BWV vs. BCV

[ziravan]

No one knows what will happen on extensions or at the end of the RTU. We can speculate but I see no evidence to suggest any option is more likely than another. I'd say it's about 50/50 whether any type of extension is offered or not and if it is, there are many variables. IMO the most likely possibility IF an extension is offered is for it to be tied to an additional retail purchase of some type. I'd agree that an OKW type of deal is dramatically unlikely, after that, who knows.

The main driver of extensions if DVC goes back into VWL and BCV is going to be the need for a broad base of MF payers.

If DVC adds 350 units to VWL in 2016, they are going to need a fifty year contract to sell anywhere near current prices.

So, what happens to MFs between 2042 and 2066? That's 24 yrs of MFs that will need to be spread over the entire resort. DVC can either offer an extension, or resell VWL/BCV in 2042 for another 50 yrs, until 2092...

It seems more prudent to put the entire resort on the same timeline.

Also, 2042 is going to start impacting the resale market. Not yet, but it's coming. Just look at the comparison here to BCV and BLT. DVC/Disney will have to address that because they can't afford to have their resale values to crash for several resorts at once. It'll drag down the whole machine. How much is BLT worth in 2035 if I can buy BCV for 35/point and book BLT at 7 months?

The current model absolutely depends on a brisk resale market. It's what makes DVC different from other timeshares.

I believe extension offers are coming, it's just a matter of when. I factored that into my purchase.

 

[DizBub]

While BLT resale price looks good compared to BCV because of the extra years you are getting with BLT, for some of us that doesn't matter that much. I'm not going to be around till the end of the BLT contract.

I'm pretty certain we won't see the end of our BCV contract (or the BLT either for that matter) but we do have kids who will most likely be interested in having the option to extend. I believe they will have a lot of takers if they do offer an extension at BCV and BWV.

 

[Dean]

The main driver of extensions if DVC goes back into VWL and BCV is going to be the need for a broad base of MF payers.

If DVC adds 350 units to VWL in 2016, they are going to need a fifty year contract to sell anywhere near current prices.

So, what happens to MFs between 2042 and 2066? That's 24 yrs of MFs that will need to be spread over the entire resort. DVC can either offer an extension, or resell VWL/BCV in 2042 for another 50 yrs, until 2092...

It seems more prudent to put the entire resort on the same timeline.

Also, 2042 is going to start impacting the resale market. Not yet, but it's coming. Just look at the comparison here to BCV and BLT. DVC/Disney will have to address that because they can't afford to have their resale values to crash for several resorts at once. It'll drag down the whole machine. How much is BLT worth in 2035 if I can buy BCV for 35/point and book BLT at 7 months?

The current model absolutely depends on a brisk resale market. It's what makes DVC different from other timeshares.

I believe extension offers are coming, it's just a matter of when. I factored that into my purchase.

While I would agree, and have made the point, that DVC needs a critical mass to avoid MF overload as the 2042 resorts expire, an extension is not the only option to obtain that end. Plus I believe with planning even the current non 2042 resorts can reach that goal, as long as they don't act like congress. Each resort pays for itself so we're really only talking about the common elements such as MS and the reservation system. Housekeeping, maint, transportations, etc are all handled at the resort level thus they don't impact the overall discussion. Assuming Disney NEEDS to keep those resorts open and functioning is far beyond what I see as a reasonable assumption at the present time.

If there is an add on at a given resort that already has DVC, there are several options. One is to make it part of the current resort, another is to have it be a separate legal resort at the same location. This happens with timeshares all the time and is not a big deal to do. AKV should have been done this way, BLT will be this way if they do another tower. So if they added 350 units at VWL they'd either have to have them be a separate legal entity or FIRST extend the land lease so that they all ended at the same time. In this scenario the extension would have to be a freebie or they would have to do an OKW type extension before hand. The reality is that a separate legal timeshare is by far the most likely if they put new sections at existing DVC resorts just like if they added to a location that doesn't currently have a DVC component.

