DVC Moderate Resort Being Reported by WDWNT

[ParkHoppers]

Which is why I presented the data as is. You can argue about outliers, both high and low, but the question was "What is the average points per contract" and the fact is the average is what it is - and it lies between 117 and 138 points.

To me looking at the resale market is very telling as far as what the average points per ownership is. By far and away there are more 150-160 point contracts than any other number. Yes people buy multiple contracts so I could be wrong on the average.We might not fall into the average as we bought our first small direct contract of a measly 55 points at BLT. It allowed us a standard studio every two years. We had the cash at hand so we bought in. Then we bought a 160 point resale contract at BLT and now at 215 points we can do a one bedroom every year and have much greater flexibility to choose studios up to 2 bedrooms and even a GV if we want to skip a year or two.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This one question that's easy to answer - from DVC sales posts on dvcnews.com:
May 2016 @ Poly: 147,374 points sold in 1066 contracts = 138 points average
April 2016 @ Poly: 169,377 points sold in 1246 contracts = 136 points average
March 2016 @ Poly: 136,294 points sold in 1122 contracts = 121 points average
Feb 2016 @ Poly: 72,137 points sold in 615 contracts = 117 points average
Jan 2016 @ Poly: 107,615 points sold in 839 contracts = 128 points average
Dec 2015 @ Poly: 76,445 points sold in 636 contracts = 120 points average
So - looking over the last 6 months - the average contract is about 130 points, though in Dec-Mar it was closer to 123 points and hopped to 137 points in April-May. This is probably an affect of the incentive programs that started this year.

Overall though - we can feel pretty good to say the average contract is less than 150 points. I would guess this is somewhat skewed by the fact that a portion of these contracts are 25 and 50 point add-ons from existing members, so NEW member contracts probably average above 150 points, but not by a lot.

That's fascinating...I never looked at these numbers before.
It shows that most contracts are add ons...meaning the DVC buying pool is a lot small than I would have thought

 

[beer dave]

Disneys Dutch wonderland and bakery?

Open Monday- Thursday?

I'm in

And roadside america----- disney style.

 

[beer dave]

This one question that's easy to answer - from DVC sales posts on dvcnews.com:
May 2016 @ Poly: 147,374 points sold in 1066 contracts = 138 points average
April 2016 @ Poly: 169,377 points sold in 1246 contracts = 136 points average
March 2016 @ Poly: 136,294 points sold in 1122 contracts = 121 points average
Feb 2016 @ Poly: 72,137 points sold in 615 contracts = 117 points average
Jan 2016 @ Poly: 107,615 points sold in 839 contracts = 128 points average
Dec 2015 @ Poly: 76,445 points sold in 636 contracts = 120 points average
So - looking over the last 6 months - the average contract is about 130 points, though in Dec-Mar it was closer to 123 points and hopped to 137 points in April-May. This is probably an affect of the incentive programs that started this year.

Overall though - we can feel pretty good to say the average contract is less than 150 points. I would guess this is somewhat skewed by the fact that a portion of these contracts are 25 and 50 point add-ons from existing members, so NEW member contracts probably average above 150 points, but not by a lot.

Agreed but this in no way represents what the average owner has-- How many of these were add ons? We don't know. The number I was discussing was total amounts, not contract amounts. how many people with 300 points have one contract? probably not many.

sorry-- redundant.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Agreed but this in no way represents what the average owner has-- How many of these were add ons? We don't know. The number I was discussing was total amounts, not contract amounts. how many people with 300 points have one contract? probably not many.

You know what it does represent though? Just how shaky of ground the whole DVC model is...

Why was it half as much at the end of 2015 and then back up this spring?

Could it be that the us stock market was sagging last fall/winter and then starting roaring again a few months ago? Until brexit.

I bet those numbers are falling again.

A betting man would chalk that up to "coincidence"

 

[skier_pete]

You know what it does represent though? Just how shaky of ground the whole DVC model is...

