10-year cost of the 7 resorts - are BLT/VWL/BCV worth their much higher cost?

[Dean]

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.

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.

 

[crisi]

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.)

 

[tjkraz]

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.

 

[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?)

 

[disneynutz]

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

 

[tjkraz]

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.)

...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.

 

[CRobin]

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

 

[Dean]

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.

 

[AllieV]

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.