Lower than low resales...

[jdg345]

It can be if one can do delayed gratification. One does need to account for the due as for a truly stripped contract it'd be easy to pay $5-6 a point over what you thought you were. I do feel the dues are the make or break issue even more than the unavailable points but partly because the prices tend to reflect the unavailable points and MOST people who buy resale pay dues on those unavailable points.

I bought my BWV points back in 2002 for $54 a point with no current points but most or all (don't recall exactly) coming about 6 months later when the UY opened and I believe we split the closing and fees. My cost was $4 a point below the floor at that time for ROFR. One of the brokers was really interested in why mine went through at that price enough to contact DVC to find out why. What I heard through the broker was DVC was in a conflict of interest situation and didn't feel they could act no matter the price (sorry don't know more specifics).

As Crisi mentioned as well ... Again, if you can deal with not having access to something for 2 years, purchasing it today, then it certainly may be a bargain. If you buy now with the intent of using right away and end up paying cash, plus MF ... well ... then not so much.

 

[jdg345]

This discussion started out posing an open question (presumably to all posters) why SSR holds a lower value in the open market. My arguments in a nutshell:

1. SSR is newer - and offers 10 more years of use - than VWL, BC, BWV. Yet not only is there less booking demand for SSR, it also commands a lower resale price tag. Minimally, the extra 10 years use would suggest that people should be willing to pay 25% more than these other resorts - not less.

2. Sorry, if you're going to build a resort of that size then DVC did owe it to all the members to make it nice enough that that SSR owners would like to stay at their home resort as much as they do the other properties. Otherwise you generate lopsided competition for the other resorts, versus a fairly balanced demand, which would be better for all of us. That lopsided demand also will lead to lower pricing for SSR, which I believe we're already seeing.

3. SSR was rushed through the planning and design phase, using the existing Disney Institute infrastructure, in order order to get more inventory on the market as soon as possible. In the process, they devalued one of the most valuable pieces of land in WDW. That's my main gripe: This chunk of land held the potential to be something truly great. Instead it's a garden variety golf condominium complex complete with busy roads and unsightly parking lots dissecting the entire resort. People shouldn't have to breathe bus fumes and cross busy roads just to have breakfast in the morning or to use the signature pool.

4. Disney sold this monstrosity on the strength of its other properties: Pointing to the Beach Club, or the Wilderness Lodge or the Boardwalk.

5. Now that other DVC properties, with true resort amenities, are available what we are seeing is more and more SSR rooms going up for sale, and people dropping the price in the process.

6. If you bought there I'm not suggesting you're a moron. I would have fallen for the same bait and switch too if I hadn't already owned elsewhere.

7. I didn't WANT to dislike SSR jut because I owned at BW. In fact I LOVE BC, VWL, (and eventually bought there). You can already see how BLT and AKL (where we also bought) are also being designed to Disney-resort standards. Trust me, I REALLY wanted to like SSR just as much. I even stayed there with nothing but high hopes. But this resort just doesn't have it.

... I like SSR ...

I like the proximity to DTD ... I like parking at my door ... I like that it's inexpensive point-wise and I can get more for my points ... I like the wide open feel ... I like the pool areas ... I like the quiet and tranquility ...

You don't have to like it, that's fine ... but I don't think it's fair to presume that most people don't like it because you don't.

It seems that you've added on at several places because you liked them. That's great. If you would have liked SSR, then you would have added on there too more than likely. But you didn't like it, so you didn't. There is enough distinction between DVC resorts there there is indeed a good possibility that you aren't going to like them all. Of course, that is great for DVC because it opens a new market/demographic to them with those differences.

And a lot of your opinions are just conjecture. Do you know for a fact that SSR was rushed through planning and implementation? It could be said that BLT was rushed as well ... yet you consider that being fine because it fits what you like.

Another thing to consider, as has been mentioned by many, is that SSR is large, so it should be expected that there is a higher number of resales than for other resorts. That higher number helps to keep price down. Also, with the sudden/quick releases of AKV and BLT, it's possible that some folks who did add-ons at SSR because they wanted more points are now divesting themselves and selling some of their add-on points to get in at other resorts as well because they like them just as much.

Sorry, but it's just wrong to infer that someone was duped or fell for some sort of bait and switch tactic because they liked what SSR had to offer. It shouldn't be a problem for you anyways, you own just about everywhere else and therefore have a 4 month booking advantage over an SSR owner. I'm not quite sure why they bother you so much.

