Riviera Pricing Released

[Madame]

I don't think the post you replied to was at all addressing the manipulation of point charts in anyway. They were more highlighting that DVD has built resorts that were very tiered in nature while deciding to classify them all as one tier. Since the joining of the resorts to DVC is done by DVD (at their sole approval) DVCMC has 0 say in this matter, so being a different company, which legally it already is just the same people work for it, won't change what DVD did in this regard at all. This tiering of resorts has led to people being upset (likely direct purchasers) that they can't access other resorts at 7 months. The reason I say likely direct purchasers is because the resale purchasers are falling into two camps 1) buy with the intention of using that other places so buy the cheapest points or 2) buy with the intention of using the points during the home reservation period because they are aware of the strain at 7 months. Regardless of peoples feelings the fact that DVD decided to create underwhelming resorts led to this problem (people buying with little intention of staying at the home resort unless it is the utter last choice) many could disagree on this point but if all resorts were the same tier then the resale prices would be similar (when adjusting for length of contract).

I think the poster was meaning to suggest that what DVD has done is created a way in which they themselves can control the tiering of the resorts exogenous to the DVC Reservation Component without directly upsetting the system that existed at the time everyone signed their contracts. Right or wrong wasn't the intention of this post.

Yeah, I don’t think they’re trying to fix the flaw in the system, a flaw they created btw.

They don’t care that cheap SSR points might flood the 7 mo window. They care that the low point charts make it harder to sell their shiny new DVC.

 

[crvetter]

Yeah, I don’t think they’re trying to fix the flaw in the system, a flaw they created btw.

They don’t care that cheap SSR points might flood the 7 mo window. They care that the low point charts make it harder to sell their shiny new DVC.

That is one in the same, cheap points flooding the system 100% make it harder to sell their "shiny new DVC". DVC, as a product, is the ability to use your points at other resorts, occasionally, at WDW to a large degree, so why would issues at the 7 month not be a flaw they want to fix. I never said the change benefited members exclusively, actually I never really offered an opinion either way on that in the post you replied to. I merely stated what I was told it was to make the direct purchases more attractive when it came in regard to exchanging at 7 months, by making the access easier, and that certain resorts (they wouldn't name which but it was fairly obvious) were predominately used during the DVC reservation component and were selling on the cheap, and buyers of more expensive resorts (they even claimed resale buyers too) where complaining. Now I wasn't a resale buyer at the time of that conversation, though I am now, I was a direct buyer so I'm likely inclined to believe some resale buyers are likely upset about the exchanging at 7 months. To be honest I still go back that there is a flaw in the resale prices and SSR/OKW/AKV to a degree are priced too low, not enough value is factored into the resale contracts for access to the DVC Reservation Component, more power to those that take advantage of that arbitrage opportunity.

As for it being a flaw they created, I've absolutely brought that up to them (and in my post) and their response was they want to fix that and have been trying; I have my opinions on this and again this is to only offer what I was told. They brought up the money invested in Disney Springs making OKW and SSR more attractive (directly connecting SSR), adding in new amenities at BRV with the CCV expansion to bolster that up (though it was always nice IMO), and if the rumors come true that AKL will get a new mode of transportation that will bolster that up significantly.

I'm against their change as I think other measures would have been more appropriate and fix the problem in a better way without tarnishing the brand too much but it is where it is at until they decide (if they do) to revert the changes.

 

[Aussie RJ]

Yeah, I don’t think they’re trying to fix the flaw in the system, a flaw they created btw.

They don’t care that cheap SSR points might flood the 7 mo window. They care that the low point charts make it harder to sell their shiny new DVC.

I think in the case of DRR there will be a flood of availability at 7 months for preferred view 1BDRs. Availability we now only see at perhaps BWV Garden/pool views or savanna views at AKV. The cost disparity sits somewhere between $80 to $100 per night when using SSR contracts to book BWV. But with the cost disparity at near $200 per night for a night stay in January at DRR when using a SSR resale, that left them with little option but to restrict resale so they could push direct.
I see the real problem as the DRR point charts and dues starting very high. They are too expensive.

 

[crvetter]

I see the real problem as the DRR point charts and dues starting very high. They are too expensive.

So now the direct buyers aren't just buying a resort but also buying access to the DVC Reservation component, as a means to justify the price.

I would argue that NOW things are not fair.

