How Important Are Those Twelve Extra Years?

[JimC]

Wow. What a range of comments! Having gone back through all the input I believe the question is being seen from three different perspectives. First there are those members who have contract(s) and are not likely or really interested in investing further. Second there are those members who have contract(s) and are buying more. Third there are new DVC members first joining. I suspect the importance and variables for each group are different. Possibly the first group sees no reason to sell and repurchase to get the extra years. The second and third groups may view it differently.

 

[Gail Reale]

Not important at all. We knew when we purchased OKW that we would be 98 in 2042 ~ then we added HH ~ then we added SS. Our children and grandchildren were just with us at OKW this week and will continue to enjoy our purchase. The points pass to them when we are gone ~ at which time the 12 years will mean nothing anyway LOL!

 

[QUACKHEAD]

In 1994 when we bought in, it was all about my kids and their future enjoyment. Ten years later, its all about me and my future existence. I am waiting for a DVC retirement home where I can buy add ons, day by day!!!

 

[Cinderpals]

Hi!
I've been looking into DVC on and off for the last six months. During my three trips to WDW, taken since August, I was able to tour the SSR 2 xs, BCV(able to see a studio, 1BR lockout), and see the VWL while staying at the WL resort. We never made it to the BWV to tour a room, but that's where we're buying! I loved the Boardwalk area and the fact that it's close to Epcot and MGM really sold me. I'd love to plan a trip for Christmas '06 (may have to bank my '05 points) and be able to stay there when we do a land/sea cruise in '07. I knew that it would be hard to book during Christmas if I didn't already own points there. After reading threads on this board, I didn't want take the chance of not getting in during the time I want. I plan ahead, but man little trips are popping up there too! By June, I will have visited WDW 5 times! Eventhough, I won't have nearly enough points to stay at a DVC resort during all of my stays, it would be nice to stay there once a year at least!

 

[disvaclub92]

When we bought in 1992 - I was 22 and DH was 23. We figured by the time we were that age - we would be living down in Orlando and working at WDW. So it is no big deal - but would be nice when we have people visiting us.

 

[DrBond007]

It is more important for us to have the location we desire than to be concerned about 12 extra years that we won't be alive for anyway. Our children will have DVC well into thier 40's as our legacy gift to them. Location and vacation amenities now are most important to us.

For those who feel SSR has both the location and amenities, the 12 extra years is a wonderful bonus. I can see great advantages to being near Pleasure Island at night. It's just too far away for us from those areas in WDW we like to go to.

Now, 12 extra years at a new Contemporary DVC might be a whole different story.

 

[DrTomorrow]

[...] [SSR is] just too far away for us from those areas in WDW we like to go to.

Now, 12 extra years at a new Contemporary DVC might be a whole different story.

This is one of the comments often made about SSR that really confuses me (others: SSR walks take too long; SSR facilities too small). Looking at my handy-dandy satellite photo of WDW, SSR is closer than the MK resorts to every major and minor theme park except for the MK itself. Yet everone says it's so far away....

 

[bongo59]

i think your missing the point on the yrs...........as most are here.........let me explain..........we bought at OKW the first month it opened.........little did i know 14 yrs later that my initial investment could still be sold for more than i originally paid for it 14 yrs later..........if i sold it right now i would not only gain on the principal price that i paid but i have gotten 15 yrs worth of vacations completely free!!!!!! Now the value of the extra yrs at SSR is exactly the same.........it is likely to go up the first 20 yrs not down..........you will be alive then most likely and can sell it then for a simialr profit...........you do not have to live out the full contract to get the value of the extra time............that is precisely what makes DVC the only choice in timeshares............Disney sees to it the value stays up by using the ROFR and it will not let that market price drop because unlike VB or HH they are on site at WDW and the resorts will always be prime time spots from a real estate stand point............the same can not be said about VB or HH........either could be devasted by a huricane and the towns may never recover. Disney has billions invested in Central FLa..........it is a lock that WDW resorts prices will rise given time.............hence the arguement for owning the longest possible contract that DVC has to offer............i hope you can see that the value of the yrs can be leveraged at a longer time than it will at OKW VCB VWL OR BW .....................i know i'll be dead before my SSR points run out...........but that is not the only point in buying............

 

[DrTomorrow]

bongo59's comments rest, as always, on the assumption that Disney will continue to be in the time-share selling business for the next few decades. If sometime in the future Disney decides not to build any more DVC resorts (on-site saturation? poor market for off-site locations?), it is unlikely that they'll keep the expensive DVC Sales organization in place just to sell a few captured resales, and there goes ROFR. This does beg the question of "contract extensions"; I still don't see a big problem with Disney mothballing the DVC concept for a few decades until 2042 is a few years away, then firing it up again for the next go-around (like they do the cyclical release of their movies )

Don't get me wrong - I'd love it if I could enjoy 10-15 years of SSR ownership and then be able to cash out with a "profit". And there's some merit to the concept that the extra 12 years makes the asset of SSR ownership more valuable - although the NPV folks have a compelling argument against that. I just think that the next 14 years of DVC will be as interesting - and surprising - as the last 14....

