[*]A resale contract may be “stripped” of points where the user has used many of the current year’s points, and may have borrowed some or all of next year’s points. Be wary of “stripped” contracts on the resale market.
I am trying to quote somebody but I am sure I did that wrong and somebody will pick on me.
I don't understand why this appears to be written in a way to scare a buyer. If I look at TSS resales it is pretty clear the status of each package. Why should someone be "wary?" You think they don't advertise correctly? Let's say somebody needs 200 points at the Boardwalk and they are not traveling again until December of 2008. They want to get the process started since it takes 6 to 8 weeks to close as they plan ahead. They decide to buy a 200 point listing at the Boarwalk with 200 points coming on 10/1/08. They get the property for around $84 per point, which would make it through ROFR, and they wouldn't start paying dues until January of 2008. If they bought something with points coming 10/1/07 they might have to pay $86 or $87 and would also have to reimburse the sellers for the 2007 points or pay an additional $970.
I would say those are smart buyers. They are planning ahead and getting exactly what they want. When reading these boards, however, it appears everyone thinks these people are not smart as they are "stripped" contracts.
Alright I'm going to take this one on...the reason you should be wary is not because you will think you are buying something other than what is advertised... You are correct in that you will have a clear idea of when a contract is stripped. The reason to be "wary" is b/c you really have to understand the value of what you are loosing in purchasing a stripped contract:
Current points are the most valuable points.
I was the buyer you were describing. I was looking in early 2007 for a contract and my first trip wasn't going to be until spring of 2008. Why did I really need those extra pts up front? (And that actually was my first thought on the matter).
Well, here's the math for you:
1. My first contract was ROFR'd by Disney. It was a 100 pts SSR - Feb use year with no pts until Feb 08. I bid $82 per pt. Disney took it.
2. My second contract passed ROFR. It was a 100 pts SSR - Oct use year with 100 banked 06 pts. I bid $84 per pt. and got the contract.
Here's my analysis:
If you look at the above contracts you'll see a few things. For only $2 more per point, the second contract comes with 48 years of pts allotments and the first one, for a discount of $2 comes with 46. But that's not really the clincher. I wouldn't be too excited to pay $1 per pt for pts I'm getting in 40 years, the pts come now:
Under the first contract, when I take my vacation in April of 08 I would have had to (i) use all the current pts from my 08 use year, and (ii) borrow 50 pts from my 09 use year or rent points on the open market. Rented pts. would have cost a minimum of $10 per pt or ($500).
With my second contract when I take my roughly 150 pt. vacation in April of 2008, I will be working with 200 pts. since I have the banked 06 pts (the current use year when I purchased the contract) and then current 07 pts. I will then be able to bank pts into the following year. For a whopping $200 extra, I purchased an extra set of current pts which were worth roughly a minimum of $1,000.
But let's make a second supposition: That I only need 100 pts to vacation every year and I really won't need to bank. Why do I need the current year's points: Under my example above, I easily rent or transfer the points out for a minimum of $10 per pt. and correspondingly lower my purchase price. So on my second contract I would have been able to save a minimum of an additional $800.
No matter how you cut it, you have to consider that having current points on a contract adds a minimum of $10 per pt value, but generally do not sell for more than a few $ more than a stripped contract.
HTH
Amy
P.S. I'm really glad Disney ROFR'd my first contract b/c my second one was much better for me.
P.P.S. While I'm a big believer in looking for non-stripped contracts, I would still consider a stripped one, but I'd really have to look at the cost benefit analysis to see if it worked. My above example didn't take into account that you sometimes pay MF related to current or banked pts. I paid 07 MF (although I got 07 and 06 pts), and I want to admit that this too needs to be considered when doing the math on this transaction.