IMO 2042 has already had impact on the resale prices though currently the hype with VGF and possibly the Poly are overshadowing those prices. I feel we're in a current artificial high time.

If you assumed an extension as part of your plan I think you're off base. Even if it's offered, there's a good chance it won't be to your advantage and it could easily work to your detriment, I'm pretty sure it will be a problem for those who extended at OKW.

I also don't buy your assumption that retail sales are dependent on resale prices. The prices are different enough now that any reasonable person who's looking resale for most of the resorts is not going to buy in new retail. Timeshares that can be bought for $1 are still selling well. That's not to say that it wouldn't have any impact but it wouldn't be much and certainly not enough to be significant. DVC doesn't care where you can sell or what price you get, all they care about is that you think you can sell if you need to later and we're already to the point where the losses are almost half of the retail price for the 2042 resorts with some variability.

It sounds like you've bought the hype that Disney is different. It's not, it's simply just another nice timeshare that happens to be in a good location for most of the resorts, less than that for a couple of resorts.

 

[ziravan]

The reality is that a separate legal timeshare is by far the most likely if they put new sections at existing DVC resorts just like if they added to a location that doesn't currently have a DVC component.

That is a possible outcome. I do think they'll have difficulty selling 2067 BCV for $200/point in 2017 if I can buy 2042 BCV for half that. While that sounds logical on paper (half the time, half the value), people don't think that way. Most people don't look that far down the horizon. There would have to be one heck of a "pop" to that retail contract.

If you assumed an extension as part of your plan I think you're off base. Even if it's offered, there's a good chance it won't be to your advantage and it could easily work to your detriment, I'm pretty sure it will be a problem for those who extended at OKW.

It wasn't a deal breaker and I don't think I am that far off base. The OKW extension tipped Disney's hand to their thinking. It was a bust, but the question is, why? For the same reason I cite above: people don't think that far down the road. The closer we come to 2042, the more reasonable an extension will be for owners; the more important it will be to the resale market. I do think Disney looks at DVC as a package where each resort is a part of the whole. The 11/7 month equation demands some parity or we'd all buy SSR (or any the 2042 resorts because it's 2032 and those resorts that expire in 10 years are now a bargain at $.01/point on ebay).

(In fact, it seems the OKW extension was a test run at resolving that SSR advantage.)

It sounds like you've bought the hype that Disney is different. It's not, it's simply just another nice timeshare that happens to be in a good location for most of the resorts, less than that for a couple of resorts.

I agree that I have bought into that hype. I think Disney is different. More important, I think Disney thinks they're different. In any case, we shall know how this plays out soon. If Disney goes back into VWL, they'll start laying the groundwork very soon.


ETA: I'm not trying to take the topic off track, and I apologize if anybody believes I have done so. I actually DO think this is related to the OP premise. 2042 and it's comparison to other resorts (BLT) is very much related to the topic at hand. If the question of RTU is resolved, the price differences between BCV and BWV hold a very different perspective. Part of buying anything is some healthy speculation regarding future value. In my case, I believe that both BCV and BWV will both see future extensions, and if they do, then the current difference in price is negligible.

 

[Dean]

I was just using your example since you posted bout adding units to VWL. Adding as a separate legal resort is really the only way they could to so feasibly. IMO, OKW was a bust for several reasons. I agree that the fact it was 15 yrs but starting more than 30 yrs later was a major issue but it was also priced too h ugh and I believe that the bigger issue. IMO the max value was around $8 pp and had they have priced it reasonable, they would have had a much more robust response. The heavy handed approach may or may not have had an effect and it still may come back to bite them because they do not have the legal or POS authority to collect a special assessment for this purpose as threatened.

The OKW experience not only gave them a bad taste but it also tied their hands as far as future options. Time will tell how they approach this for the future. The last time they got a bad taste related to sales it cost us a minimum of 3 nice off property resort options when sales didn't meet expectations at VB & HH.

