Riviera Resale Values

[Bing Showei]

So then to be clear, you think DVC will not allow rentals in the future?

I think if Disney found a way to eliminate renting as it exists today, with owners who buy enough points, often on the resale market, to offset their own costs of ownership, they would. This is not inconsistent with the direction the timeshare division is going with policies focused on increasing Disney's share of dollars moving through their timeshare product. It's at the heart of the resale restrictions.

Every response saying that rentals "won't be eliminated, but could be crippled" is saying the same thing I'm saying. The contract is written to allow exactly that.

I think you are misunderstanding what was originally stated on this thread about renting out points. The point of renting wasn’t in any way stated as a way of “making that ownership possible”.

I'm confident I understood what you stated around renting. You described ownership as having the safety net that if people couldn't use their points "for a few years" that they could always rent points to cover their costs; saying essentially that buying in a pretty safe bet financially. "...buy Riviera direct and don't look back! Because the reality is that once you own, you can always rent points to cover the MFs..."

Not a lot of ambiguity there. It was a strongly worded vote of confidence in the rental system, as it exists today, making ownership viable even if you can't go to Disney every year. Your exact words:

If someone (like you) fully intends and wants to be enjoying DVC for the next 50 years then, absolutely, buy Riviera direct and don't look back! Because the reality is that, once you own, you can always rent points to cover the MFs if you aren't in a position to make those Disney trips for a few years.

You seemed to temper your enthusiasm around renting later qualifying that...

Anyone who rents their points every year shouldn’t be allowed to continue that practice. DVC has every right to do whatever they can to stop that.

So how many is a few years but not every year? Is two years ok but three years is too many? How about the Riviera owner who bought pre-pandemic in January 2020 but doesn't want to travel given the change in the theme park/safety measures? Are they able to rent for the foreseeable future until the parks return to normal? How many years is it ok to rent their points? Is it considered "every year" since technically every year they've owned they've needed to rent?

The language in the contract is soft enough that Disney's definition may not be the same as yours. That's my point.

It may seem sacrilege to owners on these boards (the same boards where people ask what to do with 3 points that are going to expire), but I get the sense a lot of owners let points expire unused in the real world. Owners I've spoken to in the parks talked about having not used their points for a few years just because they didn't have time/interest in going to WDW. Those owners didn't sweat it. Their families just did something else. Those are the owners Disney wants. People who use their points, bank them when they don't; let some expire; exchange into DCL, ABD, and the Concierge Collection, without a thought for "point values." Those people will never be affected by resale restrictions or rental restrictions.

People who are buying into Disney's timeshare today, needs to embrace the company's philosophy post-2019. The points are for you to use and enjoy. Anything else, Disney will view as competition, be it resale or rental.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I think if Disney found a way to eliminate renting as it exists today, with owners who buy enough points, often on the resale market, to offset their own costs of ownership, they would. This is not inconsistent with the direction the timeshare division is going with policies focused on increasing Disney's share of dollars moving through their timeshare product. It's at the heart of the resale restrictions.

Every response saying that rentals "won't be eliminated, but could be crippled" is saying the same thing I'm saying. The contract is written to allow exactly that.

I'm confident I understood what you stated around renting. You described ownership as having the safety net that if people couldn't use their points "for a few years" that they could always rent points to cover their costs; saying essentially that buying in a pretty safe bet financially. "...buy Riviera direct and don't look back! Because the reality is that once you own, you can always rent points to cover the MFs..."

Not a lot of ambiguity there. It was a strongly worded vote of confidence in the rental system, as it exists today, making ownership viable even if you can't go to Disney every year. Your exact words:

You seemed to temper your enthusiasm around renting later qualifying that...

So how many is a few years but not every year? Is two years ok but three years is too many? How about the Riviera owner who bought pre-pandemic in January 2020 but doesn't want to travel given the change in the theme park/safety measures? Are they able to rent for the foreseeable future until the parks return to normal? How many years is it ok to rent their points? Is it considered "every year" since technically every year they've owned they've needed to rent?