Why was it half as much at the end of 2015 and then back up this spring?

Could it be that the us stock market was sagging last fall/winter and then starting roaring again a few months ago? Until brexit.

I bet those numbers are falling again.

A betting man would chalk that up to "coincidence"

The whole Disney Parks model depends on a strong economy. The increase in prices over the last 8 years that have seriously outpaced inflation will see a major hit should free spending be reduced significantly in America.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The whole Disney Parks model depends on a strong economy. The increase in prices over the last 8 years that have seriously outpaced inflation will see a major hit should free spending be reduced significantly in America.

Agreed...

Now here's the real nuts of it...

DVC was designed (these are the horse's mouth facts...not supposition) to do a couple main things:

1. Guarantee repeat, loyal customers
2. Insulate the parks from downturns in business due to external factors
3. Grow the market/expand the geographic reach of Disney destinations.

So here's what that chart shows: they're failing on number #2 Bigtime and some on #1.

If sales are volatile...it doesn't do what it needs to.

It's the problem with the price increases...conversion to "quick strike" just like the rest of the Igerian strategies. When you have no concern for the future...you do stupid things.

The reckoning is coming. At these point costs...we are gonna see massive default/dump during an economic slide.

Who was it that said that they felt most people "stretch" when they buy DVC? Get caught up in the moment.

Completely agree...all you have to do is hang around the sales office for a few hours or eavesdrop on conversations at the pool to confirm that.

"Why not? Only live twice!"

Better seal up the bottom of the ship...Incase it starts to sink or burns.

 

[Andrew015]

The increase in prices over the last 8 years that have seriously outpaced inflation will see a major hit should free spending be reduced significantly in America.

Keep in mind that those past ~8 years of massive increases occurred during one of the worst economic periods in recent US history. While I agree that it would be difficult for Disney to keep up the pace of price increases should we face another downturn, don't think for a second that they won't try. After all, those massive increases came during a period in which we - the customer - received virtually nothing in return. Now, we have a plethora of new development which they can point to for justification. Even if it's not right or justifiable in any other industry, they'll have us well conditioned to accept it.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Keep in mind that those past ~8 years of massive increases occurred during one of the worst economic periods in recent US history. While I agree that it would be difficult for Disney to keep up the pace of price increases should we face another downturn, don't think for a second that they won't try. After all, those massive increases came during a period in which we - the customer - received virtually nothing in return. Now, we have a plethora of new development which they can point to for justification. Even if it's not right or justifiable in any other industry, they'll have us well conditioned to accept it.

I'll answer this one...

They've stressed/overextended the market that can or will buy in the first place...

I'm gonna say "look at poly" again. 5 years to sell there? A real possibility and a real failure as well.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

Keep in mind that those past ~8 years of massive increases occurred during one of the worst economic periods in recent US history. While I agree that it would be difficult for Disney to keep up the pace of price increases should we face another downturn, don't think for a second that they won't try. After all, those massive increases came during a period in which we - the customer - received virtually nothing in return. Now, we have a plethora of new development which they can point to for justification. Even if it's not right or justifiable in any other industry, they'll have us well conditioned to accept it.

It is just my opinion, but I think in some areas (not all) Disney has been setting themselves up for if the American economy were to slow down. Maybe all won't share my opinion, but I think getting a park in Shanghai is one such step -- There is just so many people that it will bring in money, just a question of how much, and how much will it bring in when times are better than now. The improvements to Paris will have an effect. And I think DVC also protects them some too -- the consumers that bought will use or lose if economy were to slow down.

 

[Andrew015]

I'll answer this one...

They've stressed/overextended the market that can or will buy in the first place...

I'm gonna say "look at poly" again. 5 years to sell there? A real possibility and a real failure as well.

