Common Size Points Charts

[ray3127]

This is something I've been working on for a little while, and is similar in scope to some of the work recently posted by @CanadaDisney05. Inspired by those posts, I decided to revisit this and post it.

Though most of us are aware there are differences in point charts at the various DVC resorts, I’ve always struggled to quantify exactly what the differences are. I would look up the difference from one resort to another for a specific time period, make a mental note, and move on.

To try to better quantify the differences I’m describing, I did some research and ultimately created what I’m calling “common size” point charts… like common size financial statements, the main idea is to facilitate comparisons from a baseline.

Methodology

1. Recorded the point cost of a week in a Studio, 1-Bedroom, and 2-Bedroom (ETA 2BR 10/23) for all view types across all seasons at the WDW resorts.
2. Selected a “baseline” room value… For the charts below, I chose Old Key West.
3. Calculated the following:
   1. The number of points needed for each room type relative to the baseline within each season.
   2. A weighted average point cost for each room type based on the number of days in each season.
   3. (post #2) The number of points needed for each room type relative to that room type’s Adventure Season point totals.

Old Key West fit the bill as a baseline because it had the lowest average number of points for both Studios & 1-Bedrooms (EXCEPT for AKV Value… but they are significantly lower than everything else in the system).

The result is the following charts. The number listed is the “multiplier” of the number of points needed compared to the baseline (which is Old Key West for both the Studios & 1-Bedrooms. So if you want to book a Savanna View Studio at AKV in Adventure season, it takes 1.34x as many points to book as an OKW Studio. Likewise, a Standard View Studio at Riviera in Magic season costs 1.48x an OKW Studio.

The first set of charts adjusts the baseline for each season, so comparisons are only relevant within the same season (or using the weighted average point cost as a generic figure).

To compare other resorts directly, simply divide the two numbers given… For example, a Lake View Studio at Polynesian in Choice season has a multiplier of 1.96x, while the same view/season at Bay Lake Tower has a multiplier of 1.64x. 1.96 / 1.64 = 1.195, so the Poly room takes about 20% more points than the BLT room at that time.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The numbers presented are relevant for comparisons across resorts within the SAME season. The baseline number is different depending on the season, so this is only for comparisons within the same season.

For reference, seasons in 2020 run:

• Adventure: Jan. 1-31, Sept. 1-30, Dec. 1-14
• Choice: Oct. 1-Nov. 24, Nov. 28-30, Dec. 15-23
• Dream: Feb. 1-15, May 1-June 10, Aug. 16-31
• Magic: Feb. 16-Apr. 4, Apr. 19-30, June 11-Aug. 15, Nov. 25-27
• Premier: Apr. 5-18, Dec. 24-31

STUDIOS vs. OLD KEY WEST





1-BEDROOMS vs. OLD KEY WEST





2-BEDROOMS vs. OLD KEY WEST





A FEW NOTES

I can easily change the baseline room type in Excel and post revised charts if you are curious about a specific resort as a baseline. Again, you can divide any two numbers to see the relationship between specific resorts.

I also have the data in combined form, where both the Studios & 1-Bedroom amounts change based on a single baseline input. This may be useful for those considering buying enough points for studios or 1-bedrooms.

* ETA 2-Bedroom Charts on 10/23 *

 

[ray3127]

COMMON SIZE POINTS CHARTS SHOWING SEASONAL DIFFERENCES WITHIN A RESORT

I also thought it was instructive to see just how much variation there is among the seasons at each resort. So I changed the baseline for each room type to be a week’s worth of points at that resort/room type in Adventure Season. This helps answer the question, “just how many points do I need to travel at ‘x’ time instead of ‘y’ time?” Again, this is something I would hunt and peck for on a case-by-case basis, but I find it helpful to be summarized in a single place.

STUDIOS vs. ADVENTURE SEASON





1-BEDROOMS vs. ADVENTURE SEASON





2-BEDROOMS vs. ADVENTURE SEASON




* ETA 2-Bedroom Charts on 10/23 *

 

[ray3127]

COMMENTARY

I was inspired to do this because I feel that sometimes too much weight is placed on the initial buy-in cost (price per point). The buy-in ultimately represents far less than half of the total cash flows over the life of the contract. To be hyper-focused on initial cost per point and not consider the extra cost in Maintenance Fees for the extra points needed at certain resorts is not the best way to look at it.