The language in the contract is soft enough that Disney's definition may not be the same as yours. That's my point.

It may seem sacrilege to owners on these boards (the same boards where people ask what to do with 3 points that are going to expire), but I get the sense a lot of owners let points expire unused in the real world. Owners I've spoken to in the parks talked about having not used their points for a few years just because they didn't have time/interest in going to WDW. Those owners didn't sweat it. Their families just did something else. Those are the owners Disney wants. People who use their points, bank them when they don't; let some expire; exchange into DCL, ABD, and the Concierge Collection, without a thought for "point values." Those people will never be affected by resale restrictions or rental restrictions.

People who are buying into Disney's timeshare today, needs to embrace the company's philosophy post-2019. The points are for you to use and enjoy. Anything else, Disney will view as competition, be it resale or rental.

I think you’re reading a little bit too much into what I am saying. “A few years” is not definable. It’s in the spirit of it. As in, don’t go into it assuming to rent all the time. I stated that quite clearly several times. I’ve said on multiple occasions that someone buying into DVC with the thought that they are going to rent on a consistent basis shouldn’t buy into DVC. However, if you need to rent sporadically that is OK. Renting should be something that you do sporadically when you can’t use your points.

It seems you are playing the “gotcha” game by trying to make it seem like my point has shifted throughout this conversation. It hasn’t. I’ve stated it multiple times on this thread but here it is in one sentence: I think it is OK to periodically rent points and enter into a DVC ownership contract knowing that the ability to rent is there, and I don’t think DVC will ever discontinue the ability to rent. This has turned into a very long discussion on what was a simple point...renting points. You originally jumped into the conversation by stating that Disney doesn’t grant rights to rent and that they can take it away at any time. You then posted long comments with “evidence” to back that up. So that’s why I asked you in my last comment if you think they will discontinue renting in the future. Because if you don’t, then what is the point of presenting evidence that they can/will? I don’t think they will. It seems you do. We just differ on that.

 

[DougEMG]

Good points, but i think in 2042 BCV and BWV will hurt RIV resales instead of help them because those resorts will have 50 years and be on the boardwalk and Cresent Lake

I think that BCV and BWV will be so expensive then, that they will drive some demand to resale RIV as the cheaper alternative.

 

[DougEMG]

Because resale will be cheaper and DIS and other forums have proven there are way too many cheap people buying DVC and in 20 years nothing will change.

I prefer frugal over cheap

 

[DougEMG]

Do you think Disney monitors renting ?
When I first became a member (purchased with Disney Cast Discount VWL 2000)...I think I got a warning letter Notice.
I was not renting but using points for married daughter w/ different last name. So I didn’t worry but it is in my memory recall and this discussion just reminded me.This might have pertained to castmembers specifically since part of my agreement was not to immediately resell to make a profit off my purchase. Anyway If Disney needs to they will find a way.

personally I wish they did not allow renting.
Maybe we need a survey.
What other Things can affect the corporate decision to “ allow/ ignore “ the rental as it currently is described and believed in. ?

They do monitor all reservations. Renting is allowed. Having a business that does rentals is not allowed. Their definitions of renting as a business is anyone who has 20+ reservations not in their name in a rolling 12 month period.

You need a lot of points on 1 membership to have more than 20 rentals in 12 months. I doubt that even most people with 1000+ points aren't being effected by that rule.

 

[DougEMG]

Anyone who rents their points every year shouldn’t be allowed to continue that practice. DVC has every right to do whatever they can to stop that.

I said from the beginning that entering into a DVC contract with the intention of continuously renting points isn’t a smart move. DVC is not an investment, it’s a luxury. However, renting every once in awhile when owners can’t travel is ok. And I really don’t see DVC stopping that practice.

I disagree with your first point. Renting points is allowed, running a commercial business renting points is not allowed. DVC has already stated what their definitions of commercial renting is.

So in my view if someone wants to buy 100 points and rent them out each and every year, they can and Disney can't stop them. Wither someone should do that is a different story.

 

[JETSDAD]

First I don't think they would ever bother to try to stop renting outside of the current policy. Having said that, I think owners should think twice when they say that they actually want Disney to stop rentals. The only thing they could really do to police something like that would be to require the member to be on the reservation and to be the one who checks in. No rooms booked for friends or family on your points because Disney has no way of knowing the difference. This is also why I don't think they would ever make such a change.

It's like people paying for transfers right now. It's against the rules but Disney really has no way to police it because they have no idea if there has been a payment or not.

 

[gisele2]

PS - I have read so many threads on these boards where people have "spreadsheeted" buying into DVC to death. They try to examine every single little angle to validate buying into DVC. I get it...it's a lot of money. But it is impossible to 100% quantify a DVC membership, IMO. A lot of the value in a DVC membership is driven by emotion. It's fun...and memories...and family together time. If a family can afford it and wants to continue visiting WDW into the future (and saving on deluxe rooms in the process), then do it!!

I agree with you , bought without financing , bought where I want to stay , but I am a deal chaser so did all the charts !!!! It is part of the fun for me. And I have a deep connexion with WDW , and I want to make more memories in the future with my family .

 

[dvc lover 1970]

I think that BCV and BWV will be so expensive then, that they will drive some demand to resale RIV as the cheaper alternative.

Most probably true

 

[Mkaiser1]

I’m loving reading the debate this has sparked. Particularly interesting rentals debate which is totally relevant.

I’m working on the basis that the cost to purchase direct at most resorts increases year on year. This helps to hold up the resale values. Refurbs also help. Skyliner is a great addition, and being ‘on the sky liner route’ I think will be an attraction. I think there comes a point where realistically the time left on a contract starts to mean that it steadily decreases in value (probably the 20-25 years left on the contract mark) and then perhaps drops off when there is less than 10 years left. But it’s all guess work.

Riviera on the other hand has the resale restrictions meaning that it will likely have an initial drop, followed by the the same year on year steady increase and then decrease at 25 years and drop off with 10 years left.

Just my thinking.

 

[Yankee626]

Anyone who buys a resale Riviera contract will only be able to book at that one resort. I believe that greatly diminishes the value of the contract. The best thing about DVC is the flexibility . Not to mention the dues are already higher than some of the older resorts. This was a bad move by DVC to restrict Riviera. if this is going to be a pattern on future DVC resorts it will devalue every future contract.

 

[chalee94]

Anyone who buys a resale Riviera contract will only be able to book at that one resort. I believe that greatly diminishes the value of the contract. The best thing about DVC is the flexibility . Not to mention the dues are already higher than some of the older resorts. This was a bad move by DVC to restrict Riviera. if this is going to be a pattern on future DVC resorts it will devalue every future contract.

As DVC execs have said the past few years, they want to move towards the "industry standard." Timeshare sleaze factories like Westgate operate with the model that they sell direct for tens of thousands of dollars...and if the owner tries to resell their contract, they find it difficult to get $1 on ebay.

I don't think DVC is headed for $1 resales, but the lower DVC can push resale prices, the more profit they get for churning ROFR contracts.

People who have the cash to burn can buy in with the idea that if their resale value drops to zero, it doesn't matter. If someone is more on the fence but thinks DVC is a different kind of timeshare that has historically held its resale value if their situation changes, they need to understand that the company is moving away from the old "Disney difference."

 

[Yankee626]

As DVC execs have said the past few years, they want to move towards the "industry standard." Timeshare sleaze factories like Westgate operate with the model that they sell direct for tens of thousands of dollars...and if the owner tries to resell their contract, they find it difficult to get $1 on ebay.

I don't think DVC is headed for $1 resales, but the lower DVC can push resale prices, the more profit they get for churning ROFR contracts.

People who have the cash to burn can buy in with the idea that if their resale value drops to zero, it doesn't matter. If someone is more on the fence but thinks DVC is a different kind of timeshare that has historically held its resale value if their situation changes, they need to understand that the company is moving away from the old "Disney difference."

Why would Disney want to be more like other timeshares when DVC has done so well ?

