New BLT Rumors--PART II

[White_Sox_Fan]

tjkraz,

Nicely explained, I knew this but didn't feel like trying to explain it. Yes on a per point basis BLT MF's could be less, but on a per night basis, compared to the other resorts, it would be comparable or perhaps higher. This is why I feel that instead of charging an outgrageous amount for points, they should bump the point chart. If this is indead going to be such a high demand resort, the point chart should reflect such. This will slow down the 7 month rush if it cost an additional 15-20% compared to the othe resorts.

 

[tjkraz]

Ok so even paying lower MF's, your really paying on the front end, aka higher cost per point.

Exactly.

Disney is betting that most people will not keep their contracts for the full 50 yrs., so if the average buyer decided to sell thier contracts in "10" yrs., well Disney would really be making a pretty penny!

I'm not really sure where you are coming from here, though.

Once DVC sells points, they belong to the "owner" (at least for 50 years.) As an owner, it's certainly within your rights to put them on the resale market after 10 years. Any transfer of ownership would be between you and the buyer.

DVC would have ROFR, but it's probably open to debate as to whether they consider that a good thing or a bad thing. When DVC exercises ROFR, they get the points back and can sell them yet again. But the margins are much lower than a "new" sale.

For instance, DVC is selling AKV now for a net price of $96 per point. Perhaps they would exercise ROFR at $80 per point. While they would stand to make $16 per point by reselling those points a second time....it's still only sixteen bucks. By the time you deduct administrative overhead, ROFR isn't exactly a high profit venture.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Exactly.



I'm not really sure where you are coming from here, though.

Once DVC sells points, they belong to the "owner" (at least for 50 years.) As an owner, it's certainly within your rights to put them on the resale market after 10 years. Any transfer of ownership would be between you and the buyer.

DVC would have ROFR, but it's probably open to debate as to whether they consider that a good thing or a bad thing. When DVC exercises ROFR, they get the points back and can sell them yet again. But the margins are much lower than a "new" sale.

For instance, DVC is selling AKV now for a net price of $96 per point. Perhaps they would exercise ROFR at $80 per point. While they would stand to make $16 per point by reselling those points a second time....it's still only sixteen bucks. By the time you deduct administrative overhead, ROFR isn't exactly a high profit venture.

Well, if one pays more for points per night (paying on the front end), and doesn't keep their contract for any length of time, the lower MF's aren't really negating the higher price per point. Kinda like the bank gets all their interest on a car payment in the first 1-2 yrs of your car loan. If you sell it in 3 yrs. well you've already given them (the bank) most of the interst upfront. If one would have kept that car for 10-15 yrs., well it then all evens itself out.

 

[tjkraz]

Well, if one pays more for points per night (paying on the front end), and doesn't keep their contract for any length of time, the lower MF's aren't really negating the higher price per point. Kinda like the bank gets all their interest on a car payment in the first 1-2 yrs of your car loan. If you sell it in 3 yrs. well you've already given them (the bank) most of the interst upfront. If one would have kept that car for 10-15 yrs., well it then all evens itself out.

Saying that the lower dues negate a higher up-front cost may be a sales approach some Guides take, but it may or may not be justifiable. When viewing the dues on a per-night basis, they should be about the same as comparable locations elsewhere.

Again these are all assumptions.

Let's say a BoardWalk view room is 20 points per night and the dues are $5 per point. That room would "cost" a DVC member $100 (20 x $5.)

Now let's assume point charts are 15% higher at BLT and a MK view room is 23 points per night. But using the logic from my prior post, the dues are only $4.34 (same budget spread over more points.) The nightly cost for that room is still the same $100 (23 x $4.34).

All things being equal, the only place a "savings" may come into play is if a BLT owner booked the likes of BWV or BCV at 7 months. He/she is paying BLT dues that are significantly lower than those of the resort being reserved. (My example really doesn't do justice to the disparity since BWV dues are actually $5.04 for '08, while the projected dues for BLT were a paltry $3.67 per point for 2009.)

Beyond that, a high buy-in cost most likely means that resale prices will also be high. So if someone was looking to sell their BLT ownership in 10 years, it would almost certainly net a higher price than owners at the likes of SSR or AKV.

