One contract or two smaller contracts.

[Bing Showei]

Just look at the OKW 2042 vs 2057, that's likely the best representation of the difference.

Can you explain this further?

If OKW vs OKW Extended is a good case study to illustrate your point, it would be helpful to have you explain that further, as it is more tangible than the more nebulous “future points” concept which, admittedly, I’m still struggling to understand is worth less than a point today.

At first, I thought it was a combination of assumed risk and lost opportunity cost that effectively make the points less valuable, but it seems you’re saying something else is in play.

 

[RX8]

A little sidetracked on the discussion about the value placed on extra years but isn’t it as simple as saying that in year 2042 one will be worth zero but the other one with 15 remaining years will still be worth x amount of dollars?

 

[Bing Showei]

A little sidetracked on the discussion about the value placed on extra years but isn’t it as simple as saying that in year 2042 one will be worth zero but the other one with 15 remaining years will still be worth x amount of dollars?

While I know I would be paying more I do like having the full 50 years.

As many who buy into DVC, there’s a calculation you made about value when you decided to buy in. It sounds like the longer contract factored into that.

I think the point Dean is making, and that I’m looking for clarification on, is that the extra years at the end of a longer contract have less value than most people, you and I included, assign assign to them.

I’m sure when you were figuring out CCV vs. X, you looked at the cost over the life of the contract, it’s what gives a lot of people pause about 2042 resorts. Mainstream belief is that $/point/year is a measure for value. Dean (and many other people who have thought about this much more than I have) believe this is a misleading indication of value. Given how most new buyers will run numbers factoring in RTU, I feel there would be great value in understanding the thought process of those who don’t see this as a reliable measure of value.

 

[Matty B13]

I think the age of the buyers has a lot to do with how one values the difference in a 2042 resort and the newer ones with 206X's resorts. My wife and I are in our later 30's and early 40's and won't consider a 2042 resort because with only 25 years left on the contract we wouldn't have the option to sell and get our money back after our kids (7-2 ages) were done enjoying Disney. I think DVC holds up it's value because you always have new parents wanting to bring their kids to Disney every year, and DVC gives you a good option to save at least a little money on the trips. We really hope that we are able to enjoy DVC and Disney as we get older and just hold on to our contracts and maybe bring grand kids, but it is nice the DVC's value has held up much more than other timeshares.

 

[Dean]

Can you explain this further?

If OKW vs OKW Extended is a good case study to illustrate your point, it would be helpful to have you explain that further, as it is more tangible than the more nebulous “future points” concept which, admittedly, I’m still struggling to understand is worth less than a point today.

At first, I thought it was a combination of assumed risk and lost opportunity cost that effectively make the points less valuable, but it seems you’re saying something else is in play.

I guess I'm not good at explaining the concept that paying for something that's far down the road has risk and should be a discounted rate just like on a bond. The opportunity cost does play into it but it's much more than that. in addition timeshares change and often not for the better, that and one's personal situation is where the risk comes into play. Where a given timeshare will be in 25 years is a major gamble even if it's DVC. Effectively when you look at buying DVC, or any similar timeshare, you're really looking at the value of each point or each years points independently. Just like a stripped vs loaded contract except 25 years down the line. Specific to DVC one would be gambling that the last years would be worth the additional up front cost. That's really all you're buying, it's a depreciating asset.

If we compare to BLT and the real cost long term (up front, lost opportunity (used 4.5%), dues with inflation (used 3.5%)) 300 pts will cost you a total in the range of $458K vs $684K over the life of the contracts. So is CCV worth over $200K more to get the 6 extra years? maybe it is for some, not for others. Obviously there are other nuances specific to those resorts (points, sleeping capacity, etc) that would vary with each comparison. The perks are peanuts IMO for most so I don't think that adds enough financial impact to put it on the plus side of the ledge, it's just a nice trinket.

Specific to OKW extended, at the time the extension was originally offered it cost $15 per point and the increased market value resale was only around $7-8 per point which was my judgement of the inherent financial value of those points.

A little sidetracked on the discussion about the value placed on extra years but isn’t it as simple as saying that in year 2042 one will be worth zero but the other one with 15 remaining years will still be worth x amount of dollars?

It will have potential value and risk/commitment. IMO it's an assumption it will be worth much with 15 years remaining but even if it is, one could always buy a different contract to get back there.

 

[Frederic Civish]

I have a number of different contracts. On my Polynesian, when I bought it (325 points), I had them split it up into four contracts of 75 points each and one contract of 25 points. I don't know if I will ever sell, but I presume that somewhere down the road, our family will probably unload them, and when they do, I think this will give a bit more value back to us.

 

[RX8]

So my decision.......

I have rescinded. While DVC was willing to split the 175 points into two contracts, and were willing to change my use year, I am just not 100% certain the CCV (or WDW for that matter) is the right choice for us. While we live in the east coast now we are California people who will eventually move closer to the west coast. We are in CA every year visiting family and visits to Florida would be to specifically stay at the resorts which would be probably every two or three years.