Don't disagree one bit. I just think they're too far down the path (I'd also like to say "too dumb", but perhaps a better word would be bullheaded) to do an about-face now. They've been all-in on this for a while. No doubt, at some point, the house of cards will tumble. This goes back to your point about no concern for the future.

 

[skier_pete]

The reckoning is coming. At these point costs...we are gonna see massive default/dump during an economic slide.

Who was it that said that they felt most people "stretch" when they buy DVC? Get caught up in the moment.

Completely agree...all you have to do is hang around the sales office for a few hours or eavesdrop on conversations at the pool to confirm that.

"Why not? Only live twice!"

Am I a bad human being in that I am hoping that this happens and I can snatch up another contract cheap (assuming I come through relatively unscathed).

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It is just my opinion, but I think in some areas (not all) Disney has been setting themselves up for if the American economy were to slow down. Maybe all won't share my opinion, but I think getting a park in Shanghai is one such step -- There is just so many people that it will bring in money, just a question of how much, and how much will it bring in when times are better than now. The improvements to Paris will have an effect. And I think DVC also protects them some too -- the consumers that bought will use or lose if economy were to slow down.

I love your opinions...but I'm gonna be the guy catcalling from the other side of the House of Commons on this.

They've done exactly the opposite. Jacking pricing to try to get more off one timers - because they buy more high profit junk - thereby crunching their backstop customers (Florida residents, APs, and DVC)...

That's who shows in a recession. And they are "peeved"...at a minimum.

Brazilian economy near crash...

Chinese economy near crash and huge bills - misguided...

And this fundamental thing: travel is the first thing cut out in a recession. The very first thing. No doubts.

The "they'll just discount" isn't gonna work as pounders think. The base costs are just going to be too high. Remember the crash commercial a few years ago where the parents are on the computer and say "$1600 for the week...we can do that!"

That is closer to $3,500 now in real terms...not kidding. They can't discount it 75%.

"Not enough to travel" is the same amount of money as "35% off not enough to travel" when you're talking about what they've done.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Am I a bad human being in that I am hoping that this happens and I can snatch up another contract cheap (assuming I come through relatively unscathed).

You paddle on the left side of the canoe...ill do the right...ok?!?

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

Am I a bad human being in that I am hoping that this happens and I can snatch up another contract cheap (assuming I come through relatively unscathed).

No, it needs to wait a few years so I can save some money to do the same thing. Sorry, I'm just not ready yet. Too many bills on the table.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Don't disagree one bit. I just think they're too far down the path (I'd also like to say "too dumb", but perhaps a better word would be bullheaded) to do an about-face now. They've been all-in on this for a while. No doubt, at some point, the house of cards will tumble. This goes back to your point about no concern for the future.

Ridiculous, 2 or 3 times a year increases in point costs from 2006-2015...that's how the tape tells the tale.

They struggled for so long (as they knew they would) from 92-2002 to get the program stable and selling briskly...and they learned nothing when they achieved the goal...

These fools burned up the capital they built in no time. Again...it's what happens when you're close to retirement and the tanning oil starts to sink in to your skull.

It always should have been steady, middle return pricing - because the point was guaranteed ancillary spending. Never "agressive". That's what free market dinks don't seem to get with DVC.

 

[skier_pete]

These fools burned up the capital they built in no time. Again...it's what happens when you're close to retirement and the tanning oil starts to sink in to your skull..

I do think you are underestimating them. The heyday of DVC they were selling like mad. I just don't think they want to build THAT much inventory. I think they basically made a conscious decision to increase pricing and in turn limit sales - they know they need to sustain new DVC properties for another 25 years.

Think about it:
1991 - 2000: Prices increased from $48 per point to $67 per point - 40 % increase over 10 years
2000 - 2004: Prices increased from $67 per point to $95 per point - 42 % increase over 5 years
2004 - 2009: Pricees increased from $95 per point to $120 per point - 26% increase over 5 years
Note in 2nd decade of DVC - prices increased faster in first 5 years than second 5 years.