I put together my take on the “Most Economical DVC Resort Rankings” from www.DVCResaleMarket.com. Their ranking takes into account 3 things: (1) Average price per point, (2) Years remaining on contract, and (3) Annual dues per point.

This measure is clearly missing the fact that points go farther at certain locations. For example, while the Grand Floridian generally ranks high on this list (due to the length of the contract offsetting its very high price per point), the list ignores the fact that on average you need more points to stay at VGF than anywhere else (save Poly, which is equal).

On average, a Standard View Studio at VGF costs 1.54x as many points as a Standard View Studio at BWV. So while the cost per point may be cheaper at VGF, you can get away with a contract that is much smaller at BWV, and your actual annual cost, even accounting for the fewer years left on the contract, is lower at BWV than VGF.

To better reflect this, I would modify DVC Resale Market’s rankings as follows (the average points needed is for 1 week, using the weighted average I calculated for the Common Size Points Charts):

Resort

Avg. Cost per Point

Years Left

Cost per Point per Year

Annual dues per Point

Total Cost per Point per Year

DVCRM Cost Ranking

Avg points needed (Studio)

Total Annual Cost (Studio)

Cost Ranking (Studio)

Avg points needed (1BR)

Total Annual Cost (1BR)

Cost Ranking (1BR)

Saratoga Springs

107​

34​

3.15​

6.40​

9.55​

1

100​

954

1

209​

1,999

1​

Old Key West (2057)

103​

37​

2.78​

7.23​

10.01​

3

97​

968

2

200​

2,001

2​

Animal Kingdom

114​

37​

3.08​

7.44​

10.52​

6

101​

1,066

3

203​

2,135

3​

Old Key West (2042)

103​

22​

4.68​

7.23​

11.91​

8

97​

1,152

4

200​

2,381

4​

Bay Lake Tower

149​

40​

3.73​

6.40​

10.13​

4

125​

1,269

5

243​

2,462

5​

Copper Creek

154​

48​

3.21​

7.43​

10.64​

7

121​

1,284

6

248​

2,643

6​

Boardwalk

134​

22​

6.09​

7.17​

13.26​

11

99​

1,309

7

201​

2,668

7​

Boulder Ridge

110​

22​

5.00​

7.32​

12.32​

10

121​

1,487

8

248​

3,061

8​

Polynesian

148​

46​

3.22​

6.76​

9.98​

2

152​

1,512

9

n/a

n/a

n/a

Grand Floridian

175​

44​

3.98​

6.39​

10.37​

5

152​

1,577

10

309​

3,199

9​

Riviera

188​

50​

3.76​

8.31​

12.07​

9

140​

1,691

11

290​

3,504

11​

Beach Club

156​

22​

7.09​

6.94​

14.03​

12

125​

1,753

12

249​

3,495

10​

When accounting for the average points needed to book a room, the rankings change a fair bit. You also have a better idea of the true total annual cost, factoring in both the initial cost and the annual dues.

(I also take issue with allocating the upfront cost per point equally over the life of the contract… I’ll save the details for another post, but in short: I believe points have a “time value”, just like money does. Points coming next year are worth more to me today than points coming in 20, 30, or 40 years.)

In fairness, the standard view rooms at each resort are not ‘apples to apples’, and one may argue the VGF rooms are superior; that is a legitimate qualitative factor to consider. The only factor that this “common size point chart” demonstrates is that ‘points go farther’ at certain resorts. It does not consider qualitative factors, such as:
- Location preferences
- Ambiance preferences
- Specific room differences (value of better bathroom layouts, etc.)
- Food quality/availability
- etc…

Nor does it include any measure of the necessity of owning vs. the ability to book at 7 months (i.e. can you get in without owning there… if you can’t then you add a premium $$$.).

But if you’re talking in terms of purely ‘the most economical points’, I think you need to include some stats on the points needed to stay at different resorts. If you’re sleeping around, it doesn’t really matter… but a growing number are buying where they want to stay, so the variations in points needed at different resorts is an important piece of the puzzle.

