Just bought into Rivera DVC, thinking of cancelling and buying non-direct.

[Bryan Burmeister]

It's not account for the MFs difference in that math.

I would suspect you could easily get $150-200+ in 30 years time even with wacky resale regulations that are not even thought of yet.

That partly is because I think new contracts will be $300-$600/point that far down the line.

That also requires the 250 point purchase now to drop the pricing from 188 to 168.

Yeah, at 4% a year new contract will be almost $700 pp at that time before incentives. I would suspect that the Riviera sell for 250-300 at that point. As stated many times in this thread however, 35 year projections are subject to wild inaccuracies.

For example, assuming a 3% growth rate puts you at $500 pp. 5% puts you at nearly $1k pp

 

[Sandisw]

It's not account for the MFs difference in that math.

I would suspect you could easily get $150-200+ in 30 years time even with wacky resale regulations that are not even thought of yet.

That partly is because I think new contracts will be $300-$600/point that far down the line.

That also requires the 250 point purchase now to drop the pricing from 188 to 168.

250 is the number of points the OP has stated they are considering buying so all discussions I have had relating to other resorts in comparison to RIV have been Based on that, since if that was the original amount they purchased direct at RIV, before rescinding,

 

[Soap_1984]

The difference between SSR and RIV MFs, is about $1.50/pt. Assuming that difference stays the same, that amounts to$375 more each year to own RiV on 250 points..the number of points the OP is considering

So, from now until 2054..33 years..that extra $375...amounts tp $12,375 more in MFs that will be paid By an owner from RIV over SSR.

Not sure where you are getting the difference would be more than that. So, as I said, in 2054, if a RIV owner can sell his contract for $60/point, the will be able to recoup that difference and an extra few thousand.

Since we have now gotten off track, i will concede that we are not viewing the comparisons the same way and if the OP wants to consider other resorts, they will have to decide how to look at what the cheapest option in Whatever definition they choose to use.

They won't stay $1.50 apart if they increase at a similar rate over time. Haven't looked at historical values so perhaps the 2-4% per year is a canard, but in year 20. I am using $7 for ssr to simplify.
$7 x (1.04)^20 = $15.34 pp
$8.30 x (1.04)^20 = $18.18

(or your 1.50 difference x 1.04^20). The difference in MF increases every year.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The difference between SSR and RIV MFs, is about $1.50/pt. Assuming that difference stays the same, that amounts to$375 more each year to own RiV on 250 points..the number of points the OP is considering

So, from now until 2054..33 years..that extra $375...amounts tp $12,375 more in MFs that will be paid By an owner from RIV over SSR.

Not sure where you are getting the difference would be more than that. So, as I said, in 2054, if a RIV owner can sell his contract for $60/point, the will be able to recoup that difference and an extra few thousand.

Since we have now gotten off track, i will concede that we are not viewing the comparisons the same way and if the OP wants to consider other resorts, they will have to decide how to look at what the cheapest option in Whatever definition they choose to use.

The difference is much greater when you are assuming that all of this is for home resort bookings because you have to consider the point requirements at both resorts too and the need to own more points at Riviera because of them. The MF's on that point difference is a 100% added cost every single year to Riviera or any other point intensive resort. And then there's the purchase price of those extra points. It's easy to come up with many thousands of dollars difference just with those points that over the next 35 years in the ownership of SSR vs Riviera if speaking financially.

Saying the $12k will feel more like $4K? I sure would think the SSR owner would invest and at least keep up with inflation. And if you consider all aspects of resort point requirements for SSR (need to purchase less, the MF's you won't be paying at all on those fewer points) that $12K is actually going to be much, much more. Triple? Quadruple?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

250 is the number of points the OP has stated they are considering buying so all discussions I have had relating to other resorts in comparison to RIV have been Based on that, since if that was the original amount they purchased direct at RIV, before rescinding,

We don't really know why OP has said that though. It's not uncommon for someone just figuring out DVC and not being fully aware of the differences between resort point requirements. We all know of importance for home resort so IMO as knowledgeable owners it's an important aspect to bring up and is very important when discussing cheapest or rather best value and I believe the OP did express a desire for good value in their resort selection.

 

[Sandisw]

They won't stay $1.50 apart if they increase at a similar rate over time. Haven't looked at historical values so perhaps the 2-4% per year is a canard, but in year 20. I am using $7 for ssr to simplify.
$7 x (1.04)^20 = $15.34 pp
$8.30 x (1.04)^20 = $18.18

(or your 1.50 difference x 1.04^20). The difference in MF increases every year.