 

[keishashadow]

I'm sure they have formulas for that. The same is true of bus service. Buses are pretty much routed on demand so there's no real tracking of how many gallons of gas are used to service guests at SSR vs. OKW vs. BWV, and so on.

Since the 3 MK resorts are on a loop and the resorts monorail services all three equally, you could probably argue for a flat 1/3 split for each. If not that, it's probably based upon the number of rooms.

thanks for answering, yet im still confused (sorry), r u saying the 3 monorail hotels pay for all the annual expenses of the monorail, shared equally or share in a certain % of the overhead?

doesn't seem fair imo since many offsite guests use it to transport from main parking lot to MK, or just for a joy ride, not tied into guests or even patrons of the facilities?

 

[CarolMN]

thanks for answering, yet im still confused (sorry), r u saying the 3 monorail hotels pay for all the annual expenses of the monorail, shared equally or share in a certain % of the overhead?

doesn't seem fair imo since many offsite guests use it to transport from main parking lot to MK, or just for a joy ride, not tied into guests or even patrons of the facilities?

There are two separate monorail lines that serve the MK.

One is the express route that only stops at the TTC and the MK. I'm almost 100% psitive that the resorts are not "charged" anything at all for that line. I am also quite sure that they are not "charged" anything for the EPCOT line, either. My best guess is that the transportation costs for those are "charged" to the theme parks.

As far as other guests using the resort monorail, most do so to access the resorts for dining & recreation. That benefits the resort revenue stream and that is the logic used to cover non-resort guests using the resort transportation. SInce tranportation is a cost center, the idea would be to match the cost to the revenue stream it supports.

 

[jade1]

Not to throw anything in here, but we were on a Wishes cruise last Saturday night, and drove by BLT, and our captain (and this is purely her statement, not supported by anything) remarked (not knowing we are DVC either) that Disney had originally planned for the new construction to be DVC but are now reconsidering and may just operate it as a new section of the Contemporary Resort. Did not inquire as to her basis for making the statement, just took it in. Could be misinformation designed to quell rumors, or perhaps has a grain of truth to it if the building is intended for mixed use, or if the economy has taken a toll on the DVC interest, but there are still enough cash guests and conventions that will pay the rack rate. Don't know, just relaying the comment.

No problem, save 10K to 20K and yearly dues to do some weekend stays.

 

[TheDISneyFamily]

No problem, save 10K to 20K and yearly dues to do some weekend stays.

Yep, that's what we're thinkin'! We'll just pay cash for the nights we want to stay there, and keep the $20,000 we were going to spend for something else.

 

[hakepb]

Not to throw anything in here, but we were on a Wishes cruise last Saturday night, and drove by BLT, and our captain (and this is purely her statement, not supported by anything) remarked (not knowing we are DVC either) that Disney had originally planned for the new construction to be DVC but are now reconsidering and may just operate it as a new section of the Contemporary Resort. Did not inquire as to her basis for making the statement, just took it in. Could be misinformation designed to quell rumors, or perhaps has a grain of truth to it if the building is intended for mixed use, or if the economy has taken a toll on the DVC interest, but there are still enough cash guests and conventions that will pay the rack rate. Don't know, just relaying the comment.

Oooooh them purposedly leaked rumorers (is that a word?) are good at what they do.

First they float the outrageous prices that gets potential BLT mad/angry
Then they float the "no DVC" rumor to get the potential BLT owners anxious that it may not happen.

Then they release BLT at a really high cost, and all BLT fans say "Thank You Disney !!!! for actually giving me this privilege to buy [at an outrageous price] BLT "

 

[keishashadow]

There are two separate monorail lines that serve the MK.

One is the express route that only stops at the TTC and the MK. I'm almost 100% psitive that the resorts are not "charged" anything at all for that line. I am also quite sure that they are not "charged" anything for the EPCOT line, either. My best guess is that the transportation costs for those are "charged" to the theme parks.

As far as other guests using the resort monorail, most do so to access the resorts for dining & recreation. That benefits the resort revenue stream and that is the logic used to cover non-resort guests using the resort transportation. SInce tranportation is a cost center, the idea would be to match the cost to the revenue stream it supports.

thank you for elaborating