I hope some find these useful, and I am open to feedback. There is no *new* data here, it is just presented in form that better facilitates comparisons. If you’d like to see a different/specific baseline used, I am happy to oblige.

 

[CarolMN]

Love this! Thanks for doing the work & sharing it with us.

 

[Pens Fan]

That is really great information. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together and share it!

 

[stuartsong]

Thanks for the work you put into it. People may use the information how they see fit. It's a great way to baseline the DVC resorts. It's a good place to start.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Awesome analysis. So well done. We definitely considered this as soon as we started looking at buying. We printed out all the point charts and couldn’t believe the disparity. In doing so, one thing we found very interesting was how expensive VGF contracts are to buy. Obviously, there is a lot of demand for VGF contracts. Why would so many people be interested in buying there? I still do not understand it, because considering the point chart, there is no draw for us. The only thing I can conclude is that there are a large amount of people out there who have completely different priorities than I do! I guess I should already know this, but the occasional reminder helps.

 

[DaveNan]

In doing so, one thing we found very interesting was how expensive VGF contracts are to buy. Obviously, there is a lot of demand for VGF contracts. Why would so many people be interested in buying there? I still do not understand it, because considering the point chart, there is no draw for us.

As you stated peoples priorities and means are different. If you looked at where to stay as a price only decision, everyone would stay off property or in a value. However, if I was a person who liked the GF, always want to stay there, and was willing to pay the cost of a cash reservation to stay there, then staying there for 1500 a week including tax is an incredible deal. If you compares rack rates to these numbers, VGF may be one of the best comparisons.

 

[katandmouse]

Thanks for all this! I tried to figure out a similar comparison when we were buying but this makes it really easy to see.

Any chance of doing this for 2 bedrooms?

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

As you stated peoples priorities and means are different. If you looked at where to stay as a price only decision, everyone would stay off property or in a value. However, if I was a person who liked the GF, always want to stay there, and was willing to pay the cost of a cash reservation to stay there, then staying there for 1500 a week including tax is an incredible deal. If you compares rack rates to these numbers, VGF may be one of the best comparisons.

I agree it is a good deal for someone who wants to stay specifically at the GF, but is there a week when you can stay at DVC VGF for the equivalent of $1500 in points?

 

[CraigInPA]

This deserves to be a "sticky".

 

[SPLzero]

I agree it is a good deal for someone who wants to stay specifically at the GF, but is there a week when you can stay at DVC VGF for the equivalent of $1500 in points?

A week in a standard studio during adventure or choice is 125 Points on the 2019 chart. That's $12PP

 

[ray3127]

Thanks for all this! I tried to figure out a similar comparison when we were buying but this makes it really easy to see.

Any chance of doing this for 2 bedrooms?

The infrastructure is built so it wouldn't be too hard. I would just need to change the points needed for each room type & season. Give me the weekend

 

[ray3127]

Awesome analysis. So well done. We definitely considered this as soon as we started looking at buying. We printed out all the point charts and couldn’t believe the disparity. In doing so, one thing we found very interesting was how expensive VGF contracts are to buy. Obviously, there is a lot of demand for VGF contracts. Why would so many people be interested in buying there? I still do not understand it, because considering the point chart, there is no draw for us. The only thing I can conclude is that there are a large amount of people out there who have completely different priorities than I do! I guess I should already know this, but the occasional reminder helps.

Thank you! I reached the same conclusion on VGF, the point chart scared me off. But for those who want to stay there then DVC still beats cash rates over time.

We've all looked at points charts before, but even as a numbers guy I get thrown off when comparing large numbers... using a standard baseline makes it easier than comparing 176 points to 212 points (random numbers off the top of my head).

 

[Yinn]

COMMENTARY

I was inspired to do this because I feel that sometimes too much weight is placed on the initial buy-in cost (price per point). The buy-in ultimately represents far less than half of the total cash flows over the life of the contract. To be hyper-focused on initial cost per point and not consider the extra cost in Maintenance Fees for the extra points needed at certain resorts is not the best way to look at it.