Perhaps saying the system isn't equatable would be a better phrase? It doesn't treat resale and direct buyers equally with access to Riviera; however, I would still say it's fair because none of the L14 owners were ever guaranteed access to Riviera prior to it joining DVC, which the resale restrictions were announced before that happening. So basically DVC gave you what you paid for, L14 is still able to trade at L14 and you were given Riviera as being grand-fathered in, so it was fair. However, they decided to treat future resale buyers unequally, which is how I also feel even though I feel the change was fair.

Personally the issue is DVC is getting to large and the DVC Reservation Component should have always had some sort of dynamic point weight component for trading of resorts into other resorts to handle the demand issues among the resorts. Unfortunately DVC didn't think that far ahead when setting up BVTC and our Resort Agreements. Plus this change would go over even worse than the resale restrictions I bet.

 

[Madame]

That is one in the same, cheap points flooding the system 100% make it harder to sell their "shiny new DVC". DVC, as a product, is the ability to use your points at other resorts, occasionally, at WDW to a large degree, so why would issues at the 7 month not be a flaw they want to fix. I never said the change benefited members exclusively, actually I never really offered an opinion either way on that in the post you replied to. I merely stated what I was told it was to make the direct purchases more attractive when it came in regard to exchanging at 7 months, by making the access easier, and that certain resorts (they wouldn't name which but it was fairly obvious) were predominately used during the DVC reservation component and were selling on the cheap, and buyers of more expensive resorts (they even claimed resale buyers too) where complaining. Now I wasn't a resale buyer at the time of that conversation, though I am now, I was a direct buyer so I'm likely inclined to believe some resale buyers are likely upset about the exchanging at 7 months. To be honest I still go back that there is a flaw in the resale prices and SSR/OKW/AKV to a degree are priced too low, not enough value is factored into the resale contracts for access to the DVC Reservation Component, more power to those that take advantage of that arbitrage opportunity.

As for it being a flaw they created, I've absolutely brought that up to them (and in my post) and their response was they want to fix that and have been trying; I have my opinions on this and again this is to only offer what I was told. They brought up the money invested in Disney Springs making OKW and SSR more attractive (directly connecting SSR), adding in new amenities at BRV with the CCV expansion to bolster that up (though it was always nice IMO), and if the rumors come true that AKL will get a new mode of transportation that will bolster that up significantly.

I'm against their change as I think other measures would have been more appropriate and fix the problem in a better way without tarnishing the brand too much but it is where it is at until they decide (if they do) to revert the changes.

I wasn’t trying to be disagreeable. Merely pointing out that I understood the PP’s point, and did not agree with it.

Honestly it’s been a problem for a while, so why now? Because they’ve jacked the charts and prices for new resorts beyond reason & instead of blaming themselves they scapegoat resalers and look for problems to make their direct buyers feel better. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Aussie RJ]

I wasn’t trying to be disagreeable. Merely pointing out that I understood the PP’s point, and did not agree with it.

Honestly it’s been a problem for a while, so why now? Because they’ve jacked the charts and prices for new resorts beyond reason & instead of blaming themselves they scapegoat resalers and look for problems to make their direct buyers feel better. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Exactly. They are indirectly using the rise in points charts / dues to justify the resale restrictions.

 

[crvetter]

I wasn’t trying to be disagreeable. Merely pointing out that I understood the PP’s point, and did not agree with it.

Honestly it’s been a problem for a while, so why now? Because they’ve jacked the charts and prices for new resorts beyond reason & instead of blaming themselves they scapegoat resalers and look for problems to make their direct buyers feel better. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you. I don't think it is resale owners either but a resort was unsuccessful, so I apologize if it came across as an attack on resale owners it wasn't my intention. My intention was to offer the reasoning I see and was given for the change, which was to remove the arbitrage opportunities that exist on the resale market, because a resort was unsuccessful thus leading to an under-pricing considering its equal access to the DVC Reservation Component. If DVC did nothing the DVC Reservation Component would eventually become so burdened it would stop working when more resorts became unsuccessful. They can do it two ways restrict access or build only successful resorts. Though it is hard to know if a resort will be successful with foresight. Since the DVC Reservation Component is perhaps the biggest selling point of DVC, DVD absolutely did the change for this reason in my eyes to give them a chance to justify their price, though little to do with point charts since most non-2042 resorts have the high point charts. Eventually the change will change again because there won't be any place for people to exchange into because no one can exchange out of old resorts so I agree it is flawed.