Looking at your current example, I'm certain DVC could sell the resort if they wanted at any price that can be made to look good on paper. I think your price comparisons are an exaggeration. It's $130 now so we're talking maybe $150 and possibly less than $140 in 2 yrs with a built in extension, not $200. DVC has always been poor at selling, worst case scenario is they have to get more aggressive and better at sales.

 

[bigAWL]

I'm not sure if I missed someone else mentioning this, but if I were a prospective buyer and comparing BCV to BWV, I would certainly compare the rooms and ammeinities, but I would also compare the annual dues. BWV dues have historically stayed 2-5% higher than BCV. That could give a slight boost to the value of BCV.

 

[crisi]

I'm not sure if I missed someone else mentioning this, but if I were a prospective buyer and comparing BCV to BWV, I would certainly compare the rooms and ammeinities, but I would also compare the annual dues. BWV dues have historically stayed 2-5% higher than BCV. That could give a slight boost to the value of BCV.

If you stay standard view - and figure dues on a per night basis, BWV has really cheap dues. And that is probably where the delta comes in between BCV and BWV dues - there are fewer points per room because the standard view rooms drag the average points per room down. If you stay standard view, you'll need fewer points - so less up front costs and lower annual dues.

That's the same deal in reverse that you have going on at BLT. BLT dues are fairly low, but its a lot of points per night - so if you do the dues per room night calculation, dues are actually fairly high - plus you need more points if you regularly stay there.

OKW and SSR really are bargains - their dues are low AND their points per night are lower - so in terms of dues per night, you get a real bargain.

 

[bmcd1998]

Glad to see my original post has sparked some healthy debate. I have certainly learned a lot reading all the speculation about where DVC goes from here, and some things that separate BCV and BWV.

I am a Certified Financial Planner in Charlotte, and when I decided to make an offer on some BLT points (currently in ROFR) I made a spreadsheet that I believe helped me make a realistic financial decision about if/which resort to purchase. It does not, or course, account for preference and emotional attachment of any kind.

Not sure how to share that spreadsheet on here, but if anybody is interested just let me know. I can email it to you.

 

[DougEMG]

It sounds like you've bought the hype that Disney is different. It's not, it's simply just another nice timeshare that happens to be in a good location for most of the resorts, less than that for a couple of resorts.

I would argue that the one area that DVC is different in is that it has a lock on its location inside WDW. If you want to stay onsite, DVC is the only timeshare option available to you.

 

[DougEMG]

If you stay standard view - and figure dues on a per night basis, BWV has really cheap dues. And that is probably where the delta comes in between BCV and BWV dues - there are fewer points per room because the standard view rooms drag the average points per room down. If you stay standard view, you'll need fewer points - so less up front costs and lower annual dues.

That's the same deal in reverse that you have going on at BLT. BLT dues are fairly low, but its a lot of points per night - so if you do the dues per room night calculation, dues are actually fairly high - plus you need more points if you regularly stay there.

OKW and SSR really are bargains - their dues are low AND their points per night are lower - so in terms of dues per night, you get a real bargain.

Discounting AKV value rooms as there are so few of them, OKW, BWV (standard view) and SSR always have the best costs based on their MF and their room point costs.

Oddly enough, those are the three resorts I own at.

 

[Dean]

I would argue that the one area that DVC is different in is that it has a lock on its location inside WDW. If you want to stay onsite, DVC is the only timeshare option available to you.

Obviously true as well as theming, I acknowledged that issue in the post you quoted. There are other issues one could discuss such as the flexibility of the points system which is more flexible than most assuming one is looking to use in the DVC system but less so for exchanges. My post was more speaking to the philosophy, management and expectations. I've seen people post on this board that DVC was not a timeshare (but it's been a while) and I've seen many post that they bought because it was Disney and that Disney is the only timeshare they'd consider. Some of these may also have been referring to location as well but a large number are likely assuming Disney is "different meaning better, higher quality, higher ethics" and it's not in the sense most people might say so. Technically each timeshare is different a little from another.

Discounting AKV value rooms as there are so few of them, OKW, BWV (standard view) and SSR always have the best costs based on their MF and their room point costs.

