney made the adjustments. Some bought based on the assumption that the low dues trend would continue.

We don't truly know why Disney does what they do all we know is what we are told. In 2014 maybe BLT will only increase by 2%.

Bill
__________________

disneynutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 02:32 PM   #86
tjkraz

DVC Owner SSR
 
tjkraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,242

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisi View Post
Aulani was so underestimated, as was Vero, that Disney is going to subsidize them for a LONG time.
The Vero subsidy was necessitated by a Phase 2 that was promised and later cancelled, not incorrect operating budgets.

(And FWIW, the subsidy follows Vero points when they are privately resold but I've been told Disney almost always buys back subsidized contracts when they hit ROFR. So those subsidized contracts are slowly dwindling. DVC is no longer obligated to offer the subsidy when they re-sell.)

Quote:
...what made those two different that their initial allocation of costs was so off?
AKV and BLT were the first two resorts to actually sleep 5 / 9 / 13.

Given that BWV saw the reverse effect (fewer villa guests vs. hotel guests), it's likely that larger groups gravitated to AKV and BLT even more than projected.
__________________
-- Tim

DVC owner at SSR, BWV and VGC
tjkraz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 02:35 PM   #87
CRobin
DIS Veteran
 
CRobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa.
Posts: 591

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisi
Aulani was so underestimated, as was Vero, that Disney is going to subsidize them for a LONG time.

The only one that doesn't seem to follow the pattern is SSR.

Recalculating the villa/hotel guest ratio is part of that estimating - they have mixed resorts now, what made those two different that their initial allocation of costs was so off? Did DVC suddenly add - or loose - rooms? Did their hotel business at those resorts take a nosedive (and if it did, is that supposed to be DVC's problem?)
JMHO, but it may be due to the fact that SSR was done in phases, therefore they had a much better handle on dues each successive year due to cost experience with the previously completed phases.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards
CRobin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 06:04 PM   #88
Dean
DIS Veteran
 
Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 31,864

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisi View Post
To expand, Disney follows a pattern - they have to estimate dues when they start selling a resort. They are obligated to make a good faith estimate, but its in their best interest when selling a resort to estimate low - and they do.

Once a resort has a year of operations under its belt, then they have real numbers to work with, and they adjust - but because they don't have a fully operational resort, they are still using some estimates - and whenever they have to estimate, they go a little low - its good for sales.

So for the first year, dues are low, then dues spend a few years going up more than average, and then they level out.

(This is the benefit new buyers get when they come here and ask, because people like Dean have watched Disney open up multiple new resorts - enough to see the pattern. If you come in blind, you look at BLT dues the first year and say "they are low compared to the other resorts!" But it doesn't surprise someone who has watched this five or six times before when the dues go up fairly dramatically over the first three years of operations.)
I don't see DVC as having a pattern of purposefully underestimating dues. BLT & HI have been low but I don't see that as a trend. It's just that new resorts don't have as much costs for owners as do existing resorts.
__________________
Dean
Dean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 07:01 PM   #89
AllieV
DIS Veteran
 
AllieV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the cold and smoggy northeast
Posts: 877

Quick question for OP that I didn't see answered yet: are you planning on making every stay at your home resort? It looked that way from the calculations. You know you don't have to, right?

I didn't think the higher rates were worth it for me to have an 11 month advantage, so I bought at Vero Beach for $33.50 per point resale. I calculated it would take 4 years to break even and 7 years before the lower-dues resort broke even with the higher-dues VB vs paying the higher per-point for that resort up front (if that makes sense). And I'd have 12 years of savings over renting points before renting *possibly* became cheaper.

I just booked Beach Club 7 months out and Bay Lake Towers (standard view, yay point saver) at 5 months out.

I took the "buy at the cheapest resort and do a 7 month prayer" because that works for me now. Eventually I will probably buy at a desirable resort to have the 11-month in. But at that point, it will be worth it.
__________________
************************************************** ******
AllieV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

DVC-Resales.com | 1-800-550-6493 (Contact The Timeshare Store) | DVC Resale Listings

facebooktwittergoogle plus youtube itunesDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: