Contracts drying up??

[tom1944]

I thought about this myself. I decided I wanted to be able to book somewhere at 11 months rather than waiting for 7 months, and I didn’t want to call in to book, so I bought the points.

My assumption is we will be overwhelming a 7 month group

 

[Brian Noble]

That might be worth buying directly from Disney. True, the price per point is higher, but on so few points it is not terribly material, and small contracts don't come around often and are bought very quickly. That's a recipe for frustration.

 

[tom1944]

Your comment got me thinking about those small contracts. For example, let's say I routinely need about 20 extra points a year. Would it be smarter to buy a small and rare 25 pt contract or just get those 20 points directly from Disney each year? The dues obligation and the higher price per point average for small contracts may suggest that going directly with Disney is the cheaper plan, but I don't know.

Same here

 

[tom1944]

That might be worth buying directly from Disney. True, the price per point is higher, but on so few points it is not terribly material, and small contracts don't come around often and are bought very quickly. That's a recipe for frustration.

Thought exactly that.

 

[atthebeachclub]

That might be worth buying directly from Disney. True, the price per point is higher, but on so few points it is not terribly material, and small contracts don't come around often and are bought very quickly. That's a recipe for frustration.

I have thought of doing this myself on a 50 pointer as potentially my only direct points. It could be worth it. It’s tough to find those small point contracts as you need them.

 

[Brian Noble]

If I routinely only needed 20-25 extra per year, I'd be tempted to borrow each year until I "ran out". By then, I might want a Disney Break and I will have a year of no (or few) points to worry about.

"We were on a break!"

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

That might be worth buying directly from Disney. True, the price per point is higher, but on so few points it is not terribly material, and small contracts don't come around often and are bought very quickly. That's a recipe for frustration.

Another option (if you’re booking inside of 7mo anyway) is to use the boards here (or elsewhere) to do a major purchase at $14-15/pt (like enough to catch up backwards and also then bank some of the current UY forwards), I think sometimes you can find someone motivated to move a lot of points quickly—but have never tried it.

 

[kgou]

very well said, this has given me a lot to think about.

I ultimately may need more points but why pay the dues until I have to.

 

[tom1944]

Our next trip includes a 4-day cruise to cover a portion of our trip since I do not have enough points for a 9 day stay. My plan also includes going to Universal for 4 or 5 days in the future and using less points that trip.

Right now, I am waiting to see how many points will be needed for 9 days at PIT in a 1 bedroom. The goal is to book 9 days at one of the unrestricted resort every other year until 2041. Either the 3 resorts with 1 bedroom/2 baths or the other 2-bedroom resorts. I figure I might have to get the 9 days in smaller increments for some resorts so split stays will be part of the plan.

Because I booked the 4-day cruise and have the UO plan I need 72 days of points. Not including Aulani, Poly or GFA I think I average 365 points per trip. Since I have 180, I will have 360 every other year to work with now.

I realize I make it sound complicated, but this is all part of the fun for me.

 

[Brian Noble]

Fair warning: a LOT can change in 5-10 years in terms of vacation habits, let alone the next 17 or so.

 

[Chili327]

Your comment got me thinking about those small contracts. For example, let's say I routinely need about 20 extra points a year. Would it be smarter to buy a small and rare 25 pt contract or just get those 20 points directly from Disney each year? The dues obligation and the higher price per point average for small contracts may suggest that going directly with Disney is the cheaper plan, but I don't know.

I guess it depends on the contract, but technically you can't buy points until 7months (which I just recently learned), so owning 25 more points could definitely be useful if needed prior to 7mo window.

Another option (if you’re booking inside of 7mo anyway) is to use the boards here (or elsewhere) to do a major purchase at $14-15/pt (like enough to catch up backwards and also then bank some of the current UY forwards), I think sometimes you can find someone motivated to move a lot of points quickly—but have never tried it.

This is the way!

There definitely are ways to maneuver points, but also you have to want to deal with that, and if we're talking about over the next 20-40 years, id rather just own a couple more points.

 

[tom1944]

Fair warning: a LOT can change in 5-10 years in terms of vacation habits, let alone the next 17 or so.

I am a planner but also very comfortable with change. I have a pretty good ability to make things work for me.

It is probably a sickness, but the unexpected brings me enjoyment.

 

[Chili327]

I think everything and everyone does this. I am way more concerned with the dues for the next 30+ years than I am an extra couple hundred, once, right now.

So I have been thinking of adding some points for mostly Aulani (so it’s either direct, SAP or SAP+), and when I started doing the math, it may not always be better to go SAP over + or SAP+ over SAP.

Someone check my math, but if you buy 100pts SAP for $90, that’s $35 cheaper than SAP+ ($125), it would take 35 years for the savings to catch up the $1 dues difference? ($100/year, assuming dues are always $1 higher for the SAP)

So if that math is basically correct, it then comes down to whether I would be using the points strictly for Aulani (any useable UY), or if I wanted to just add more to my SAP+ (BLT, matching the UY), which would have a little more advantage than just any SAP or + (SSR, CCV, Poly, VGF)

Also, technically if I could get VGF for $125 that would be the absolute best SAP for using mostly at Aulani.

It’s late, my eyes are struggling and I’ve been crunching numbers in my head and checking availability charts, searching contracts, etc, so I’m not sure if I’m exactly on the ball with this. lol

 

[Kailunkat]

There's no need to actually have a normal distribution here. Normal distributions are not a statistical mandate, nor even a necessary aspiration.

100% agree. It's ordinal data (ranked category, no zero). It's qualitative not quantitative but it should still provide enough specificity that the categories are meaningful and clearly distinguishable.

Borrowing from Disney's own surveys, I actually kind of like increased granularity on the 'good' side, where 2-out-5 is effectively the baseline result (and is how I've thought of dvcforless.com's rating system, even if they label it differently):

• Excellent
• Very good
• Good
• Just okay
• Poor

Totally agree on this too. I actually don't think we are on the opposite side of anything, we just have a different view of the end result/product.

These are listed prices, not negotiated prices, so the distribution is very likely weighted worse than outcome.*

• It might even be that negotiated prices do follow a normal distribution, but we'll never know.

Yes, that's a good point. I also am a big dvcrofr.com fan (I'm sure you are too) and follow the rofr and refused offers threads here closely so my idea of what is a good versus great deal is pretty nitpicky. For your average person looking through the dvcforless site it would have a different value. I am definitely operating from a position of bias.

1. I absolutely want 1-star ratings, algorithmically throw some shade! @rferrar1

* For my recent CCV offer, I used the 3-5 stars as benchmarks to negotiate a 2-star to a better deal. Shot for a 4-star and probably ended up with a 3-star. The "What should I offer?" feature is very good for this.

This is why I really like the idea of the suspicious contract flag to expand the range. It accomplish what @rferrar1 wanted in the low range but also offer 1 star ratings for just plain bad pricing (like those $225pp PVB contracts out there). My point was that if that seems to complicated, you can reserve the 1 star ratings (or dare I say...NO STARS ) for suspicious listings and then refine the top end so the scale would shift up and get a little more refined. It kind of accomplishes the same thing. So you could think of it as
1) Suspcious - dont buy.
2) Poor
3) Ok
4) Good
5) Great/Excellent

My other big bias is that I don't personally value small contracts as heavily as the algorithm they are using does, so because of that I don't see as much utility at the current range they use. To me some of the 4s should be 5s and vice versa. I would probably set a threshold of 150 points and under rather than a universal smaller is better. For many other people the smaller is better valuation is probably more useful.

I feel compelled to take the other side of this argument.

First, the goal is probably not to evaluate only contracts that linger on the market but to evaluate all contracts.

If 3* is average (and about where supply and demand meet each other) then 4* should sell fairly quickly and 5* should sell almost instantly—so that skew doesn’t suggest that 4 and 5 stars aren’t real ratings, only that they are assigned to contracts that don’t sit around very long, validating the assessment that they are quite good deals. If there aren’t any 4* or 5* contracts coming through at all, then perhaps the pricing scale needs to be recalibrated— but simply the fact that there are fewer of them doesn’t mean the system is wrong— it is what you expect from studying macroeconomics.

All really good points! I have ZERO exposure to macroeconomics (or even economics in general) so it's interesting to hear about it from that perspective.

 

[Chili327]

1 star ratings for just plain bad pricing (like those $225pp PVB contracts

Or $160 for SSR. lol

 

[ehh]

So I have been thinking of adding some points for mostly Aulani (so it’s either direct, SAP or SAP+), and when I started doing the math, it may not always be better to go SAP over + or SAP+ over SAP.

Someone check my math, but if you buy 100pts SAP for $90, that’s $35 cheaper than SAP+ ($125), it would take 35 years for the savings to catch up the $1 dues difference? ($100/year, assuming dues are always $1 higher for the SAP)

So if that math is basically correct, it then comes down to whether I would be using the points strictly for Aulani (any useable UY), or if I wanted to just add more to my SAP+ (BLT, matching the UY), which would have a little more advantage than just any SAP or + (SSR, CCV, Poly, VGF)

Also, technically if I could get VGF for $125 that would be the absolute best SAP for using mostly at Aulani.

It’s late, my eyes are struggling and I’ve been crunching numbers in my head and checking availability charts, searching contracts, etc, so I’m not sure if I’m exactly on the ball with this. lol

Using methodology from here: https://www.disboards.com/threads/most-economical-resort-beyond-year-1.3950476/ (5% 'discount'), cumulative crossover in favor of AUL@90 vs. BLT@125 is year 33.

Said another way, BLT is a better deal for the first 32 years.

 

[TinkAgainU]

...I believe the way to calculate a better system would be to add $20 of value to the contract overall for each banked point that has over 11 months remaining; $15 for each banked point that has between 6 and 11 months remaining; and $10 for each point with five or six months remaining. Anything below that, I'd say, shouldn't be considered in the value. And then subtract the opposite for stripped points--subtract $20 of value for each missing point (per year) that would've had over 11 months remaining, $15 for each missing point per year between 6 and 11 months, etc. ...

That assumes the Seller is paying Annual Dues for the points and not the Buyer. If I'm the Buyer and paying for all un-used points (common in smaller contract sales) then I "personally" only add a value of about $10 per point. And zero for points within four months of expiration which should have been banked, on the theory I'd refuse to pay any annual dues for those. But I also do not enjoy booking and sub-renting points out for more profit - if I have points I tend to use them

 

[VGCgroupie]

So I have been thinking of adding some points for mostly Aulani (so it’s either direct, SAP or SAP+), and when I started doing the math, it may not always be better to go SAP over + or SAP+ over SAP.

Someone check my math, but if you buy 100pts SAP for $90, that’s $35 cheaper than SAP+ ($125), it would take 35 years for the savings to catch up the $1 dues difference? ($100/year, assuming dues are always $1 higher for the SAP)

So if that math is basically correct, it then comes down to whether I would be using the points strictly for Aulani (any useable UY), or if I wanted to just add more to my SAP+ (BLT, matching the UY), which would have a little more advantage than just any SAP or + (SSR, CCV, Poly, VGF)

Also, technically if I could get VGF for $125 that would be the absolute best SAP for using mostly at Aulani.

It’s late, my eyes are struggling and I’ve been crunching numbers in my head and checking availability charts, searching contracts, etc, so I’m not sure if I’m exactly on the ball with this. lol

So the $125 figure you are using up top is for VGF?

It does take some time to recoup the difference pp paid up front like with my Aul-s but the contract you paid more for upfront will likely be worth more when you sell. Assuming you don’t keep it til contact end date. VGF will always hold more value than Aulani it seems.

 

[Chili327]

So the $125 figure you are using up top is for VGF?

It does take some time to recoup the difference pp paid up front like with my Aul-s but the contract you paid more for upfront will likely be worth more when you sell. Assuming you don’t keep it til contact end date. VGF will always hold more value than Aulani it seems.

No, both we’re basically hypothetical, but modeled after SSR & BLT.

VGF at $125 wouldn’t last long regardless of how big the contract. lol

 

[ehh]

No, both we’re basically hypothetical, but modeled after SSR & BLT.

VGF at $125 wouldn’t last long regardless of how big the contract. lol

It would also likely get taken in ROFR.