I would completely disagree with this. I don't think ANY retail DVC will retain value compared to SSR and least of all Poly. I wouldn't buy with resale potential as a major component because I don't think one should buy planning to sell later but it is good to consider the angles.
My sense is that any downturn will affect the true values fairly equally. IMO there's an automatic loss to any retail, less for the newest ones for a while but eventually they will likely come together with adjustments from other specifics. My sense is that SSR resale will likely hold it's value the best followed by BLT then AKV. Personally I feel the Poly will lag significantly behind VGF & CCR for newer retail sales so I see it as the worst possible purchase in the discussion of buy and future value/resale compared to purchase price. The only things that would be worse would be the cheaper resorts retail for a significant volume because they're still worth what they'll currently sell resale for.
I think that the resorts that have depreciation already baked into their prices are the best bets to hold their value. So resorts with longer life such as SSR, BLT, and AKV will likely hold value better than resorts like Poly, whose prices have not come down enough yet to become a good value on the resale market. Depreciated resorts with shorter shelf lives are not good long term plays to hold value because of the short expiration date, which could impact their resale price sooner than later.
I think this is only applicable if you definitely want perks, namely the annual pass, in the future. Perks could be better, they could be worse in future. DVC already took away everything they are legally able to take from resale buyers- all they can do is add on. The agreement, the deed, the fact DVC is a member's club (a distinct legal situation, at least here in the UK and I suspect similar over there) of which all owners are a member by ownership of the real estate interest, the fact all items left are paid for by dues (making illegal to restrict anyone paying those dues access, hence the pool hopping and TOTWL privileges), and protection offered by Florida Statute 721, all add up, in my view, to the fact they are not taking anything else away. If they tried I suspect they would be hit with the lawsuit from hell, and I would be joining it when the Florida attorney advertises that class action. So if you bought just for the use of DVC properties or the main exchange programme, have no intention of going for any perks and have no interest (I don't get an annual pass, I will very likely not be there when any Moonlight Magic are on, OK a 10% discount in the restaurants would be nice but I would never get my money back), then speculatively buying 25 points at nearly $5000 is in my view not a great idea unless you really need a 25 point add on for the points, and want a new resort (otherwise get 50 elsewhere for the same money). For perks to increase, DVD would have to spend ever increasing sums in marketing cash, and to do that they would have to know there is real benefits of selling even more new timeshare based on modelling predictions. Maybe they will be able to show that, and maybe one day a fabulous perk will come along which makes me think, darn I wish I had bought direct when i could do it for 25 points, but I doubt it.
I don't think that' the case. They could add on the negative side for non qualified. I believe it'd good to have options and good to have access. It will work best for those that either need a few points and are not qualified and for those that are buying in and can plan that into their overall purchase plan. Whether it's worth buying the points JUST to get the perks (not quite what I was suggesting), it will vary and one should look at the cost and the benefit. One of the easiest ways to separate further would be a VIP program directed at qualified points. But they could easily add a lot of perks that have value but little cost if they so chose. Part of my point is that it's unlikely to be an option at 25 points add on long term. I don't think the lawsuit angle is applicable unless DVD or DVC were clearly outside the POS or FL laws and I don't think that legal action that is easily within the POS/State Statutes scares them much.
A VIP program for direct purchasers would be a negative for resale buyers but I see that as adding to what they don't get. Can they take anything additional away? I've wondered if they could modify the 7 month window for resale purchasers. You're only guaranteed a month of priority at your home resort. I'm not sure if this is possible but if so, it would make an impact.
I guess it depends on how you want to view it. The way I answered and look at it, is whether they can hurt resale buyers more, not just add to the things that non qualified owners are wishing they have. As I see it, a VIP system and a pay to play system could both do that.
I don't see a VIP system as difficult but if they haven't done it so far, will they in the future? I don't know. As for legally, as I mentioned, others have done it with similar systems so I don't see much of a legal roadblock.
Not necessarily true. Marriott, Hyatt and Hilton are certainly not pennies on the dollar. The ones that are, are there for other reasons. It's quite the reverse, they use this angle to upset current members quite successfully. Regardless, DVC really is just another timeshare.
I think the operative word is informed. For current buyers, most who buy retail (full purchase) are either ill informed and/or let their emotions cloud their brain. We see it all the time such as those who buy too quickly, those who make a poor decision trying to get that next trip on points or those who "feel more comfortable buying direct". While there are a few situations where it truly makes sense to buy direct, there aren't many and even most who feel they're the exception really aren't. But even in your scenario there are ways to play on the issue, timeshare companies do it all the time successfully even the ones that aren't worth the paper it's written on.
Agree that there a very few cases where a direct purchase makes financial sense. To clarify, an informed purchaser in my mind in the hypothetical world where resale has been significantly devalued may not purchase DVC at all. If decent reservations were hard to get for a resale purchaser and direct is too expensive it would seem to me that I wouldn't want either. There will always be folks that will purchase based on impulse/emotion and if they are the majority then maybe it wouldn't impact direct.
While I think that drops in resale prices are overall bad for the DVC market as a whole, I do think it would give rise to a whole new class of purchasers. If the prices get low enough it would make sense for people to buy and be happy with whatever they could get. Sure, I pay more to have the 11 month window at BLT, but if there were an option to buy points for $25 each and I'm just taking my chances with availability, I'd add that DVC position to my portfolio as well.
They are the majority, by far and a truly informed buyer by your standards (and mine) are even a smaller subset of those who are investigating even here. Where my thoughts differ is that there will always be those interested as long as owning makes sense regardless of the resale options, value or potential and these really are most of those looking at DVC. The reality is that 20 years from now we have to assume there are no resale options and thus we've all taken the risk that we own for the duration and can't get out for any real value. Anything above that is just gravy. To be honest, I discount about 99.9% of people who say they wouldn't buy (or wouldn't have bought) in a given situation whether it be lower resale value, more difficult reservations, etc. How many sold because of the valet parking issue, I can't think of a single one here off hand with all of the consternation that was thrown about. Ultimately the value is in the usage not the selling.