If you were an imagineer, what would you have done differently with SSR?

 

[mom of princessx2]

I don't want to give you any false hope, but I have read on these boards from many different people that would tell you that it is a good sign that you haven't heard anything yet. They say that if you are going to be ROFR'd, it is more likely to happen very early in the process. I don't know how true that is, but I definitely read it from people's experiences.

Joe

Thank you-I will take any hope I can get at this point. Sorry to hear about the bad weather in your area. I am originally from Ottawa, about 40 miles W down 80, and my family has had it bad as well. Now living outside of Louisville, we had Ikes winds while you had all the rain!!

 

[Off-The-Deep-End]

Well considering I paid $79 per point for SSR back in 2003, got full developer points and 2 Annual Passes, if I had to sell my stripped points for $71, I would feel pretty good and DO feel good about my SSR purchase. Not bad for 5 years of vacations.

I think the intent of this post was not true concern for SSR owners or their portfolios.

RRRRRRRR There be TROLLS here!!!

 

[Dean]

Your point about dues is absolutely dead-on for us. I have for many years wanted to add-on at Vero Beach. My parents live 10 minutes away and we would love to be able to book there during peak times at the 11 month mark. The cost per point is very inticing, but the dues have prevented us from going forward.

My point about dues was based on paying dues on points not available to use with a resale given that the dues are based on the Calendar year and not UY. It is my opinion that other than those contracts that come with the full complement of CURRENT UY points and all of the upcoming UY points (with/without additional banked points) that MOST who buy resale overpay in this areas. Even some of time time when those criteria are met (all of this and next UY points available) that some still overpay. The higher dues at VB is a different matter though I wouldn't let it stop me for points I'd routinely use there. Another issue you might consider is that some of the earlier contracts had permanent subsidies, you might get with the brokers and have them keep an eye out for you for one of those contracts for you. Given the current economics, it might be a good time to find one.

 

[Dean]

As Crisi mentioned as well ... Again, if you can deal with not having access to something for 2 years, purchasing it today, then it certainly may be a bargain. If you buy now with the intent of using right away and end up paying cash, plus MF ... well ... then not so much.

Certainly one has to look at the specifics for a given contract in addition to some of the general principles involved of a given home resort then tied to your personal situation. The absolute worst case scenario is that one will have no points for the current UY plus the next 2. And this would only happen if the seller has made some type of reservation in the next UY and also borrowed all of the following UY points to do so. Given that pending reservations are cancelled as part of the transfer process and that brokers normally insist you don't use points along while listing with them, that degree of usage for points that will be truly unusable is VERY unlikely. Realistically one is looking at the worst that all of the following UY points are gone. So assuming all of the points are available in the second UY going forward, one could borrow those for a trip in the next UY. Assuming it takes a couple of months to close, one could have the potential to reserve a stay from day one of membership even on such a stripped contract, it's just you're looking at a 8-11 months into the future, c/w the appropriate timeshare planning anyway. Bottom line is that about the most the "value" of a given contract will vary as the result of being stripped compared to being loaded is around $10 a point assuming you actually pay the dues on the point, or abound $5 a point if you don't have to pay dues. Generally I ignore the value of any banked or borrowed points unless I know for sure I will use them as part of my NORMAL usage.

 

[Brian430]

Hey jdg,

Not that it's a classic or anything, but I answer the "what I would do differently if I were an imagineer" question on post #41.

Plain and simple, it's all about misplacement of the roads and parking lots.

Look at Port Orleans, which is a similar sized resort just up the river. Here, Disney placed all of the roads and parking lots on the perimeter of the property. What this allowed them to do was to create a lushly landscaped haven on the inside of the resort. The buildings are also closer to the signature pool and main building/food court etc.

Once you park your car you don't have to deal with the mess of the parking lots and roads any more. You're on vacation.

Or look at how Disney dealt with its parking lots at Vero and Hilton Head, which they placed beneath the buildings. It not only saves space, but gets rid of an eye soar and gives Disney's talented landscape team a great stage to strut their stuff.

The placement of the main building and pool is also misguided. There is no reason that a resort of this size should place the hub of activity on one side of the property forcing many guests to trek ridiculous distances (especially if you're forcing them to walk across roads in the process). That building should be in the center of the property with guest buildings ringing it. But DVC opted to use the existing Disney Institute check-in area to save money. Only problem is Disney Institute was never designed to support a resort of this size.

