Poly owner, Help me spend $20k-ish

[Genie+]

How is the shower situation better in a RIV studio (better than a RIV 1-bedroom)?

RIV studios, Poly long house studios, and VGF original studios (not Big Pine Key) all have a regular bathroom, plus an extra room with a swanky shower and sink. The regular bathroom has the typical bathtub/shower combo, toilet and sink. The extra area has a rainfall shower and bench set-up, plus another sink. So one person can be enjoying the lovely shower room and getting ready in there, while the toilet bathroom is still open for everyone else.

Here’s Poly long house:

 

[ShaneDJ]

The Riviera studio has a split bathroom with a shower and a shower/tub combo (2 showers mean 2 people can shower at the same time). The 1-bedroom has a shower, and a tub without a shower.

Okay...thanks!

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

In WDW there are studios with two showers at Riviera, Grand Floridian original studios (not Big Pine Key), and Polynesian original longhouses (not studios in new Poly Island Tower which have one shower)

In WDW, there are one-bedrooms with two full baths at Bay Lake Tower, Kidani, and Polynesian (so the two bedrooms at these resorts have three full bathrooms)

 

[Genie+]

In WDW there are studios with two showers at Riviera, Grand Floridian original studios (not Big Pine Key), and Polynesian original longhouses (not studios in new Poly Island Tower which have one shower)

In WDW, there are one-bedrooms with two full baths at Bay Lake Tower, Kidani, and Polynesian (so the two bedrooms at these resorts have three full bathrooms)

These really improve comfort and convenience for us. The rooms are much more functional.

 

[DanCali]

We have 200 poly direct and 50 poly resale. East coast family of 3 with tween. What are we buying at WDW before Tuesday price increase?

I'm a bit puzzled why you'd look to buy direct at all. You already have 200 direct points, and get all the benefits of DVC-Y, and can use those points at all the new resorts as well. For $20K-ish you can much more on the resale market than just about 100 direct points.

Unless you envision needing more than 200 direct points to book locations like RIV and CFW, or are desperate to book RIV at 11 months out to save a few points per night on the parking lot view, why not just buy resale points that you can use at 14 resorts for at least the next 15+ years (with plenty of nice resorts left even after 2042)?

We have direct points at just two resorts and they represent a relatively small fraction our total points. I just can't see us adding more direct points at current pricing levels.

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

I'm a bit puzzled why you'd look to buy direct at all. You already have 200 direct points, and get all the benefits of DVC-Y, and can use those points at all the new resorts as well. For $20K-ish you can much more on the resale market than just about 100 direct points.

Unless you envision needing more than 200 direct points to book locations like RIV and CFW, or are desperate to book RIV at 11 months out to save a few points per night on the parking lot view, why not just buy resale points that you can use at 14 resorts for at least the next 15+ years (with plenty of nice resorts left even after 2042)?

We have direct points at just two resorts and they represent a relatively small fraction our total points. I just can't see us adding more direct points at current pricing levels.

Fair question/points. Because for us it's not about DVC-Y. And it's not about buying as many points as we can. In our opinion it is a matter of quality of points vs quantity of points. It's about buying the amount of direct points we want to allow us to enjoy our membership the way we want. If we're paying the same dues on points whether they are direct vs resale then we want those points to be able to work everywhere for 40 years. That is our preferred strategy for our membership.

 

[marmentrout85]

Fair question/points. Because for us it's not about DVC-Y. And it's not about buying as many points as we can. In our opinion it is a matter of quality of points vs quantity of points. It's about buying the amount of direct points we want to allow us to enjoy our membership the way we want. If we're paying the same dues on points whether they are direct vs resale then we want those points to be able to work everywhere for 40 years. That is our preferred strategy for our membership.

This tends to be my line of thinking as well in regard to quality of points. For example, right now we're looking to probably add on at Poly but we also know we want more points to be able to use at Riviera. We could totally do both resale, but then we're likely adding more total points (most importantly paying dues for more points), than we would if we just bought, say, direct at Poly, which in theory kills two birds with one stone. Is it better to have, say, 200 points between the two in resale, or just 150 direct? The latter will obviously be cheaper in the long run, while being more expensive up front.

 

[Chili327]

This tends to be my line of thinking as well in regard to quality of points. For example, right now we're looking to probably add on at Poly but we also know we want more points to be able to use at Riviera. We could totally do both resale, but then we're likely adding more total points (most importantly paying dues for more points), than we would if we just bought, say, direct at Poly, which in theory kills two birds with one stone. Is it better to have, say, 200 points between the two in resale, or just 150 direct? The latter will obviously be cheaper in the long run, while being more expensive up front.

Why/how will 150 Direct be cheaper in the long run?

 

[maui22]

I agree. Only wish they made sure there was a sink in the toilet portion. Grosses me out that someone using the toilet may have to come outside the bathroom and use the kitchenette sink if the shower section is in use. It’s one reason I like the PVB longhouse studios.

 

[LittleBitGoofy]

Fair question/points. Because for us it's not about DVC-Y. And it's not about buying as many points as we can. In our opinion it is a matter of quality of points vs quantity of points. It's about buying the amount of direct points we want to allow us to enjoy our membership the way we want. If we're paying the same dues on points whether they are direct vs resale then we want those points to be able to work everywhere for 40 years. That is our preferred strategy for our membership.