Oddly enough, those are the three resorts I own at.

Ultimately it comes down to total overall costs (up front and maint fees) and the assumptions one uses. Generally from a $$$ standpoint SSR is the cheapest, even about as cheap or cheaper to use for AKV standard view than owning AKV and getting value rooms owning comparably less points. Of course if you find a sweetheart or specialty deal the numbers can change like VB subsidized at a good price or the VLW at $42 pp a couple of years ago on craigslist.

 

[bakerworld]

Eldest DD loves BW but I have to say when I am on vacation I do NOT want to deal with maintenance issues, especially plumbing. I am on vacation and should be free of all 'that', no matter how many times you tell me Welcome Home. There is a reason BW's dues run consistently higher so for us it's BC first and BW last.

 

[cjwags10]

BCV is our favorite resort for many reasons. We love SOB, the beach area, the quick service food option along with the lounge options between BC and YC. We also love Yachtsman Steakhouse. The resort has many quiet areas which is nice. All of this along with the proximity to Epcot just can't be beat. We gladly pay the extra $$ per point for BCV.

We have stayed at BWV - our room was down a never ending hallway and we really did not enjoy the clown pool theming. Quick service food options are limited. The overall feel of the resort just wasn't for us.

For us it is not all about the cheapest price per point, it is about the location, amenities and overall feel of the resort. We tend to spend less time at the parks now that the kids are older and really enjoy the resort area.

 

[DizBub]

BCV is our favorite resort for many reasons. We love SOB, the beach area, the quick service food option along with the lounge options between BC and YC. We also love Yachtsman Steakhouse. The resort has many quiet areas which is nice. All of this along with the proximity to Epcot just can't be beat. We gladly pay the extra $$ per point for BCV.

We have stayed at BWV - our room was down a never ending hallway and we really did not enjoy the clown pool theming. Quick service food options are limited. The overall feel of the resort just wasn't for us.

For us it is not all about the cheapest price per point, it is about the location, amenities and overall feel of the resort. We tend to spend less time at the parks now that the kids are older and really enjoy the resort area.

I agree with all of this. The best part is that if you do want to visit the Boardwalk area it's just a quick stroll around or boat ride across the lake. Although those BWV standard villas are rather attractive.

 

[chainkid]

Obviously true as well as theming, I acknowledged that issue in the post you quoted. There are other issues one could discuss such as the flexibility of the points system which is more flexible than most assuming one is looking to use in the DVC system but less so for exchanges. My post was more speaking to the philosophy, management and expectations. I've seen people post on this board that DVC was not a timeshare (but it's been a while) and I've seen many post that they bought because it was Disney and that Disney is the only timeshare they'd consider. Some of these may also have been referring to location as well but a large number are likely assuming Disney is "different meaning better, higher quality, higher ethics" and it's not in the sense most people might say so. Technically each timeshare is different a little from another.

Ultimately it comes down to total overall costs (up front and maint fees) and the assumptions one uses. Generally from a $$$ standpoint SSR is the cheapest, even about as cheap or cheaper to use for AKV standard view than owning AKV and getting value rooms owning comparably less points. Of course if you find a sweetheart or specialty deal the numbers can change like VB subsidized at a good price or the VLW at $42 pp a couple of years ago on craigslist.

I'm definitely in the catagory that doesn't look at Disney vacation club in the same way I would look at another timeshare. I would not consider buying a time share outside of disney and not because I don't think that their are other probably more attractive plans but because i feel a certain level of comfort with Disney . I have seen many timeshares which have not maintained their property while Disney must do so in order to maintain viability of its investment. I like having a limited time investment and not having to be tied in to an unlimited commitment of dues. I also like that I can sell my timeshare for the immediate future and get more than I paid for it back, not many timeshares you can say that about it. I know it will end as we get closer to end date but at least i have a way to bail if I have to. I do not intend to trade outside of Disney so for me its what I bought. I travel extensively but use VRBO rather than owning myself. Everyones different but for me I'm not a normal timeshare buyer.