Lighting is a disgrace as well. Walking from your room to the main building at night through dark parking lots and a far distance from security is a creepy experience for some guests (or I should say at least for my wife who wouldn't make the trek herself at night.)

I would also better leverage the value of the old Disney Institute buildings. They already have the making of a perfect town square at that resort - complete with a movie theater - but they haven't done anything with it.

Now picture in your mind's eye the same theming and building design of Saratoga but where the parking lots have been replaced with fields of grass, and gardens and fountains. Picture an open piazza area where musicians could stroll. Picture a miniature downtown district with quaint shops and restaurants and a movie theater (which is already there, but remains unused to save money).

Simply placing the parking lots on the perimeter of the property (forget underground if you want to be cheap, although DVC makes ridiculous amounts of money) would have made all the difference in the world. Which tells me they didn't take the time to think this through and to conduct 3D models of car and pedestrian traffic. They went for the cheapest solution - a condo complex layout.

At one time, SSR held the potential to be Disney's best DVC property yet - and the sheer magnitude of this resort should have behooved them to at least make an attempt.

Instead this a huge resort that turned into a huge missed opportunity.

 

[dizney4us]

Let' be real:

What we're seeing here is the problem when DVC produces properties that are inherently weaker than others.

Plain and simple Saratoga Springa just doesn't stack up to other DVC offerings – especially the two new properties that are now for sale.

The resort-setting of the Animal Kingdom Villas and Bay Lake Villas completely eclipse the condo complex atmosphere of Saratoga Springs. If you owned at SSR you would want to unload your points in favor of these new properties too.

I myself own at Boardwalk and at Wilderness Lodge, and so I feel no buyer's remorse when I look at the new DVC hotels. If I owned at Saratoga I wouldn't be able to sell quick enough. By the look of the high volume – and low price –*of SSR re-sales I'm apparently not alone in my assessment.

Regrettably, DVC's largest property is also its least appealing, and we will all be feeling the effects of this poor planning for decades to come. SSR owners will be more interested in booking vacations at the other DVC resorts and/or selling off completely. The 11-month booking window has never been more important thanks to the lack of SSR's appeal. And SSR owners are now all fighting to get into the "good" DVC resorts, while no one is fighting to stay at SSR.

Think about it: When DVC offers an incentive for new buyers they give you points at SSR where there is low demand even though the property is 100% sold. They don't offer you a week at the Boardwalk as an incentive - they offer you a week where they have little demand anyway and that is always SSR.

As it becomes harder and harder for SSR owners to stay outside of their home resort you will see re-sales surge and price tags fall.

Um..that is your opinion. You don't speak for me. I own at SSR and BWV. If I had to sell, I would sell BWV as I enjoy SSR much more. There will always be more resales st SSR due to the size, it is huge with a lot of SSR owners, which is what you can't stand. I have stayed at VWL...NEVER want to own there, same with AKL. So don't generalize. The reason they offer weeks at SSR and OWK is because they are larger. They wouldn't offer BWV or VWL beause they are too tiny. Common sense please. jeeeesh!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Another issue you might consider is that some of the earlier contracts had permanent subsidies, you might get with the brokers and have them keep an eye out for you for one of those contracts for you. Given the current economics, it might be a good time to find one.

I inquired about them. Disney automatically converts them. Once the original owner sells, those "subsidized" contracts cease to exist. So this will not be an option, unfortunately.

 

[Chuck S]

I like having the parking lots at OKW close to our rooms. Hauling luggage longer distances isn't appealing to me at all. And yes, all buildings at OKW are accessed by going through their parking areas. Apparently, condo style resorts are just not for you. It doesn't mean that SSR is badly imagineered, it simply means that you, personally, may be more comfortable in a hotel style resort with room service, valet parking, and having to wait for bell services to haul your luggage.

With the addition of the Treehouse Villas, SSR is basically spread out just as much as it was when it was Disney Institute/Disney Village resort.

 

[Dean]

I inquired about them. Disney automatically converts them. Once the original owner sells, those "subsidized" contracts cease to exist. So this will not be an option, unfortunately.

I don't believe that was always the case and I'm not totally sure it is now for resales though I'm sure it is for points sold ROFR. DVC may try to make it such but I bet one could get it if they pushed.

 

[MEK]

Thank you. I am not even going to respond to his last comment - immature. I read his other posts and he spends quite a bit of time annoying people in other threads with his SSR issues...makes me want to buy SSR, knowing that I would never run into him there.

 

[tjkraz]

1. SSR is newer - and offers 10 more years of use - than VWL, BC, BWV. Yet not only is there less booking demand for SSR...

And yet again I'd like to point out that you have done nothing to prove how demand compares with any other resort.

Bottom line: If 208 people want to book BCV and 208 people want to book SSR, BCV is 100% full and SSR is 25% full. Your personal observations based upon one experience booking SSR tell us absolutely nothing about demand for ANY DVC resort.

...it also commands a lower resale price tag.

And again you are completely discounting two factors:

1. Supply and demand.
2. The economy.

There are more SSR points than any other resorts which means there will ALWAYS be a greater supply of resales. Admittedly this will hurt SSR resale values in the long run. Not much that can be done about that.

And the lowball sellers are undeniably hurting the resale market as well. Whether that continues in times of economic prosperity remains to be seen. After all, we're only 2 months removed from DVC charging $94 per point.

Minimally, the extra 10 years use would suggest that people should be willing to pay 25% more than these other resorts - not less.

I think every economist in the room just had to gasp for air.

Time value of money tells us that you cannot weigh all years of ownership equally. At most those latter years would be worth $3-4 per point...not a 25% premium.

Notice how DVC is able to sell your beloved AKV for $96 each (with 15 years of additional ownership) while still charging $104 for BCV and BWV add-ons.

2. Sorry, if you're going to build a resort of that size then DVC did owe it to all the members to make it nice enough that that SSR owners would like to stay at their home resort as much as they do the other properties. Otherwise you generate lopsided competition for the other resorts, versus a fairly balanced demand, which would be better for all of us. That lopsided demand also will lead to lower pricing for SSR, which I believe we're already seeing.

Again, you've really done nothing to demonstrate how SSR owners are using their points.

I also think you're deluding yourself if you think that only SSR owners are filling your beloved BWV, BCV and VWL. There are just as many people who own at OKW, Vero, HHI and even AKV who will be booking and/or waitlisting those resorts at 7 months.

At best we're in a two-tier system where BCV, BWV and perhaps VWL (mostly due to its extremely small size) are at the top of owners' lists, while the others are second choices.

3. SSR was rushed through the planning and design phase, using the existing Disney Institute infrastructure, in order order to get more inventory on the market as soon as possible. In the process, they devalued one of the most valuable pieces of land in WDW.

Please share with us the development timeline for SSR. I'm very curious to hear how you came to the conclusion that it was rushed.

That's my main gripe: This chunk of land held the potential to be something truly great. Instead it's a garden variety golf condominium complex complete with busy roads and unsightly parking lots dissecting the entire resort. People shouldn't have to breathe bus fumes and cross busy roads just to have breakfast in the morning or to use the signature pool.

Oh, you mean kinda like Old Key West...the FIRST Disney Vacation Club resort.

Look, we get that you don't like it. But what I don't understand is why you continue to project that dislike upon tens-of-thousands of others.

If I wanted, I could waste my time griping about why BCV was built alongside a main road. Gee, talk about your bus fumes and busy roads. Maybe 3% of the rooms at SSR are on the end of a building and happen to face a road....compared to about 20% of BCV which sits alongside Epcot Resorts Blvd.

Or I could gripe about how DVC members got the FIFTH FLOOR (yuck!) at AKV's Jambo house instead of the more appealing 2nd or 3rd floor.

Or I could gripe about how OKW has a Hospitality House that is even more off-center than SSR's Carriage House...or the lack of elevators.

Or how BWV owners are are forced to share bus service with the Dolphin and Swan. And what's with the single elevator in that building? Talk about your design FUBARs.

4. Disney sold this monstrosity on the strength of its other properties: Pointing to the Beach Club, or the Wilderness Lodge or the Boardwalk.

Not to me they didn't. I like it just fine, thank you very much.

And if that were even remotely true, then I propose that after 5 years of sales and 50,000 owners, there would be a whole lot more than 120 contracts on the resale market.

5. Now that other DVC properties, with true resort amenities, are available what we are seeing is more and more SSR rooms going up for sale, and people dropping the price in the process.

Again, you're just guessing and conveniently ignoring all other factors which do not fit your assumptions.

6. If you bought there I'm not suggesting you're a moron.

Oh, no. Of course not. We don't think that of you either...

7. I didn't WANT to dislike SSR jut because I owned at BW. In fact I LOVE BC, VWL, (and eventually bought there). You can already see how BLT and AKL (where we also bought) are also being designed to Disney-resort standards. Trust me, I REALLY wanted to like SSR just as much. I even stayed there with nothing but high hopes. But this resort just doesn't have it.

So of course you assume that everyone else shares your high standards and sensibilities. Those of us who don't must be the morons.

 

[Dean]

Tim, not to get involved in the entire battle but I would point out that I feel that SSR does have a lower demand than some of the other resorts. Size really shouldn't matter from a demand standpoint as it's the percentage of owners who use their points at their home resort in the home resort window that determines availability issues. Size alone does not account for that fact and likely does not play into the equation at all from an availability standpoint at least not during the home resort window.

The question is what percent of owners (really % of points) will routinely use their points in the home resort window each year and not plan to trade out to other resorts at or after the 7 mo window. While none of us have the figures, I feel there is more than ample evidence to support the claim that SSR is lower than some others (BCV, BWV, VWL & likely AKV). And I'd point out that no one has any proof to support the reverse as well. What circumstantial evidence that is available overwhelmingly supports this claim. Certainly SSR is not the only resort one can say this about as the same is true in principle for OKW (to a much lessor degree due to lower points), VB & HH. However, the sheer number of points from SSR combined with the lower demand and that fact that those points are in addition to the other 3 with lower demand overpowers the system once outside the home resort window.

Does this matter, not to me and not to the system IMO. That'd be one area where Brian and I differ. I do feel there are things DVC could have done to even out the demand and I started a thread on this subject early in the course of SSR. I do feel they left a lot on the table but it was their decision. Certainly adding the restaurant and Grandstands was a step in the right direction, I'm not sure the THV will be, we shall see once we see what they look like and how they are integrated as well as the actual points structure. For those that buy where they want to stay and plan ahead, having more choices is always a good thing. That's especially true for me as almost all of my stays are by exchange in. Which reminds me that DVC preferentially deposits OKW & SSR to II over the others and out of proportion to the relative sizes. So they actually even out the demand somewhat artificially.

I'd also have to disagree with those that say you need to stay there. For someone experienced with DVC, Disney in general or even other timeshares, I don't feel that's necessarily the case in all instances though it might help at times.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'd also have to disagree with those that say you need to stay there. For someone experienced with DVC, Disney in general or even other timeshares, I don't feel that's necessarily the case in all instances though it might help at times.

With all due respect Dean, I give little crediblilty to comments from posters that make statements on resorts that have never, ever stayed there, whether it be DVC or any other timeshare. I think it does a big disservice to others who may be trying to gather facts for future purchases or trades. How would you know you hate my spahetti sauce if you've never eatin it?

 

[tjkraz]

Tim, not to get involved in the entire battle but I would point out that I feel that SSR does have a lower demand than some of the other resorts. Size really shouldn't matter from a demand standpoint as it's the percentage of owners who use their points at their home resort in the home resort window that determines availability issues. Size alone does not account for that fact and likely does not play into the equation at all from an availability standpoint at least not during the home resort window.

I'll agree with you, Dean, with one caveat.

I'm not sure that demand patterns in the first 4 years of a resort's lifespan will hold true once we reach year 10+. Regardless of where members own, many are no doubt drawn to DVC by the variety that it has to offer. As such, they may spend their first half-dozen trips to WDW sampling different resorts to find a favorite.

That's what I believe is happening now with many SSR owners. I know that's exactly what we did. In our first 3 trips as members we stayed in 3 different resorts. By trip 5 or 6 we crossed a fourth resort off of our list.

One of those trips was to BCV and I really have no desire to return. But BWV held greater appeal for me so we have since added a few points at that resort. Meanwhile we remain quite content with our SSR points. We stayed there in '06 and '07 (despite having other options available both times) and will be returning in '09.

If demand is greater today for BWV or BCV, a portion of that demand can be attributed to people saying to themselves "yeah, I'd like to try that resort." And DVC gives us the perfect opportunity to do that. Just because members buy into SSR doesn't mean they are going to spend their first half-dozen stays at their Home resort.

Whether members continue book elsewhere or form a bond with their Home resort is what truly remains to be seen. The earliest of SSR buyers have only had 4 years to vacation at WDW. Others have not yet even made a single trip using their points. IMO it will be several more years before we can even begin to make educated guesses about the general booking habits of SSR owners.