 

[chalee94]

Why would Disney want to be more like other timeshares when DVC has done so well ?

They have made a lot of money...but what if they could make even more money? They like selling AKV pts for $186 but they look over at an owner selling her contract for $120 and dream of the day when they can grab that contract with ROFR for next to nothing and resell it directly for $186. That owner selling her AKV contract for $120 is competing with them for buyers - maybe she even cost them a sale...

So with a lot of money on the table and rising profit targets every year, they want to compete more and more aggressively.

I'm old - I bought back when resale and direct were indistinguishable, so these changes bother me. A lot of new buyers don't care. Until their moves toward the "industry standard" start to hurt demand and limit their sales, we should expect them to keep moving towards being like other timeshares...

 

[Heather07438]

Yeah I'm not sure DVC intends to push resale prices low so they can cheaply scoop them up ROFR. That would increase the cost difference between resale/direct further, making direct harder to sell.

 

[chalee94]

Yeah I'm not sure DVC intends to push resale prices low so they can cheaply scoop them up ROFR. That would increase the cost difference between resale/direct further, making direct harder to sell.

That makes logical sense. But you are forgetting that the industry standard for timeshare sales is to move the delta between direct sale prices and resale prices to close to 100%. Marriott is still in business for direct sales when their resales are much cheaper. Westgate is almost a complete scam operation but they still find buyers willing to pay 5 figures for direct sales contracts. Lots of timeshares are sold without a lot of rationality being involved.

It's not hard to find posts on the board of people who would get little to no financial benefit from direct ownership of DVC but they still want to be a "full member" because... *pixie dust*...

 

[Yankee626]

They have made a lot of money...but what if they could make even more money? They like selling AKV pts for $186 but they look over at an owner selling her contract for $120 and dream of the day when they can grab that contract with ROFR for next to nothing and resell it directly for $186. That owner selling her AKV contract for $120 is competing with them for buyers - maybe she even cost them a sale...

So with a lot of money on the table and rising profit targets every year, they want to compete more and more aggressively.

I'm old - I bought back when resale and direct were indistinguishable, so these changes bother me. A lot of new buyers don't care. Until their moves toward the "industry standard" start to hurt demand and limit their sales, we should expect them to keep moving towards being like other timeshares...

Maybe DVC should be competing with more incentives rather than trying to devalue the entire product. People will not buy a real-estate interest in DVC if the product is worthless or they see how poorly they will be treated after signing the dotted line.

 

[Yankee626]

Instead of looking to piss off their best customers (DVC Owners) , maybe they should recognize how much money DVC members spend at DW on passes , food and merchandise.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I’m working on the basis that the cost to purchase direct at most resorts increases year on year. This helps to hold up the resale values. Refurbs also help. Skyliner is a great addition, and being ‘on the sky liner route’ I think will be an attraction.

One thing I haven't considered is my own biases towards the Skyliner. I view it as inferior to the monorail but thinking about it more... I believe that is because I grew up riding the monorail. As the Skyliner ages a bit and has shown itself to be reliable, maybe some of us "old timers" will view the Skyliner as on par with the Monorail and the properties on the line will rise in value.

They have made a lot of money...but what if they could make even more money? They like selling AKV pts for $186 but they look over at an owner selling her contract for $120 and dream of the day when they can grab that contract with ROFR for next to nothing and resell it directly for $186. That owner selling her AKV contract for $120 is competing with them for buyers - maybe she even cost them a sale...

The practices they're putting in place to control the $120 buyers might cost them the $186 sale though. They have to balance it.

 

[Heather07438]

It's not hard to find posts on the board of people who would get little to no financial benefit from direct ownership of DVC but they still want to be a "full member" because... *pixie dust*...

So true. And the future unknown comes in to play as well... they don't want to be excluded from new future perks.

Still if DVC allowed resale prices to drop, that takes away a large pro from trying to sell 40 or 50 year contracts. Most purchasers are reassured going in that if they change their mind in the future, they would still have something of decent value to sell back.

It's a balancing act.