I must also point out the arbitrage opportunity exists exclusively within resale vs resale and isn't an issue with resale vs direct. Why would someone that wants to stay 1 bedrooms in say summer ever buy BWV/BCV/BLT points when SSR/OKW/AKV are cheaper and will likely afford the same opportunity, thus the arbitrage.

Also I want to say everyone should absolutely do what is most financially beneficial if they desire and don't fault them for doing so.

 

[Aussie RJ]

Meanwhile I’m off to buy sleep around points at SSR. Here’s to putting faith in @skier_pete and the 7 month availability! As for the system.. I’ll do my best to avoid SSR lol..

 

[ELMC]

I think the poster was meaning to suggest that what DVD has done is created a way in which they themselves can control the tiering of the resorts exogenous to the DVC Reservation Component without directly upsetting the system that existed at the time everyone signed their contracts. Right or wrong wasn't the intention of this post.

Yes. Except for that I would never use the word "exogenous". I had to look that one up when I read it.

Sorry, but I disagree. Given the number of changes that Disney has been making with DVC I think the safest thing is to assume the worst and that they are trying to ring every nickel and dime out of us. With any long term investment you really want stability. Here we are 20+ years into the program and Disney is trying to make some major rule changes. They are even trying to change what rules they are allowed and not allowed to change. So no, I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

One thing that the resale market does reasonably well is set the value of resorts. All information on resorts and how the system works is out there. SSR is priced where it is because buyers already are factoring in the ability to sleep around with SSR points. So to me, it is perfectly fair the way the system works. I bought BWV and BLT to only stay at those resorts and to book at 11 months out. I bought SSR to book at 7 months and to try and book at other resorts. If I couldn't book outside of SSR, then the price I would be willing to pay for SSR would be less.

No need to apologize, I wrote this post knowing (and hoping) that you would disagree. But we agree on one thing, the system is imbalanced, which I think is a better word than fair. Some people use that imbalance to their advantage, some complain about it. When Disney tries to address the imbalance, those who used it to their advantage are going to be negatively impacted and those who complained about it will be positively impacted, in some way, shape or form.

I should be clear, I'm not saying that my either of our perspectives is right or wrong. You may very well be right. But this is more about how I choose to process it. I've seen a lot of negative feelings towards DVC and by extension towards Disney as a result of the changes in the past few months. Right or wrong, having those feelings is generally irrelevant to Disney and VERY relevant to us...in some very negative ways. Listen, I'm not buying Riviera for a variety of reasons that reconcile with my DVC ownership strategy. But I've learned to suspend my disbelief a long time ago and it has helped me enjoy my Disney experiences while choosing to ignore the fact that ticket prices have gone up 60%, services have been cut, extras have been cut, etc. etc. The day I stop being able to do that is the day I stop being able to enjoy Disney, and I'm not ready for that yet.

I'm sorry I think it is completely 100% fair. Every owner at every resort has the 11 month to 7 month priority window into which he/she can book that resort without having those of us with "lesser" resorts poaching their rooms. If you are buying at VGF or Poly or Riviera, you are paying for that home resort priority. If you don't use it, well that's not a fault of the system. And until recently all owners were treated the same. Until these new rules. I would argue that NOW things are not fair.

If the system is "broken" its that they built this gigantic resort that most owners don't want to stay at(14 million points at SSR - more than VGC, VGF, BWV, BCV, AND WLV-BR COMBINED) . DISNEY broke the system to begin with - and now they are punishing members to "fix" the problem. And it's not going to fix the problem.

Yeah, like I said above, I struggled with the use of the word "fair" but I went with it anyway. Maybe it wasn't the best word choice but as I've established in my response to @crvetter I don't have the most goodish vocabulary. I will agree with you that the addition of SSR is probably the single biggest variable that puts stress on the DVC reservation system. And while many on this thread, myself included, have found ways to exploit that, let's not forget that there are many other threads on these forums going back years and years that speak very negatively about the impact SSR has on the system. I think that DVD is trying to mitigate that by making the new resorts that are on a higher level (I love BWV but Riviera rooms are much nicer IMO) and by creating the booking/resale restrictions. The way I see it, yes they created the problem, and they're trying to address it...better late than never. Would anyone prefer that they sat back and did nothing or continued to compound the problem? I'm not sure that would be any better.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Meanwhile I’m off to buy sleep around points at SSR. Here’s to putting faith in @skier_pete and the 7 month availability! As for the system.. I’ll do my best to avoid SSR lol..