 

[Dean]

With all due respect Dean, I give little crediblilty to comments from posters that make statements on resorts that have never, ever stayed there, whether it be DVC or any other timeshare. I think it does a big disservice to others who may be trying to gather facts for future purchases or trades. How would you know you hate my spahetti sauce if you've never eatin it?

It's OK to disagree but I'd bet you that I could tell more about a given resort by spending an hour or two there than most people who stayed a week. Knowing me like you do, would you discount my opinion in such a situation, I'm betting not but it would be your choice. That's why I prefaced by referring to experienced people. Obviously there are aspects one can't get in such a situation but for the most part they're things that are variable anyway such as the restaurant quality, attitude of the staff, housekeeping issues and the like. Things that are likely to vary so much over time that even several stays would really mean nothing. Using the food analogy would mean that I only got an appy portion and not a large meal and leftovers.

 

[Dean]

I'll agree with you, Dean, with one caveat.

I'm not sure that demand patterns in the first 4 years of a resort's lifespan will hold true once we reach year 10+. Regardless of where members own, many are no doubt drawn to DVC by the variety that it has to offer. As such, they may spend their first half-dozen trips to WDW sampling different resorts to find a favorite.

That's what I believe is happening now with many SSR owners. I know that's exactly what we did. In our first 3 trips as members we stayed in 3 different resorts. By trip 5 or 6 we crossed a fourth resort off of our list.

One of those trips was to BCV and I really have no desire to return. But BWV held greater appeal for me so we have since added a few points at that resort. Meanwhile we remain quite content with our SSR points. We stayed there in '06 and '07 (despite having other options available both times) and will be returning in '09.

If demand is greater today for BWV or BCV, a portion of that demand can be attributed to people saying to themselves "yeah, I'd like to try that resort." And DVC gives us the perfect opportunity to do that. Just because members buy into SSR doesn't mean they are going to spend their first half-dozen stays at their Home resort.

Whether members continue book elsewhere or form a bond with their Home resort is what truly remains to be seen. The earliest of SSR buyers have only had 4 years to vacation at WDW. Others have not yet even made a single trip using their points. IMO it will be several more years before we can even begin to make educated guesses about the general booking habits of SSR owners.

That's why I stated percent of owners and points each year because even the most diehard at the most in demand resort will likely try other places at times by choice, not just due to lack of availability. While I'd agree that the first 2 years or so of ownership are not indicative, I'd argue that the in house demand is higher during that time, not lower. I also feel that demand tends to be higher early in the development until the new wears off. Usually this is after completion but for SSR likely not due to size, length of time from start to finish and the phased development.

I would agree that those that have owned longer may have different usage patterns but I think it's largely due to the fact that all the options weren't there when they bought rather than that their preferences evolved though this certainly happens at all resorts to a degree. I'd also argue that that phenomena is likely to be negative to SSR rather than positive and is most reflected in long term OKW owners but certainly happens to a degree at all resorts.

On a parallel, I've made the point several times that the full impact of SSR to the 7 month window wouldn't be felt until about 2 years after it was sold out, in large part due to the factors you referenced and I responded to. Unfortunately I believe the affect will be a slow widening of the relative demand.

I realize that were talking about these issues like they are wide differences. In a way they are in a way they are not. I'm reminded of the saying that "a bad day on vacation is better than a good day at work". If one has to settle for their least favorite DVC resort, that's not such a bad situation. And it's one of the principles that has moved me to mostly II exchanges in rather than points stays and thus to pare down my points holding from 885 to likely 100 and possible 25-50.

 

[JSjoquist]

Disney gets contracts back not only through ROFR but also through foreclosure and deedbacks. My personal opinion is that they have a lot of SSR point for sale. I would be really surprised if the resort is 85 percent sold out.

I think this is one of the reasons for the Treehouse Villas. My personal opinion is that these excess SSR units are going to be a continuing drag on DVD, which to my mind is a good thing. They will have an incentive not to do anything like this to the membership again.

Would mind expanding on this thought? I'm not following you as what DVD has done to us.

Thanks.

 

[Dean]

Would mind expanding on this thought? I'm not following you as what DVD has done to us.

Thanks.

I can't speak for Miss. but SSR has had a significant impact on availability on or after the 7 month window, IMO.