Riviera Sales by the numbers (vs CCV) for 2019 - (December added 1/16/2020)

[Madame]

I think you absolutely right! Sales have been pretty good with no indication of struggles. I believe it was mentioned here that only VGF performed better in a similar period, which is great news for DVD.

It seems the only people who want it to fail are people here hoping that RIV owners lose big on their contract, as if to prove a point to DVD that they should have never introduced the resale restrictions.

I can understand your point of view. Can you say the same?

Why should RIV buyers who are validating Disney’s new restrictions by purchasing RIV, expect resale buyers to pay top dollar for a restricted contract when there are others available or they could simply rent or pay cash and have freedom of choice?

It’s not a question of wanting RIV buyers to lose money, but rather resale buyers refusing to pay top dollar for a vastly handicapped product Have your cake, but don’t be shocked that others don’t like the taste.

 

[rspencer38]

I can understand your point of view. Can you say the same?

Why should RIV buyers who are validating Disney’s new restrictions by purchasing RIV, expect resale buyers to pay top dollar for a restricted contract when there are others available or they could simply rent or pay cash and have freedom of choice?

It’s not a question of wanting RIV buyers to lose money, but rather resale buyers refusing to pay top dollar for a vastly handicapped product Have your cake, but don’t be shocked that others don’t like the taste.

RIV owners are fully aware of the situation and decided to purchase not based on some future resale price, but rather they purchased as they see value in staying at this resort for many years to come. This is a luxury product that should never be considered an investment. It is an added bonus that SOME people are able to make money on the initial purchase.

If rule number one is to buy where you want to stay, then it doesn't matter that AK is $110 per point on the resale market if you want to stay at RIV or VGF. Why purchase any of the expensive resorts (even resale) when you can buy SSR/OKW/AKV for a fraction of the price? It's because people see value in the resorts that they like and can justify the price (whatever it may be).

 

[Madame]

RIV owners are fully aware of the situation and decided to purchase not based on some future resale price, but rather they purchased as they see value in staying at this resort for many years to come. This is a luxury product that should never be considered an investment. It is an added bonus that SOME people are able to make money on the initial purchase.

If rule number one is to buy where you want to stay, then it doesn't matter that AK is $110 per point on the resale market if you want to stay at RIV or VGF. Why purchase any of the expensive resorts (even resale) when you can buy SSR/OKW/AKV for a fraction of the price? It's because people see value in the resorts that they like and can justify the price (whatever it may be).

Then it shouldn’t matter to you that there are supposedly resale buyers who want the resort to fail. Problem solved. But I believe in their hearts many RIV buyers don’t believe that they won’t get their money back out of resale. Therein lies the problem.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

This is a luxury product that should never be considered an investment. It is an added bonus that SOME people are able to make money on the initial purchase.

An added bonus that some people can "make money " on the initial purchase. I don't think it's an added bonus that you should be able to recoup proportionate amount on your purchase. While DVC may not be a "non depreciating asset" like land or stocks, it very much an investment in lower vacation costs and should continue to provide "value" for 50 years. DVC is not like buying a retail product that within a few years you should not expect to get anywhere close to it's original purchase price on Craigslist.

 

[Cyberc1978]

RIV owners are fully aware of the situation and decided to purchase not based on some future resale price, but rather they purchased as they see value in staying at this resort for many years to come. This is a luxury product that should never be considered an investment. It is an added bonus that SOME people are able to make money on the initial purchase.

Not all DRR owners are aware of the resale restrictions, they might have heard about DVC in the past and thought: what a great investment. Its not like the salesmen point out the restrictions to people before they buy. At some point the owners will know the real truth about the restrictions and will have to take a loss if selling.

True no timeshare is an investment even though a lot of people believe so.

 

[rspencer38]

An added bonus that some people can "make money " on the initial purchase. I don't think it's an added bonus that you should be able to recoup proportionate amount on your purchase. While DVC may not be a "non depreciating asset" like land or stocks, it very much an investment in lower vacation costs and should continue to provide "value" for 50 years. DVC is not like buying a retail product that within a few years you should not expect to get anywhere close to it's original purchase price on Craigslist.

But the value isn't in reselling the contract, it is in the savings for the vacations. Would it be wrong to hold the contract for 50 years and never sell? The savings on the vacations is the attraction not the resale price. Also, it will be worth something so you will always recoup some of the initial cost. The longer you hold, the lower the impact of the resale price and the greater the savings realized from the vacations.

 

[rspencer38]

Not all DRR owners are aware of the resale restrictions, they might have heard about DVC in the past and thought: what a great investment. Its not like the salesmen point out the restrictions to people before they buy. At some point the owners will know the real truth about the restrictions and will have to take a loss if selling.

True no timeshare is an investment even though a lot of people believe so.