Fellow Aussie here, @Aussie RJ . Unless you plan to regularly travel in Easter or the June holidays, the other school holidays you may be staying at SSR/doing forced multi-way split stays. Buying where you don't mind staying could be a safer bet.

Our September and summer holidays fall around the start and end of the busiest DVC period (Fall frenzy to Marathon week). Those are low points, low crowds, very pleasant times to visit.

ETA: I have 2.5 weeks booked in January at my home resorts (PVB+BLT+CCV). BCV, BWV and AKV that I'm hoping to trade into are already showing gaps for some of the days.

 

[Aussie RJ]

Fellow Aussie here, @Aussie RJ . Unless you plan to regularly travel in Easter or the June holidays, the other school holidays you may be staying at SSR/doing forced multi-way split stays. Buying where you don't mind staying could be a safer bet.

Our September and summer holidays fall around the start and end of the busiest DVC period (Fall frenzy to Marathon week). Those are low points, low crowds, very pleasant times to visit.

I will mainly travel in January school holidays. I have enough CCV direct points to see us past marathon weekend. Then I’ll book a 1 bedroom anywhere..

 

[ELMC]

To go back to my previous statement about "fairness" (which admittedly was a poor word choice) I'll offer this example:

Shortly before the restrictions went into place I was able to buy 350 VB points spread over two contracts for the exact same dollar amount as 100 points at DRR. I am currently paying about $1 more per point in maintenance fees. The DRR owner has 25 more years on the contract. The DRR owner can book at the Riviera four months ahead of me. Those are the only meaningful differences in our points (perks excluded for the sake of this conversation for obvious reasons). At the 7 month mark and at any other resort my dollar bought me 3.5 times as many points as their dollar. Does that sound balanced? Does that reflect the operations of a healthy timeshare system? Maybe it does, but to me it seems way off balance. The changes Disney made are attempting to address (not necessarily correct) that imbalance. I'm ok with that I guess.

Keep in mind, this isn't a slam on the Riviera or anyone who chose to buy there. I apologize in advance if it comes across that way. This is simply an example that if you are willing to make a few minor concessions then the differences between owning at different resorts are not commensurate with the wild variations in prices.

 

[vint43]

Looking over my Riviera contracts which arrived today I called out the following three items in the budget section.

I was curious if others knew how the other resorts compared?

First, the 2019 operating budget for the Riviera is based on only 69 vacation homes. So many of the line item costs are actually split between the hotel side and the DVC side for now. As more vacation homes come online - I have no idea how these relative numbers will change.

1- Disney charges a 12% management fee for the Riviera. This is a percentage of all line item operating budgets for the resort. I assume this is consistent across all the DVC locations (i.e. 12% is the same everywhere)?

2- The line item budget for 2019 for transportation is the second largest line item on the budget. The top is housekeeping. The third is Administration and Front Desk. All three of these are similar in size. The fourth is maintenance. The fifth is the management fee itself. Is it unusual to have transportation be the second largest line item budget? This is where the Gondola plays out so I was curious how that compared to other resorts in terms of the operating budget.

3- The estimated operating budget for the Riviera for 2019 was $5.842 per point (again, on only 69 vacation homes in the mix). I assume the difference between this and the actual dues they estimated was the property tax assessment. Does this point to the property tax assessment being higher or is that pretty consistent across resorts in terms of percentages to operating / property tax?

I know there has been a lot of discussion about the MF at the Riviera.

I thought I would review that section carefully in the contract docs and provide this insight.

Frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough across the DVC system to spot any key anomalies in these numbers.

I do find it interesting they must make all these allocations / assessments in the beginning on a partial allocation of villas. I have no idea if the budget allocations perfectly scale with each villa or if they had released more or less upfront if the initial dues would have changed. It would seam to me as more and more villas come into the system, some of the line budgets might not scale perfectly and the overall dues might change. This might explain why new resorts have more flux in the early years as they sell and release more villas into the mix at varying rates.

 

[TexasChick123]

Looking over my Riviera contracts which arrived today I called out the following three items in the budget section.

I am also interested to hear others' analysis on these figures, but I do not know enough about them to weigh in.

How did your contracts arrive? Regular mail?

 

[vint43]

How did your contracts arrive? Regular mail?

Arrived by FedEx.

Also, forgot to mention, in multiple locations, in bold print, they spelled out the changes in resale and warned you that it could affect the resale value of the contract. I thought it was interesting as many people felt Disney might just slide this issue through and unsuspecting direct buyers in the future will never know this has occurred. To me, they took the opposite approach. They appeared to be very concerned that people might later sue/complain they had resale problems and wanted to make sure that disclosure was highly visible. I am guessing guides will not make it a "prime topic" but the legal folks as Disney certainly wanted to make sure people saw it.