DVC confirmed that they do not have any VGC direct sales and no longer carry a waitlist. I will now have plenty of time to explorer my options with VGC resale. If I end up deciding that CCV will work for me and my family I know I can get the exact same deal I walked away from.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[deerh]

Where a given timeshare will be in 25 years is a major gamble even if it's DVC.

Not so sure about that. We have owned BWV for 19 years now, and only 6 more to the "magical 25 year mark". Seems as if it is in as good a shape as it
was 19 years ago. Disney is all about hotels/timeshares. It is their livelihood. Doubt they will let the timeshares they have deteriorate.. Don't understand how it is a "major gamble"....

 

[Frederic Civish]

So my decision.......

I have rescinded. While DVC was willing to split the 175 points into two contracts, and were willing to change my use year, I am just not 100% certain the CCV (or WDW for that matter) is the right choice for us. While we live in the east coast now we are California people who will eventually move closer to the west coast. We are in CA every year visiting family and visits to Florida would be to specifically stay at the resorts which would be probably every two or three years.

DVC confirmed that they do not have any VGC direct sales and no longer carry a waitlist. I will now have plenty of time to explorer my options with VGC resale. If I end up deciding that CCV will work for me and my family I know I can get the exact same deal I walked away from.

Yeah. If you really think you will be moving back to California, then you will want Grand Californian points. And you will need to buy them on Resale. Or, maybe points in a new, west coast/Disneyland DVC property. (Some people think they will add DVC to the new hotel they are building at Downtown Disney. That PROBABLY won't happen, for a number of reasons, but if it does, they might be a good option.)

VGC is very very difficult to get into, unless you have it as your home resort. I have done it several times, but as they say, "It wasn't easy!" Or cheap.

 

[Dean]

Not so sure about that. We have owned BWV for 19 years now, and only 6 more to the "magical 25 year mark". Seems as if it is in as good a shape as it
was 19 years ago. Disney is all about hotels/timeshares. It is their livelihood. Doubt they will let the timeshares they have deteriorate.. Don't understand how it is a "major gamble"....

It's OK to disagree and we do. We're in long period of growth, think back to the last 2 downturns. Disney struggled during those times and it's likely DVC kept them afloat but still dues were rising because they are set to costs.

 

[deerh]

It's OK to disagree and we do. We're in long period of growth, think back to the last 2 downturns. Disney struggled during those times and it's likely DVC kept them afloat but still dues were rising because they are set to costs.

I will agree that IF the"wrong" timeshare is purchased, it would be a major gamble! But, DVC is not in that category. At least not in my opinion....

 

[Dean]

I will agree that IF the"wrong" timeshare is purchased, it would be a major gamble! But, DVC is not in that category. At least not in my opinion....

You put more faith in timeshares, luxury items, vacation items, etc than I do and I have 25 years of timeshare experience with multiple different companies including Fairfield, Wyndham, Bluegreen, DVC and Marriott. Look at GE stock or think back to Enron or Halliburton. Heck, just look at today's sports news for those Ohio State fans. There are FAR too many things that can happen, DVC is not a sure bet long term, it's only marginal over the next few years given the current prices. Certainly we're all betting on them but a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing when it comes to timeshares. Even if the product remains viable, it might not remain a good fit for a given member.

 

[deerh]

You put more faith in timeshares, luxury items, vacation items, etc than I do and I have 25 years of timeshare experience with multiple different companies including Fairfield, Wyndham, Bluegreen, DVC and Marriott. Look at GE stock or think back to Enron or Halliburton. Heck, just look at today's sports news for those Ohio State fans. There are FAR too many things that can happen, DVC is not a sure bet long term, it's only marginal over the next few years given the current prices. Certainly we're all betting on them but a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing when it comes to timeshares. Even if the product remains viable, it might not remain a good fit for a given member.

I guess we will disagree, but that is ok. I am an optimist, and buying a timeshare that is a known name seems a pretty good bet. Who would have thought that DVC would go up to $185-195/point when I bought in 1999 for $65/point? I don't think DVC is marginal over the next few years. People keep buying the DVC timeshares, and Disney keeps building them. Yes, in 20 years they may not build anymore or less than that, but with Disney in the "vacation business" for 60+ years, I feel better than other timeshare products out there... I look at Disney as the "Apple Corporation" of vacations.. But that is my opinion... Guess I like my glass half full...

 

[Bing Showei]

I look at Disney as the "Apple Corporation" of vacations.

Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1996, 20 successful years after its founding.

All it took was change in management and some miscalculations of the market and the company almost went belly up. Things change.

 

[deerh]

Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1996, 20 successful years after its founding.

All it took was change in management and some miscalculations of the market and the company almost went belly up. Things change.

Very true... But, I have this strange feeling that Disney won't go bankrupt anytime soon.. I know-"never say never", but they have been doing "vacation for families" a LOT longer than most... And timeshares for 27 years... I know things change, but I feel good for the foreseeable future people going to Disney and staying on property at a resort/timeshare...