 

[tb1972]

I recently completed an online survey of my last trip to the Board Walk.

Thought I'd share one of my responses:

"Your outright refusal to keep non guests out of the BW pool completely ruins one of the main benefits of staying at a Disney resort.

Every single time I went to the feature pool with my family there were dozens - literally dozens - of people in the water who were clearly not guests. Many had simply walked over from Epcot and were swimming in their clothes (gym shorts w/underwear visible etc.), no magic bands, no Rapid Fill mugs visible. I saw one family of eight people walk in right off the Boardwalk take off their shoes and socks and hang out for over two hours in the pool. Another day while parking my rental car, I saw a young couple and their baby (again no Magic Bands) park walk up to the resort lobby in their swim wear and then bewilderedly look around until they found the pool. Think they were guests really?

Point the trespassers out to a lifeguard - get a knowing shrug. They can see it - just not do anything about it. Walk up to the front desk and they say "one day there may be a fence like the Beach Club," but today I'm out of luck. Really? And how long do we think it will take Disney to build these fences? This is years in the offing without question - if at all.

This same trip, while walking to Beaches and Cream, I couldn't help notice two things about the Beach Club pool: First, it was fenced off with Disney personnel swiping Magic Bands at the gate. Second, the pool had far far fewer people in it. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact you just can't walk in off the street and hop in the water?

I envy the Beach Club pool not because it's "nicer" than the Boardwalk, but simply because it wasn't packed shoulder to shoulder with people.

I envy the Beach Club guests because the management there actually cares about their guests' experience. To my eye, the BC fence isn't about protecting the unique pool, it's about protecting the rights that their guests have so richly paid for. Something the Boardwalk management refuses to do. By the way, when someone gets caught trying to sneak into the Beach Club pool, where do you think they go next, back to Epcot? Or do they walk an extra three minutes and jump in the pool I'm spending hundreds of DVC points to stay at.

When you build a hotel next to a major tourist draw like BW, and within walking distance of two major theme parks, how about making a half an effort to preserve the priviliges you're charging your guests an arm and a leg to enjoy?

Or, if you honestly don't care about this abuse of pool rights then let people know on your website. i.e. "Guests should understand that the feature pool at the Boardwalk Resort is open to the general public and therefore congested to the point of claustrophobia. Guests should be advised that is unlikely they will be able to find a chair, and that you will be forced to simply stand in the water and not actually swim. Further, because of our open pool policy, your children will very likely never get a chance to play any of the poolside games. If you want to enjoy a pool actually reserved for guests may we suggest staying at the Beach Club instead."

Perhaps the comments were taken seriously? We stayed at BW over Memorial Day weekend/rock your Disney side 24 hour party. Each time we entered the pool every member of our family had to show their magic band. There were lifeguards checking people at 2-3 entrances to the pool.

 

[tb1972]

I recently completed an online survey of my last trip to the Board Walk.

Thought I'd share one of my responses:

"Your outright refusal to keep non guests out of the BW pool completely ruins one of the main benefits of staying at a Disney resort.

Every single time I went to the feature pool with my family there were dozens - literally dozens - of people in the water who were clearly not guests. Many had simply walked over from Epcot and were swimming in their clothes (gym shorts w/underwear visible etc.), no magic bands, no Rapid Fill mugs visible. I saw one family of eight people walk in right off the Boardwalk take off their shoes and socks and hang out for over two hours in the pool. Another day while parking my rental car, I saw a young couple and their baby (again no Magic Bands) park walk up to the resort lobby in their swim wear and then bewilderedly look around until they found the pool. Think they were guests really?

Point the trespassers out to a lifeguard - get a knowing shrug. They can see it - just not do anything about it. Walk up to the front desk and they say "one day there may be a fence like the Beach Club," but today I'm out of luck. Really? And how long do we think it will take Disney to build these fences? This is years in the offing without question - if at all.