 

[aoconnor]

Looking over my Riviera contracts which arrived today I called out the following three items in the budget section.

I was curious if others knew how the other resorts compared?

First, the 2019 operating budget for the Riviera is based on only 69 vacation homes. So many of the line item costs are actually split between the hotel side and the DVC side for now. As more vacation homes come online - I have no idea how these relative numbers will change.

1- Disney charges a 12% management fee for the Riviera. This is a percentage of all line item operating budgets for the resort. I assume this is consistent across all the DVC locations (i.e. 12% is the same everywhere)?

2- The line item budget for 2019 for transportation is the second largest line item on the budget. The top is housekeeping. The third is Administration and Front Desk. All three of these are similar in size. The fourth is maintenance. The fifth is the management fee itself. Is it unusual to have transportation be the second largest line item budget? This is where the Gondola plays out so I was curious how that compared to other resorts in terms of the operating budget.

3- The estimated operating budget for the Riviera for 2019 was $5.842 per point (again, on only 69 vacation homes in the mix). I assume the difference between this and the actual dues they estimated was the property tax assessment. Does this point to the property tax assessment being higher or is that pretty consistent across resorts in terms of percentages to operating / property tax?

1-Yes, that's standard

2-Not standard- how much is transportation per point? As points of reference, AKV is $0.57 pp and Poly is $0.65 pp (w/ monorail). At both of these resorts housekeeping (largest line item) is 2-2.5x larger than transportation.

3- Operating expenses at random other resorts are $4.09 (VGF), $4.46 (Poly), and $4.19 (OKW) so 31-44% higher at Riviera

They tend to be conservative with the property taxes on new resorts. I recall CCV had a de minimus dues increase in its second year because the taxes came in lower than the estimate.

 

[crvetter]

1- Disney charges a 12% management fee for the Riviera. This is a percentage of all line item operating budgets for the resort. I assume this is consistent across all the DVC locations (i.e. 12% is the same everywhere)?

This is similar across all resorts.

2- The line item budget for 2019 for transportation is the second largest line item on the budget. The top is housekeeping. The third is Administration and Front Desk. All three of these are similar in size. The fourth is maintenance. The fifth is the management fee itself. Is it unusual to have transportation be the second largest line item budget? This is where the Gondola plays out so I was curious how that compared to other resorts in terms of the operating budget.

I think this is the exact order of CCV.

3- The estimated operating budget for the Riviera for 2019 was $5.842 per point (again, on only 69 vacation homes in the mix). I assume the difference between this and the actual dues they estimated was the property tax assessment. Does this point to the property tax assessment being higher or is that pretty consistent across resorts in terms of percentages to operating / property tax?

Essentially for the 69 homes is to contribute how much the association is responsible vs the Resort side of Disney. I believe this is common for the large builds initially when some sit as cash for a long time. As for the number you quoted they have three components in Dues: Maintenance, Capital Reserves, and Property Tax. I believe, without looking at the papers, that the 5.842 is without the Property Tax and Capital Reserves.

Could you provide the actual budget scanned papers, people might be interested on here to see the numbers and could see how it stacks against the other resorts better?

 

[vint43]

Opps.

For final accuracy on the overall budget (per pt:

- $5.6331 Operating Budget (*which was different then their budget worksheet above)
- $.9147 for Capital Reserves
- $1.7604 for Taxes

$8.3082 total.

Lastly, the 12% management feed EXCLUDES the transportation budget. I am assuming that prevents Disney "double dipping" for a few paid to them.

 

[crvetter]

Opps.

For final accuracy on the overall budget (per pt:

- $5.6331 Operating Budget (*which was different then their budget worksheet above)
- $.9147 for Capital Reserves
- $1.7604 for Taxes

$8.3082 total.

Lastly, the 12% management feed EXCLUDES the transportation budget. I am assuming that prevents Disney "double dipping" for a few paid to them.

Yes it does exclude that at all the other resorts, too.

 

[vint43]

2-Not standard- how much is transportation per point? As points of reference, AKV is $0.57 pp and Poly is $0.65 pp (w/ monorail). At both of these resorts housekeeping (largest line item) is 2-2.5x larger than transportation.

They estimated transportation to be $1.3362 per point. So that alone represents a large percentage of the MF difference.