Although I was fully aware of the restrictions before purchasing, my guide did tell me about the restrictions.

 

[Marionnette]

RIV owners are fully aware of the situation and decided to purchase not based on some future resale price, but rather they purchased as they see value in staying at this resort for many years to come. This is a luxury product that should never be considered an investment. It is an added bonus that SOME people are able to make money on the initial purchase.

If rule number one is to buy where you want to stay, then it doesn't matter that AK is $110 per point on the resale market if you want to stay at RIV or VGF. Why purchase any of the expensive resorts (even resale) when you can buy SSR/OKW/AKV for a fraction of the price? It's because people see value in the resorts that they like and can justify the price (whatever it may be).

Are all RIV buyers fully aware of the resale restrictions? Or are they only aware of the impact on resales of the L14? Are guides making it clear to prospective buyers that in the event that they should sell their contract, the buyer would be restricted to only staying at RIV? Or are the guides just emphasizing the other side of the coin - L14 resale buyers (post 1/19) cannot use their points at RIV?

You should be happy with your purchase. But you should also be an informed consumer. If you purchased RIV with eyes wide open, then that’s all that should matter to you. But others have looked at the resale restrictions and come to a different conclusion.

 

[rspencer38]

Then it shouldn’t matter to you that there are supposedly resale buyers who want the resort to fail. Problem solved. But I believe in their hearts many RIV buyers don’t believe that they won’t get their money back out of resale. Therein lies the problem.

It doesn't bother me at all really, I just find interesting that the tone on this particular thread is that people are almost happy that it "seems" to be back firing on DVD that resale prices might be low.

I'm happy with my purchase and if I have to sell tomorrow for half, life goes on!

 

[Marionnette]

But the value isn't in reselling the contract, it is in the savings for the vacations. Would it be wrong to hold the contract for 50 years and never sell? The savings on the vacations is the attraction not the resale price. Also, it will be worth something so you will always recoup some of the initial cost. The longer you hold, the lower the impact of the resale price and the greater the savings realized from the vacations.

I disagree. The value is in both the “savings” on future vacations and the ability to sell the contract without taking a bath. I never would have purchased my first contract had I not researched and learned that unlike other timeshares, DVC retained its value and could be sold easily. I have never sold a contract, but it was reassuring that I could.

 

[rspencer38]

Are all RIV buyers fully aware of the resale restrictions? Or are they only aware of the impact on resales of the L14? Are guides making it clear to prospective buyers that in the event that they should sell their contract, the buyer would be restricted to only staying at RIV? Or are the guides just emphasizing the other side of the coin - L14 resale buyers (post 1/19) cannot use their points at RIV?

You should be happy with your purchase. But you should also be an informed consumer. If you purchased RIV with eyes wide open, then that’s all that should matter to you. But others have looked at the resale restrictions and come to a different conclusion.

My guide was very clear about the restrictions but I will admit that I was fully informed prior to purchase. I totally agree you need to be informed and should be made aware of all restrictions. I obviously haven't asked every single RIV owner but I'm not sure I have read about someone who purchased that wasn't aware of the restrictions (whether that is through their own research or via guide).

 

[CanadaDisney05]

But the value isn't in reselling the contract, it is in the savings for the vacations. Would it be wrong to hold the contract for 50 years and never sell? The savings on the vacations is the attraction not the resale price.

I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that when it is suggested that "DVC is not an investment" or "DVC is a sunk cost", that this is not true. The expectation should be that management maintains the product that you purchased, and does not diminish your ability to resell at a price point below the proportionate amount that you yourself used. DVC owners pay hefty maintenance fees every year to ensure that their "investment" stays in tact.

Also, it will be worth something so you will always recoup some of the initial cost. The longer you hold, the lower the impact of the resale price and the greater the savings realized from the vacations.

I agree. I think Riviera specifically is a different beast because they are selling it with the resale restrictions already in place. Whether they mention it in the sales pitch or not, the information is widely available. If someone doesn't take the time to do very basic research before spending thousands of dollars, that's on them.

However, the resale restrictions put on contracts that were established before Jan 2019 have effectively diminished the resale value of those contracts. Management is not acting in the best interest of the ownership. They are acting in the best interest of themselves. And while they may be within their legal right to do this based on specific wording buried into the thousands of pages these contracts, these possibilities would not have been easily forseen by average joe before buying the contract initially. IMO, this is an unethical, and shady business tactic.

Personally, I bought after the restrictions were in place, so I went into it with eyes wide open. But I feel for those who purchased prior.

 

[rspencer38]

I disagree. The value is in both the “savings” on future vacations and the ability to sell the contract without taking a bath. I never would have purchased my first contract had I not researched and learned that unlike other timeshares, DVC retained its value and could be sold easily. I have never sold a contract, but it was reassuring that I could.