2009 - 2014 Prices increased from $120 per point to $165 per point - 37% increase in 5 years
2014 - 2016 Prices increased from $165 per point to $171 per point - 4% increase over 2 years

Breaking it down this way - the largest % increase was from 2000 to 2004, however, that was only $28 per point, versus the $45 per point from 2009 to 2014. 2009-2014 is also the time they were selling VGC, BLT, VGF - more "high end" than the previous 5 years SSR and AKV.

Of particular interest is the last two years the increases have slowed considerably. There's not really enough time window to say for sure, but it appears to be a shift in the increases. It's also noticable that in the 2009-2014 timeframe - price increases were in $10 increments. The last two increases were in $3 increments. ($165->$168->$171)

I still wonder what happens with the WLV. Though Wilderness Lodge certainly has it's fans - it's not the same fanbase as the Poly that continued to pay $700 a night for 40 year old hotel rooms. Could imagine a real impact with trying to sell there at these prices.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ill concede your whole point, Pete...even the fact that a 400% increase over 20 years is "reasonable"...if you just look at it now from this angle:
They are limiting increases and capacity now in big part because the analysts know it's gone too high/far.

Just like typical Iger era moves -
And even eisner was usually careful to not make - they "crossed the bridge" instead of getting too it.

So back full circle...based on what we've looked here (awesome intelligent thead...again)...how the hell does moderate blocks
Make any sense? Really doesn't. They're lying to themselves. They might actually be lying about the lies.

 

[Andrew015]

So back full circle...based on what we've looked here (awesome intelligent thead...again)...how the hell does moderate blocks make any sense? Really doesn't. They're lying to themselves. They might actually be lying about the lies.

Back to my theory... It would only make "sense" if done at a lower price point (which we know they don't want to do). Again, if they go here, there's no going back (gone are the days of selling the big-money properties as soon as something cheaper comes along that essentially accomplishes the same thing). I just don't think they're at this point yet. I think this could happen once they've milked everything they can out of the big-dollar properties (at current build/sell pace, that's what... 10-20 years from now?). It would admit defeat (i.e. we know we've been bending you over for decades, so we'll offer you a lesser, washed-out version at a slightly lower price point.... sorry for the trouble). Again, past the point of return for the system as we know it (i.e. it would decimate Legacy DVC).

As you know, I don't think any of this makes sense. Just talking through how they might try to justify it. Not that it ever has to make any sense...

 

[skier_pete]

Ill concede your whole point, Pete...even the fact that a 400% increase over 20 years is "reasonable"...if you just look at it now from this angle:
They are limiting increases and capacity now in big part because the analysts know it's gone too high/far.

Just like typical Iger era moves -
And even eisner was usually careful to not make - they "crossed the bridge" instead of getting too it.

So back full circle...based on what we've looked here (awesome intelligent thead...again)...how the hell does moderate blocks
Make any sense? Really doesn't. They're lying to themselves. They might actually be lying about the lies.

A 350% increase isn't "reasonable" - unless you have underpriced your initial product. If I create a new form of footwear and sell it for $45 a pair, and it becomes an instant hit and is massively in demand, but I can't possibly keep up with demand, one option is for me to raise my price until demand decreases. If I raise it to $150 a pair in the next two years it might not be "reasonable" but if I am still selling out my factory - what would really stop me from doing it.

It's no different then the argument for MNSSHP - they've gone up 300% in less than 10 years while not improving the product one bit - yet they are selling out more parties than there were 10 years ago. You and I have both argued that the parties are now a complete rip-off and not worth the money - yet people keep going. So obviously enough people think the price increase is "reasonable".

You also have to remember, most people new to DVC don't come in going "Oh it used to be $90 a point and now its $168 a point, that's bad." They are limiting who they can market to no different than they are limiting many other things. But it keeps working.

Foresight be damned these days - it works and its been working - why stop now?