I put together my take on the “Most Economical DVC Resort Rankings” from www.DVCResaleMarket.com. Their ranking takes into account 3 things: (1) Average price per point, (2) Years remaining on contract, and (3) Annual dues per point.

This measure is clearly missing the fact that points go farther at certain locations. For example, while the Grand Floridian generally ranks high on this list (due to the length of the contract offsetting its very high price per point), the list ignores the fact that on average you need more points to stay at VGF than anywhere else (save Poly, which is equal).

On average, a Standard View Studio at VGF costs 1.54x as many points as a Standard View Studio at BWV. So while the cost per point may be cheaper at VGF, you can get away with a contract that is much smaller at BWV, and your actual annual cost, even accounting for the fewer years left on the contract, is lower at BWV than VGF.

To better reflect this, I would modify DVC Resale Market’s rankings as follows (the average points needed is for 1 week, using the weighted average I calculated for the Common Size Points Charts):

Resort

Avg. Cost per Point

Years Left

Cost per Point per Year

Annual dues per Point

Total Cost per Point per Year

DVCRM Cost Ranking

Avg points needed (Studio)

Total Annual Cost (Studio)

Cost Ranking (Studio)

Avg points needed (1BR)

Total Annual Cost (1BR)

Cost Ranking (1BR)

Saratoga Springs

107​

34​

3.15​

6.40​

9.55​

1

100​

954

1

209​

1,999

1​

Old Key West (2057)

103​

37​

2.78​

7.23​

10.01​

3

97​

968

2

200​

2,001

2​

Animal Kingdom

114​

37​

3.08​

7.44​

10.52​

6

101​

1,066

3

203​

2,135

3​

Old Key West (2042)

103​

22​

4.68​

7.23​

11.91​

8

97​

1,152

4

200​

2,381

4​

Bay Lake Tower

149​

40​

3.73​

6.40​

10.13​

4

125​

1,269

5

243​

2,462

5​

Copper Creek

154​

48​

3.21​

7.43​

10.64​

7

121​

1,284

6

248​

2,643

6​

Boardwalk

134​

22​

6.09​

7.17​

13.26​

11

99​

1,309

7

201​

2,668

7​

Boulder Ridge

110​

22​

5.00​

7.32​

12.32​

10

121​

1,487

8

248​

3,061

8​

Polynesian

148​

46​

3.22​

6.76​

9.98​

2

152​

1,512

9

n/a

n/a

n/a

Grand Floridian

175​

44​

3.98​

6.39​

10.37​

5

152​

1,577

10

309​

3,199

9​

Riviera

188​

50​

3.76​

8.31​

12.07​

9

140​

1,691

11

290​

3,504

11​

Beach Club

156​

22​

7.09​

6.94​

14.03​

12

125​

1,753

12

249​

3,495

10​

When accounting for the average points needed to book a room, the rankings change a fair bit. You also have a better idea of the true total annual cost, factoring in both the initial cost and the annual dues.

(I also take issue with allocating the upfront cost per point equally over the life of the contract… I’ll save the details for another post, but in short: I believe points have a “time value”, just like money does. Points coming next year are worth more to me today than points coming in 20, 30, or 40 years.)

In fairness, the standard view rooms at each resort are not ‘apples to apples’, and one may argue the VGF rooms are superior; that is a legitimate qualitative factor to consider. The only factor that this “common size point chart” demonstrates is that ‘points go farther’ at certain resorts. It does not consider qualitative factors, such as:
- Location preferences
- Ambiance preferences
- Specific room differences (value of better bathroom layouts, etc.)
- Food quality/availability
- etc…

Nor does it include any measure of the necessity of owning vs. the ability to book at 7 months (i.e. can you get in without owning there… if you can’t then you add a premium $$$.).

But if you’re talking in terms of purely ‘the most economical points’, I think you need to include some stats on the points needed to stay at different resorts. If you’re sleeping around, it doesn’t really matter… but a growing number are buying where they want to stay, so the variations in points needed at different resorts is an important piece of the puzzle.

I hope some find these useful, and I am open to feedback. There is no *new* data here, it is just presented in form that better facilitates comparisons. If you’d like to see a different/specific baseline used, I am happy to oblige.