That's where I've arrived as well for future contracts. We've got a nice stack of resale (BCV & CCV) that we'd use primarily at their respective resorts. Our VGF & Poly direct contracts are great for use there, but will also be usable at any resort in the future and those are more likely my SAPs. We've got 700+ pts now, about 2/3 resale & 1/3 direct, and I expect future purchases are more likely to be direct.

I could get a big ol' SSR if I wanted the cheapest SAP, but the upfront costs are just a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime expense. I'd rather have full flexibility of use over the years to come and expect I'll do smaller add-ons direct in the future. Then again, our directs so far have been at the non-restricted resorts and that may not be an option much longer, but it's part of our decision making process now.

 

[Tatebeck]

Why/how will 150 Direct be cheaper in the long run?

Because they are only paying dues on 150 points vs 200 over the long term I guess. But that means that they only get to use 150 instead of 200 as well. IDK why they aren't considering apples to apples and using 150 resale vs 150 direct though

 

[LittleBitGoofy]

Because they are only paying dues on 150 points vs 200 over the long term I guess. But that means that they only get to use 150 instead of 200 as well. IDK why they aren't considering apples to apples and using 150 resale vs 150 direct though

Was the apples to apples the upfront purchase price? So 200 resale for approx same cost as 150 direct?

 

[Chili327]

Because they are only paying dues on 150 points vs 200 over the long term I guess. But that means that they only get to use 150 instead of 200 as well. IDK why they aren't considering apples to apples and using 150 resale vs 150 direct though

Was the apples to apples the upfront purchase price? So 200 resale for approx same cost as 150 direct?

That is probably it... so more points = more dues.

 

[DanCali]

Because they are only paying dues on 150 points vs 200 over the long term I guess. But that means that they only get to use 150 instead of 200 as well. IDK why they aren't considering apples to apples and using 150 resale vs 150 direct though

Was the apples to apples the upfront purchase price? So 200 resale for approx same cost as 150 direct?

That is probably it... so more points = more dues.

To make it full "apples to apples" the comparison should be:

Upfront:
(assumption) 150 direct vs 200 resale have the same purchase price upfront

Ongoing:
Use 150 direct annually, or

Use 150 resale annually (same dues), and
Rent 50 resale annually presumably at $12/pt above dues which brings in $600 pretax.

Now the question is whether the extra value from the 150 direct (which are not purchased for DVC-Y benefits in the case of this discussion) vs the 150 resale is worth $600 every year in today's dollars. That's a subjective matter...

And then there's the issue of what happens if you exit in 5, 10 or 15 years (which many ignore, but matters a lot) - and the result would be that the direct contract (purchased at developer pricing) would incur a much higher capital loss vs. the resale contract, which was purchased at "fair market value".

 

[Chili327]

Now the question is whether the extra value from the 150 direct (which are not purchased for DVC-Y benefits in the case of this discussion) vs the 150 resale is worth $600 every year in today's dollars. That's a subjective matter...

And then there's the issue of what happens if you exit in 5, 10 or 15 years (which many ignore, but matters a lot) - and the result would be that the direct contract (purchased at developer pricing) would incur a much higher capital loss vs. the resale contract, which was purchased at "fair market value".

Indeed!

 

[marmentrout85]

Why/how will 150 Direct be cheaper in the long run?

Paying dues on 150 points every year instead of 200 points every year.

 

[DanCali]

Paying dues on 150 points every year instead of 200 points every year.

If you want to compare "apples to apples," you're missing the fact that the extra 50 resale points can be rented at a substantial profit over MFs and would actually generate an annual income (as opposed to an extra expense)

 

[Brian Noble]

The direct vs. resale question is not one of cost. Resale costs less. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The direct vs. resale question is one of value. And value is in the eye of the beholder.

And, that's perfectly reasonable. Because you know what costs less than resale? Exchanging a no-name timeshare that is pennies on the dollar to buy, has low annual fees, and results in an all-in cost per week that is less than any DVC owner would spend just on Dues to book the same thing.

I know, because I've done it for years. But very few DISers would ever suggest that as a meaningful alternative to buying resale, for a whole host of reasons, and despite the fact that it very clearly costs less than resale.

The developer vs. resale question is similar in character, but different in degree. That's a relatively new phenomenon, only in the past five years from the advent of RIV. But as the roster of restricted resorts grows, and as 2042 draws ever closer, the difference-in-degree will begin to matter more to more people.

And that's been Disney's plan all along.

 

[marmentrout85]

Was the apples to apples the upfront purchase price? So 200 resale for approx same cost as 150 direct?

Because they are only paying dues on 150 points vs 200 over the long term I guess. But that means that they only get to use 150 instead of 200 as well. IDK why they aren't considering apples to apples and using 150 resale vs 150 direct though

My bad lol I wasn't even trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison; mainly just wanted to comment that I agree with the "quality of points" statement.

In my situation specifically (which I'm not trying to derail this thread from OP's original question by any means, I'm just an over-sharer I guess) I'd like 150 pts at Poly and at least another 50 pts to use at Riviera if need be (to add 1-2 nights every other year or so in a 1BR). So, the way I've been thinking in my head is if I want to stay resale, I'd basically have to get a 50 pt resale RIV contract and a 150 point Polynesian resale contract to fill those 2 wants. A 150 point direct Polynesian contract would also fill those 2 wants. And if I went with direct at RIV that still doesn't get me an 11 month advantage at Poly.

 

[marmentrout85]

If you want to compare "apples to apples," you're missing the fact that the extra 50 resale points can be rented at a substantial profit over MFs and would actually generate an annual income (as opposed to an extra expense)

Making an apples-to-apples comparison was not my intent.