Not necessarily OKW is increasing next year about 8% but other resorts are not,, which means the gap between OKW and others decreased

There is no way to know what will happen, so keeping the difference the same is the best one do because it is a known,

Any type of comparison is going to include an element of speculation. The whole point was that comparing SSR to RIV, due to the longer contract length, for 250 points, RIV could work out to be less expensive in the long run, based on what we know for sure,

Absolutely, the difference could be more, It could be less. Plus the resale value for RIV in 2054 when SSR is done could be more than the $60/pt I suggested to recoup those extra fees,

 

[Sandisw]

The difference is much greater when you are assuming that all of this is for home resort bookings because you have to consider the point requirements at both resorts too and the need to own more points at Riviera because of them. The MF's on that point difference is a 100% added cost every single year to Riviera or any other point intensive resort. And then there's the purchase price of those extra points. It's easy to come up with many thousands of dollars difference just with those points that over the next 35 years in the ownership of SSR vs Riviera if speaking financially.

Saying the $12k will feel more like $4K? I sure would think the SSR owner would invest and at least keep up with inflation. And if you consider all aspects of resort point requirements for SSR (need to purchase less, the MF's you won't be paying at all on those fewer points) that $12K is actually going to be much, much more. Triple? Quadruple?

But the discussion was about owning 250 points at each and what would be the cost for that. Not now many nights you could get, etc. In terms of points difference, one could buy RIV and stay at SSR at times to stretch their points. Point differences come in to play if one is only staying at home resort and must go the same number of nights every time,

While I agree those are important aspects to purchase, my posts were related to RIV being less expensive in the long run, for 250 points, When you consider that right now you are only going to pay $3/ppt more for those 250 points at RIV then SSR.

I mean, RIV has the tower studios and those points are comparable to SSR. Yes, they sleep 2 but someone buying as a couple who is okay with that can stay for a similar number of nights,

Obviously, how one will use their points makes a difference. I would completely agree that staying X number of nights in a studio at SSR vs same number of nights at RIV will require less points. So, if the question was is it cheaper to buy SSR or RIV for a specified number of nights, then yes, SSR wins due to the points chart,

But thst is not what my posts are about, They are comparing buying the same number of points, and that is it.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But the discussion was about owning 250 points at each and what would be the cost for that. Not now many nights you could get, etc. In terms of points difference, one could buy RIV and stay at SSR at times to stretch their points. Point differences come in to play if one is only staying at home resort and must go the same number of nights every time,

While I agree those are important aspects to purchase, my posts were related to RIV being less expensive in the long run, for 250 points, When you consider that right now you are only going to pay $3/ppt more for those 250 points at RIV then SSR.

I mean, RIV has the tower studios and those points are comparable to SSR. Yes, they sleep 2 but someone buying as a couple who is okay with that can stay for a similar number of nights,

Obviously, how one will use their points makes a difference. I would completely agree that staying X number of nights in a studio at SSR vs same number of nights at RIV will require less points. So, if the question was is it cheaper to buy SSR or RIV for a specified number of nights, then yes, SSR wins due to the points chart,

But thst is not what my posts are about, They are comparing buying the same number of points, and that is it.

I guess that really wasn't what I saw as the real aspect of being cheaper but rather a more apples to apples look at the resorts. So same size room, same length of stay. Comparing same number of points resort to resort is ignoring so much of the cost differences at each resort and it is an aspect that many people overlook especially those unfamiliar with the system. I've read many posts over the years where it's an "ah ha" moment when it's the point requirement factor is brought in. So yes, a fixed number of points comparison will produce a different result as we see being pointed out.

 

[Sandisw]

I guess that really wasn't what I saw as the real aspect of being cheaper but rather a more apples to apples look at the resorts. So same size room, same length of stay. Comparing same number of points resort to resort is ignoring so much of the cost differences at each resort and it is an aspect that many people overlook especially those unfamiliar with the system. I've read many posts over the years where it's an "ah ha" moment when it's the point requirement factor is brought in. So yes, a fixed number of points comparison will produce a different result as we see being pointed out.

Exactly. To be honest, I don’t think one should only look at cost of equal # of points because DVC is so much more!

Home resort plays a huge role and someone needs to consider how much that will cost them if they have a favorite, I would never suggest to anyone to buy the resort that has a higher points per night, no matter if there is savings, if they don’t love the place!

 

[sethschroeder]

But the discussion was about owning 250 points at each

Not really. It just happened to be what the DVC cruise sellers happened to get the OP to originally buy. Possibly to help "cover" the cost of going on the cruise out of Galveston every 4 years. I just sat in on a DVC pitch on DCL and that was one of the sales techniques they employed.

These are direct quotes from the OP:

One small question is say I only have enough points for a standard room at home resort, can I rent points if for a special occasion stay wanted to upgrade to one or two bedroom suite

I'm thinking of 200 points at Grand Floridan ( which we would go once every 2 years so could get 1 bedroom villa ), or 100 points at Poly to get studio once every 2 years.

Just going back to where this back and forth came out of though. It was the statement by Spark65 that "Riviera is the cheapest place to buy from Disney if direct is your preferred way of buying." No caveat, requirements for a certain number of points, or anything else.

I think we are on the same page that Riveria is not just the cheapest. Now it might work out to the cheapest under certain circumstances but everyone needs to do the math for them with the resorts they personally are interested in. They also need to make their own assumption on resale prices, maintenance fees, and if they do what you actually did which is want to pass on a long contract to their kids (aka BWV/BCV/SSR/OKW might be better because in my shoes when the contract expires and I purchase another one in 2043 it will last my kids in to their 80s)

 

[Sandisw]

Not really. It just happened to be what the DVC cruise sellers happened to get the OP to originally buy. Possibly to help "cover" the cost of going on the cruise out of Galveston every 4 years. I just sat in on a DVC pitch on DCL and that was one of the sales techniques they employed.

These are direct quotes from the OP:



Just going back to where this back and forth came out of though. It was the statement by Spark65 that "Riviera is the cheapest place to buy from Disney if direct is your preferred way of buying." No caveat, requirements for a certain number of points, or anything else.

I think we are on the same page that Riveria is not just the cheapest. Now it might work out to the cheapest under certain circumstances but everyone needs to do the math for them with the resorts they personally are interested in. They also need to make their own assumption on resale prices, maintenance fees, and if they do what you actually did which is want to pass on a long contract to their kids (aka BWV/BCV/SSR/OKW might be better because in my shoes when the contract expires and I purchase another one in 2043 it will last my kids in to their 80s)

We aren’t really on the same page but I’m okay with that and willing to agree we both have different interpretations of the statement made!
I stand by my opinion that that RIV gives you one of the lowest price per point on your purchase buying direct, even at 100 points, based on term of the contract. I respect that you disagree!

 

[eMoneyBug]

I’ll be 1 to say keep it. All the reasons why you did buy it still hold true. 50 years and you can pass down this direct beauty to your kiddos.

Riv looks to be a popular resort and reviews have been good, so it will rent like hot cakes and premium $ even if you don’t plan on using that years points. With the likes of Disneyland and Reflections coming on board, no need to 2nd guess yourself here.

now when you want to add points, then I would say look resale

 

[Soap_1984]

We aren’t really on the same page but I’m okay with that and willing to agree we both have different interpretations of the statement made!
I stand by my opinion that that RIV gives you one of the lowest price per point on your purchase buying direct, even at 100 points, based on term of the contract. I respect that you disagree!

It has one of the lowest prices direct because they want to sell it and not resorts they have already sold. Even if it is one of the lowest price it still doesn't mean it's a good deal or attainable for most people. Anyone who is financing Riv is objectively losing money vs just renting/rack rates every year until like year 40...it may be cheapest but still is really expensive.

 

[Sandisw]

It has one of the lowest prices direct because they want to sell it and not resorts they have already sold. Even if it is one of the lowest price it still doesn't mean it's a good deal or attainable for most people. Anyone who is financing Riv is objectively losing money vs just renting/rack rates every year until like year 40...it may be cheapest but still is really expensive.

I completely agree that depending on ones needs, wants, and desires, that RIV may not prove to be best value for some people, because there are too many factors to define that. Your scenario about financing applies to any resort, though, not just RIV.

This entire back and forth, which has gotten us off track a bit, me included, was to respond to the statement that it is not true that RiV is the cheapest when buying direct. MFs and cost of ownership is exactly the same whether you buy resale or direct It absolutely plays a role in the overall picture, but it certainly doesn’t play a role in deciding a resale vs direct contract.

Anyone buying DVC, no matter what resort is spending a lot of money, and should never buy a resort without the whole picture. Its a commitment.

So, considering life of contract..RIV becomes the cheapest for what you get in terms of price per point averaged out. Nothing more, nothing less.

Should someone buy with only that information? Nope. But IMO, it’s step one in the decision when beginning the comparisons of resorts that one may want to own,

 

[ray3127]

So, considering life of contract..RIV becomes the cheapest for what you get in terms of price per point averaged out. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is the statement/idea that some (including myself) push back against. I understand the argument, but I disagree with the underlying assumptions for several reasons.