 

[Matty B13]

Very true... But, I have this strange feeling that Disney won't go bankrupt anytime soon.. I know-"never say never", but they have been doing "vacation for families" a LOT longer than most... And timeshares for 27 years... I know things change, but I feel good for the foreseeable future people going to Disney and staying on property at a resort/timeshare...

That's what I thought about GE........... how could a company fall apart after 100 plus years.

 

[Dean]

I guess we will disagree, but that is ok. I am an optimist, and buying a timeshare that is a known name seems a pretty good bet. Who would have thought that DVC would go up to $185-195/point when I bought in 1999 for $65/point? I don't think DVC is marginal over the next few years. People keep buying the DVC timeshares, and Disney keeps building them. Yes, in 20 years they may not build anymore or less than that, but with Disney in the "vacation business" for 60+ years, I feel better than other timeshare products out there... I look at Disney as the "Apple Corporation" of vacations.. But that is my opinion... Guess I like my glass half full...

It is faith and not based on any verifiable metrics. Is it a reasonable bet, sure but it's still a gamble. As noted, Apple almost went under and are only one failed venture from that possibility again. Look back at Disney during the 2 downturns in the last 20 yrs.

ETA: Marriott has been in timeshares almost 10 years longer than DVC with a lot more properties. While they are still a solid company and must of what you say applies to them as well, and likely more so in some aspects, they have 9 properties that were under their umbrella, some of which they sold resales on to people because they were Marriott, that are no longer in their system.

 

[Frederic Civish]

That's what I thought about GE........... how could a company fall apart after 100 plus years.

I think that if you are evaluating the future of a company it is essential to look at what the company does, what services they provide, and what kind of competition they have. Disney has become a monstrous entertainment company. They produce more than half of the big blockbuster movies every year and a number of more moderate movies every year. This brings in billions of dollars in income, and profit. They have expanded to own Star Wars comic super heroes from marvel and now, soon, 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox has been one of their few competitors in the blockbuster movie business. Disney uses all of those movies to feed into their toy business, Disney memorabilia business, and their theme parks. Just the toys from Star Wars are worth billions of dollars a year. It is true that Disney could fall apart, anything can, but where is the competition that is going to overwhelm them and push them under. No one else does any of those things as well as Disney does. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC as well as a number Of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see Disney going away. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC and a number of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their own a Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see is movie going away or falling apart, or getting into serious trouble. They are diverse, and nothing new is coming down the pike to ‘replace’ what they do. Their biggest problem would be if they overextended themselves and spend money that they don’t have and then cannot cover it because of a downturn in the economy. But with them covering such a broad range of entertainment options that probably would not happen as long as they have reasonable foresight.

 

[Dean]

I think that if you are evaluating the future of a company it is essential to look at what the company does, what services they provide, and what kind of competition they have. Disney has become a monstrous entertainment company. They produce more than half of the big blockbuster movies every year and a number of more moderate movies every year. This brings in billions of dollars in income, and profit. They have expanded to own Star Wars comic super heroes from marvel and now, soon, 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox has been one of their few competitors in the blockbuster movie business. Disney uses all of those movies to feed into their toy business, Disney memorabilia business, and their theme parks. Just the toys from Star Wars are worth billions of dollars a year. It is true that Disney could fall apart, anything can, but where is the competition that is going to overwhelm them and push them under. No one else does any of those things as well as Disney does. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC as well as a number Of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see Disney going away. It is the best theme park company and the best movie company out there. It dominates pop culture in many ways. Disney owns ABC and a number of cable channels. Disney owns many TV shows above and beyond their own a Disney network TV shows. I just don’t see is movie going away or falling apart, or getting into serious trouble. They are diverse, and nothing new is coming down the pike to ‘replace’ what they do. Their biggest problem would be if they overextended themselves and spend money that they don’t have and then cannot cover it because of a downturn in the economy. But with them covering such a broad range of entertainment options that probably would not happen as long as they have reasonable foresight.

But even if Disney does OK, that doesn't mean DVC will necessarily.

 

[Frederic Civish]

But even if Disney does OK, that doesn't mean DVC will necessarily.

True. But DVC has been around now for what, 20 years or so? Didn’t they started in 1999? Timeshare is not an unknown business. The paths have been well marked out in the past by Disney and other companies. Of all the Timeshare companies out there Disney is the premium top number one no question leader. That is due to the fact that they are Disney, the fact that they have properties which are so desirable, the fact that they had made good choices, and the fact that they have right of first refusal and they actually use it. That keeps prices up.

No one can predict how well DVC will do in the future or how fast it will grow. It is quite possible that prices for DVC will stabilize and stagnate and not even go up. But even if that is the case, there will still be demand to use DVC properties. And everybody that owns it can still get their vacations.

Let’s face it, you can always be negative or ‘cautious’ about anything. Sometimes you need to. DVC is not Disney, but it is a not insignificant part of Disney. What timeshare is better? But, if you had to bet on Disney compared to the success of almost any other company, would you really REALLY bet against Disney? Would you really choose anyone else as being likely to be more successful?