I think just one thing, the total annual cost assumes you only stay at your home resort. The reverse of the bolded statement rings true where the premium isn't the concern but the discount. Another words, I can buy SSR and PVB which have low cost of points/year and use them at say BCV to save $600 for the stay. In the same token, you wouldn't want to buy BCV to stay at PVB as it'd be paying an extra $600 effectively for that stay.

While not as relevant to common measure, the other thing that's missing from that blog post is the annual growth rate of the annual dues. Some resorts have much higher increases (compounded annually) than others. So that projection should be taken into account for these long term contracts as well. SSR and BLT on your chart have the same dues (which I don't think is right) but if they grew at different rates; the valuations would change on your calcuations. If one were to become Hilton Head or Vero Beach, it would offset the point requirements by quite a bit.

 

[rg35]

I think just one thing, the total annual cost assumes you only stay at your home resort. The reverse of the bolded statement rings true where the premium isn't the concern but the discount. Another words, I can buy SSR and PVB which have low cost of points/year and use them at say BCV to save $600 for the stay. In the same token, you wouldn't want to buy BCV to stay at PVB as it'd be paying an extra $600 effectively for that stay.

Did you actually read the post? He addressed factors like sleeping around and saying the model wouldn't account for things like that. But it's impossible to model out something for a person who wants to buy at SSR but stay at BCV. A model like this would need to make assumptions such as a person is buying where they are staying the majority of the time.

 

[Yinn]

Did you actually read the post? He addressed factors like sleeping around and saying the model wouldn't account for things like that. But it's impossible to model out something for a person who wants to buy at SSR but stay at BCV. A model like this would need to make assumptions such as a person is buying where they are staying the majority of the time.

Yes, which is why I bolded the statement and referred to it. While you can't model the exact situation; you also can't assume that people will stay 100% at their home resort. I mean, we are talking about averages right? The key being what you stated - majority of time. While most are buying where they want to stay, I don't think it'd be an unreasonable assumption to say new DVC buyers will generally try other resorts with the assumption that people will try every resort once. With 11 WDW resorts, even on the longest contract that amounts to 30% of the time at a non-home resort, it climbs to 50% on a shorter contract - even if you only stay once at each one. Heck, change the assumptions for all I care and say you would only try half of them; it still reflects reality better than 100% home resort stay.

This is very different from buying points with the pure intention of staying at another location - which are pure sleeping around points which is another calcuation altogether.

 

[ray3127]

I think just one thing, the total annual cost assumes you only stay at your home resort. The reverse of the bolded statement rings true where the premium isn't the concern but the discount. Another words, I can buy SSR and PVB which have low cost of points/year and use them at say BCV to save $600 for the stay. In the same token, you wouldn't want to buy BCV to stay at PVB as it'd be paying an extra $600 effectively for that stay.

While not as relevant to common measure, the other thing that's missing from that blog post is the annual growth rate of the annual dues. Some resorts have much higher increases (compounded annually) than others. So that projection should be taken into account for these long term contracts as well. SSR and BLT on your chart have the same dues (which I don't think is right) but if they grew at different rates; the valuations would change on your calcuations. If one were to become Hilton Head or Vero Beach, it would offset the point requirements by quite a bit.

Yes, I think it is clear that I'm talking about only staying at one's home resort. See: "but a growing number are buying where they want to stay, so the variations in points needed at different resorts is an important piece of the puzzle."

As for dues projections, they are exactly that: projections. The past is not necessarily a window to the future. It is true that SSR's CAGR is lower than BLT's (3.5% vs. 5.7%). But it is also true that last year SSR's MF growth exceeded BLT (9.5% vs. 8.1%). So I'm doing the best with what I have today.

Yes, which is why I bolded the statement and referred to it. While you can't model the exact situation; you also can't assume that people will stay 100% at their home resort. I mean, we are talking about averages right? The key being what you stated - majority of time. While most are buying where they want to stay, I don't think it'd be an unreasonable assumption to say new DVC buyers will generally try other resorts with the assumption that people will try every resort once. With 11 WDW resorts, even on the longest contract that amounts to 30% of the time at a non-home resort, it climbs to 50% on a shorter contract - even if you only stay once at each one. Heck, change the assumptions for all I care and say you would only try half of them; it still reflects reality better than 100% home resort stay.