This same trip, while walking to Beaches and Cream, I couldn't help notice two things about the Beach Club pool: First, it was fenced off with Disney personnel swiping Magic Bands at the gate. Second, the pool had far far fewer people in it. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact you just can't walk in off the street and hop in the water?

I envy the Beach Club pool not because it's "nicer" than the Boardwalk, but simply because it wasn't packed shoulder to shoulder with people.

I envy the Beach Club guests because the management there actually cares about their guests' experience. To my eye, the BC fence isn't about protecting the unique pool, it's about protecting the rights that their guests have so richly paid for. Something the Boardwalk management refuses to do. By the way, when someone gets caught trying to sneak into the Beach Club pool, where do you think they go next, back to Epcot? Or do they walk an extra three minutes and jump in the pool I'm spending hundreds of DVC points to stay at.

When you build a hotel next to a major tourist draw like BW, and within walking distance of two major theme parks, how about making a half an effort to preserve the priviliges you're charging your guests an arm and a leg to enjoy?

Or, if you honestly don't care about this abuse of pool rights then let people know on your website. i.e. "Guests should understand that the feature pool at the Boardwalk Resort is open to the general public and therefore congested to the point of claustrophobia. Guests should be advised that is unlikely they will be able to find a chair, and that you will be forced to simply stand in the water and not actually swim. Further, because of our open pool policy, your children will very likely never get a chance to play any of the poolside games. If you want to enjoy a pool actually reserved for guests may we suggest staying at the Beach Club instead."

Perhaps the comments were taken seriously? We stayed at BW over Memorial Day weekend/rock your Disney side 24 hour party. Each time we entered the pool every member of our family had to show their magic band. There were lifeguards checking people at 2-3 entrances to the pool.

 

[Dean]

I'm definitely in the catagory that doesn't look at Disney vacation club in the same way I would look at another timeshare. I would not consider buying a time share outside of disney and not because I don't think that their are other probably more attractive plans but because i feel a certain level of comfort with Disney . I have seen many timeshares which have not maintained their property while Disney must do so in order to maintain viability of its investment. I like having a limited time investment and not having to be tied in to an unlimited commitment of dues. I also like that I can sell my timeshare for the immediate future and get more than I paid for it back, not many timeshares you can say that about it. I know it will end as we get closer to end date but at least i have a way to bail if I have to. I do not intend to trade outside of Disney so for me its what I bought. I travel extensively but use VRBO rather than owning myself. Everyones different but for me I'm not a normal timeshare buyer.

I don't believe there's any objective info putting DVC ahead of other top timeshares other than personal preference. I think you're giving DVC too much credit and likely some others too little. Many have heard bad things about timeshares, assume it to be true and assume DVC is different, they're not.

 

[disneynutz]

I'm not sure if I missed someone else mentioning this, but if I were a prospective buyer and comparing BCV to BWV, I would certainly compare the rooms and ammeinities, but I would also compare the annual dues. BWV dues have historically stayed 2-5% higher than BCV. That could give a slight boost to the value of BCV.

Paying dues is the cost of staying where you love and booking at 11 months to guarantee your happiness. If you want to stay at Disney and save the most money, then DVC isn't the way to go.

To me it's all about the resort theming, the amenities, the view, location, and feeling that you get when you walk into the resort.

Bill

 

[calypso726]

We are a 3 hour drive away from WDW. When we realized we'd be going to Food & Wine just about every weekend we decided we'd need to add on to either BCV or BWV. We liked the theming on both so decided to stay at both and compare.

Parking is important to us because we drive in and do tend to drive from one place to another while in WDW. The parking lot at BWV was incredibly inconvenient and too far compared to BCV. Our room at BWV was closer to the lobby of the Swan & Dolphin than it was to the resort's own lobby. It took forever to get from our room through the endless hallways, and to Epcot compared to our stay at BCV. These two reasons alone made us decide on Beach Club. Since then, I have discovered I enjoy having a lobster roll from Hurricane Hanna's and sipping a nice cold drink while reading my Kindle at Stormalong Bay. We've added on twice now at BCV. Really aejoy our stays there!