IMHO - YMMV

 

[bongo59]

Dr T they have too. They have 90K contracts they have to service...........it would be finanacial suicide to do otherwise...........and as a Disney shareholder this very question was posed at the Shareholder meetings in 97 and again in 2003..........both times the Management reported that DVC is one of the most profitable segments of disney on cash per day valuation..........they value DVC and would not undercut their profit cows.............so my assumption is based upon facts straight from the mouse's mouth

 

[DrTomorrow]

Dr T they have too. They have 90K contracts they have to service...........it would be finanacial suicide to do otherwise...........and as a Disney shareholder this very question was posed at the Shareholder meetings in 97 and again in 2003..........both times the Management reported that DVC is one of the most profitable segments of disney on cash per day valuation..........they value DVC and would not undercut their profit cows.............so my assumption is based upon facts straight from the mouse's mouth

I don't doubt the value of DVC to Disney. I question the belief that they can continue to build new resorts indefinitely without either saturating the market or cannibalizing their other on-site resort bookings. And yes, they would still need MS - which we as DVC owners pay for - and a small group handling resale paperwork. But they could easily drop the entire sales force - which I understand is quite expensive in time-shares.

I'd appreciate a quote or link to anything that states clearly that Disney Management has committed to DVC sales for decades into the future. Absent that, we'll agree to disagree....

IMHO - YMMV

 

[bongo59]

you can go to edgar.com and pull the shareholder meetings minutes........i dont tape them or keep them once i go..........as for your premise that DVC needs to maintain the building of future resorts to keep the value up.........that is completely off base and quite frankly has little to do with the value of DVC points going foward........Infact, if SSR was their last resort i would submit it would further make any DVC resort worth more per point as long as the ROFR policy remained. Why????? Simple......... it is a supply demand issue...........more people overtime want to stay in high quality WDW resorts, and WDW history shows that to be true as well, and that is why prices have risen both at DVC and non DVC resorts in the face of constant resort and hotel building since 1971.......After all if they were not making cash they would not be in the business of building resorts or increasing the capacity of WDW like they have simce 1971..........DVC model has been a gold mine to both Disney and the members who own it.......If the supply fails to meet the demand, which would happen if SSR is the last DVC resort and DVC just went away.............all the current DVC contracts would skyrocket in value likely regardless of the ROFR or not...............and that point is not really argueable. We have a schedule of room price increases at WDW since 1971 and disney prices have constantly gone up over time over the CPI, that also is not argueable..............and there is no reason to predict that wont change..........if you do then tell me one asset in this industry that has fallen in value since 1971. You wont because that is what disney is famous for..........they have branded themselves and they are cash generating machine. Nothing points to that changing. The ROFR method is the only reason right now that the DVC point system not only retains its value but increases it. Stopping that feature would seriously deride the value reason to own a DVC resort right now. Stopping the building right now would make every DVC owner think they owned Ebay instead of a timeshare

 

[jarestel]

i think your missing the point on the yrs...........as most are here.........let me explain..........we bought at OKW the first month it opened.........little did i know 14 yrs later that my initial investment could still be sold for more than i originally paid for it 14 yrs later..........if i sold it right now i would not only gain on the principal price that i paid but i have gotten 15 yrs worth of vacations completely free!!!!!!

I don't know if we're missing the point so much as simply buying what we want. One can speculate till the cows come home about what DVC timeshares will be worth in 20 years, but I'd rather buy the resort I want now rather than the resort I don't want in hopes the resale value somewhere down the line will get me a few dollars more. It would be mighty disappointing if one were to buy primarily for resale value and then have Disney discontinue ROFR at some point. No thanks, my DVC is for fun, not profit.

 

[bongo59]

obviously i agree with the buy where you want .............but that point is why is the extra 12 yrs important???? Go reread the thread heading...........i explained why the 12 yrs is so valuable to some people

 

[jarestel]

obviously i agree with the buy where you want .............but that point is why is the extra 12 yrs important???? Go reread the thread heading...........i explained why the 12 yrs is so valuable to some people

I re-read your comment that we were missing the point and that's what I responded to.

 

[arcruiser]

I chose Somewhat Important, since I'll either be 80 or 92 at end of term.

Like many others, we do plan to pass on the contract to our son, so the extra 12 years did play a small part in our decision.

We really wanted OKW or SSR because of Location, Atmosphere, Dues, Price, Points per nite per room, Room sizes, etc. We always drive down - and the parking at OKW was great. We go to DTD at least once daily, so the SSR location is great for us as well. The "appeal" of a resort at Epcot or at MK was not important to us... and the 12 extra years lowered our annual cost when factored out over the life of the contract..... not a lot, but it was a small difference.