I want to be clear that I'm not telling you (or anybody) they are wrong, but simply saying "I don't see it that way." You can say that price per point over 50 years is the cheapest, but I disagree with the assumptions you are making in doing so. The "facts" depend on our assumptions, which differ. A robust discussion of these different opinions probably belongs on another thread.

Like you've said on many occasions, we can all share our opinions and respectfully disagree. But in an effort to help those that are making their DVC purchasing decisions, I'm going to share what my research has shown me and call into question statements that are presented as facts which I disagree with (as I expect everybody to).

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Just my two cents, but the resale restrictions devalues any RIV contract immediately upon direct purchase. What ever savings are had initially will be negated.

 

[sethschroeder]

I stand by my opinion that that RIV gives you one of the lowest price per point on your purchase buying direct, even at 100 points, based on term of the contract. I respect that you disagree!

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the other poster stating it was the lowest with zero caveats.

 

[Sandisw]

Just my two cents, but the resale restrictions devalues any RIV contract immediately upon direct purchase. What ever savings are had initially will be negated.

It does as a new resort, no question. But, the resale value of say SSR today and resale value of RIV today would probably be the similar

Any person buying either today direct are going to lose their shirt If they have to sell in a short time.

I think it is why to buy direct, one has to have some very good reasons to make the numbers work in a way that one sees a benefit

 

[Sandisw]

This is the statement/idea that some (including myself) push back against. I understand the argument, but I disagree with the underlying assumptions for several reasons.

I want to be clear that I'm not telling you (or anybody) they are wrong, but simply saying "I don't see it that way." You can say that price per point over 50 years is the cheapest, but I disagree with the assumptions you are making in doing so. The "facts" depend on our assumptions, which differ. A robust discussion of these different opinions probably belongs on another thread.

Like you've said on many occasions, we can all share our opinions and respectfully disagree. But in an effort to help those that are making their DVC purchasing decisions, I'm going to share what my research has shown me and call into question statements that are presented as facts which I disagree with (as I expect everybody to).

I said the purchase price, when averaged out, based on current prices, comes out in favor in RIV. Bur, I am more than happy for you to show me using only that criteria that I’ve miscalculated. I will say I only looked at direct pricing for WDW resorts.

When I go to the store and see paper towels for 99 cents for one or $1.50 for 3, I buy the 3 pack because it’s cheaper per unit. I’m applying same idea here for a direct purchase.

Never said MFs, point charts, or resale value don’t impact the overall ownership, but those elements do not, in anyway change the fact that If one is to buy a 100 point contract at SSR, they are purchasing 3300 points and with RIV they are getting 5,000 points for the life of those contract.

I think at this point it makes no sense for me to try to explain it further. Some have understood my point and others have not.

 

[ray3127]

When I go to the store and see paper towels for 99 cents for one or $1.50 for 3, I buy the 3 pack because it’s cheaper per unit. I’m applying same idea here for a direct purchase.

This is a good example of an assumption I disagree with. While the paper towel example makes sense, it is not transferable to DVC points.

Let me ask it this way: How much would you pay for a RIV contract in which you do not receive points until 2054? Meaning you pay a price today, then receive/pay nothing for 34 years, and then your point usage & MF's begin in 2054 through 2070.

Here is an even clearer example: What if they sold two types of Riviera contracts?

• Contract A includes points in years 1-25
• Contract B includes points in years 26-50

Which contract would sell for more today? Both contracts cover the same time period of 25 years. Does that mean that should sell for the same amount of money today? The obvious answer is no. So just averaging out the purchase price doesn't make sense to me.

This is why I do not believe you can attribute the cost of the points evenly across the entire length of the contract. Points that are available to use sooner are worth more. Points that aren't available to use for 34+ years... how can we really place a value on those points today? I've decided that I can't. If you can, then more power to you (honestly; that's what I was saying earlier). But I can't.

Beyond that, when you factor in the extra cost of RIV through:

• More points needed through the points charts
• Higher MF cost per point

...RIV simply costs more. If you instead invested the difference of what you would have spent on RIV points, you end up with a sizable pile of cash in 2042, 2054, etc. I would rather have the cash at that point in time, and then decide if I want to buy in again at current market rates... Because as I've previously mentioned, 20-35 years is a very long time, and while I hope my family and I still love Disney then, I really can't say that with any degree of certainty.

And if you don't want to use the point charts, then that's another area we simply disagree on... I think you have to use them. If your plan is to use RIV as sleep-around points then there are definitely more affordable options.