This is very different from buying points with the pure intention of staying at another location - which are pure sleeping around points which is another calcuation altogether.

Any analysis requires a set of limiting assumptions. I think I made those assumptions clear. You are correct, but allow me to reiterate: my Modified Economical Rankings are only applicable if you're staying at your home resort.

Given the times of year that I travel, I literally cannot try every resort. Many are booked solid. And since the 7-month window is only getting tighter as time goes on, I think the possible use of points outside the home resort is less of a consideration for many.

I can only speak for me, but I don't think that everybody has the desire to try a bunch of resorts. We bought about a year ago at BCV & BLT. We've stayed at BCV and Poly (on BCV points... thank you for reminding me of what a great decision that was!!!). And guess what? We're done sleeping around. Precisely because of the value that I see in my points at our home resorts. I get more value by using my points at BCV & BLT than using them elsewhere. We bought there because we wanted to stay there... so for me, these numbers work really well.

I actually think that 100% home resort stay is closer to reality than 'sleeping around' half the time (or even a quarter of the time). But I admit that if you're on a different plan, then you're right, there are many more factors to consider.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I am a bit off topic, but we want to try every resort. We have already tried many dvc attached resorts as hotel guests (WL, GF, POLY, BC), but we are on a quest to stay at every dvc resort proper. That being said, we started this quest last summer, and we can already say that there are resorts where we probably won’t stay more than once. In the end, I see us focusing on a couple of resorts and staying there repeatedly like ray3127.

 

[Yinn]

Yes, I think it is clear that I'm talking about only staying at one's home resort. See: "but a growing number are buying where they want to stay, so the variations in points needed at different resorts is an important piece of the puzzle."

As for dues projections, they are exactly that: projections. The past is not necessarily a window to the future. It is true that SSR's CAGR is lower than BLT's (3.5% vs. 5.7%). But it is also true that last year SSR's MF growth exceeded BLT (9.5% vs. 8.1%). So I'm doing the best with what I have today.

That's true, but since you made a statement about cash flows and long term maintenance fees, I felt CAGR is more relevant than point in time dues for the life of the contract. Admittedly, this would be more accurate for contracts that have been out there a while compared to contracts such as CCV, PVB, VGF which have a short history. I based it off of financial modeling which often takes into account historical performance into account for projections.

Any analysis requires a set of limiting assumptions. I think I made those assumptions clear. You are correct, but allow me to reiterate: my Modified Economical Rankings are only applicable if you're staying at your home resort.

Given the times of year that I travel, I literally cannot try every resort. Many are booked solid. And since the 7-month window is only getting tighter as time goes on, I think the possible use of points outside the home resort is less of a consideration for many.

I can only speak for me, but I don't think that everybody has the desire to try a bunch of resorts. We bought about a year ago at BCV & BLT. We've stayed at BCV and Poly (on BCV points... thank you for reminding me of what a great decision that was!!!). And guess what? We're done sleeping around. Precisely because of the value that I see in my points at our home resorts. I get more value by using my points at BCV & BLT than using them elsewhere. We bought there because we wanted to stay there... so for me, these numbers work really well.

I actually think that 100% home resort stay is closer to reality than 'sleeping around' half the time (or even a quarter of the time). But I admit that if you're on a different plan, then you're right, there are many more factors to consider.

I'm not intending to pick apart your calculation if that's what it seems like, and I understand the limitations of such a calculation - we can't take into account every scenario. But I think you also proved people don't stay at the same place. You've had DVC for one year, and while you stayed at home, you also stated at another resort. Even if you never went to another location, you would've used 1/22 contract years - 5% on an alternate location. I just think that's worth taking into account as it may - or may not change the results.

I've seen so many people just go off of what's posted w/o accounting for their own habits that it's easy to look at the chart and go - SSR is the best value. BCV is a horrible deal; when really they should be using the chart as a springboard. As examples; BCV points at PVB hurt, but BCV points at OKW isn't the worst thing in the world. It amounts to about a $200 premium. In the same way, SSR points at PVB don't really offer a significant discount - about $60 worth.