But it was never marketed that way, nor has any timeshare program anywhere been designed to make money or break even on the contract sale. Not everyone has made money on the contract nor will they, because the value is supposed to be derived from the savings on vacations.

Those that can benefit from a profit off resale were fortunate that there was an explosion of demand for both disney and dvc products over a certain period of time. If I bought any property direct today (L14 included) I wouldn't spin a profit in almost any scenario.

I obviously want resale contracts of all resorts to be high but it should really be a small part of any decision because the program is not designed to be profitable on sale of contracts.

 

[TexasChick123]

No one really knows what the resale price will be and won’t know for some time. The resort hasn’t even opened up yet. Not only that, it’ll take years to sell out. I bought VGF in the end of 2015 for $135pp. That was still considered "too high" at the time for one reason or another. Yet, here we are just a few years later, and the price has skyrocketed. I didn't have a crystal ball telling me to buy there. I just knew that I wanted to own at VGF as it is my favorite property. We bought because the cost to stay there was more than the cost to own there. It seems like you are in the same camp as me @rspencer38 with Riviera. We also purchased Riviera because we think it'll be cheaper to own there for a stay than to pay cash. We could've used our other grandfathered points and traded in at 7 months, but we don't want to do that. Also, look at the Poly resale value. It has dropped over the last few years. SSR direct owners are getting close to breaking even on the direct price they paid when you consider commission to sell via resale, but are not quite there yet. I think it went on sale in 2010. I have heard of many happy direct SSR owners who will hang onto those points and don't really care that the ppp hasn't shot up above what they paid.

There will always be people who want the new resorts to fail for one reason or another. In this case, it is because of the resale restriction IMO. Riviera is the red-headed stepchild of the DVC world with the new restriction. It'll be less shocking as time goes on and other resorts come online with this restriction. There are some who will never buy into DVC again. Others will only buy at the L14 resale. Some will continue to purchase direct at L14 because they see value there. Others will continue to purchase the new resorts via direct. There is definitely a lot of doom and gloom out there about Riviera, but I think that is to be expected with the new restrictions. Any time there is a change which does not benefit the members, people are going to be mad, as am I. Personally, I don't want Reflections to fail, but I never had any interest in it. It just isn't my cup of tea. We are already seeing people start to predict worst case scenario with Reflections too because of the resale restrictions, it being too close to FW, only being able to use a boat to MK, and the probably high point cabins they are putting in are some of things which have been mentioned. Like the DVC properties before it, I think it'll sell fine even though I have no interest in owning there.

The best advice I can give you is to drown out the noise. I am more interested as a new Riviera owner that their evac procedures resulted in a 3 hour delay in starting back up the Skyliner as well as the frequent and long stops. I don't think this means it will fail nor do I think they won't fix the issues. However, they did open the Skyliner months before Riviera opened. I don't think this is a coincidence. They need to see their weak spots and get it sorted out. It's going to take them some time to figure it out, but I really think they will. Personally, I cannot wait to stay there!

 

[Bing Showei]

But the value isn't in reselling the contract, it is in the savings for the vacations. Would it be wrong to hold the contract for 50 years and never sell? The savings on the vacations is the attraction not the resale price. Also, it will be worth something so you will always recoup some of the initial cost. The longer you hold, the lower the impact of the resale price and the greater the savings realized from the vacations.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t call it a sunk cost and then talk about how it will recoup something, no matter how little you think that amount is, you have clearly assigned some value to it, and that value played into your purchase of a timeshare.

I believe there are owners who genuinely did view buying a $45,000 Riviera contract as a luxury purchase/sunk cost and treated it like I do with some of the stupid expensive man toys that I buy. But those owners are not on this site bemoaning that some resale owners are gleefully rubbing their hands together with any indication of slowing sales or every time there’s an issue with the Skyliner. They don’t give two ****s about that noise.

I’ve been quite vocal about being anti-restrictions as I believe it fundamentally harms the health of the Disney timeshare ecosystem to the benefit of only Disney. I don’t enjoy when Riviera owners (or others posing as Riviera owners) celebrate the restrictions as if it is a positive thing. It’s not.

The reason there are a lot of Disney timeshare owners who own zero other timeshares is because of the parks and because of the retained value proposition. Right or wrong, the latter is a selling point and if you don’t think guides are selling the product that way, you’re mistaken. They do. Maybe not on paper, but guides absolutely do mention there being an escape hatch. Now they just want to ensure they profit off of that as well, again, at the expense of you and me.

 

[rspencer38]

I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that when it is suggested that "DVC is not an investment" or "DVC is a sunk cost", that this is not true. The expectation should be that management maintains the product that you purchased, and does not diminish your ability to resell at a price point below the proportionate amount that you yourself used. DVC owners pay hefty maintenance fees every year to ensure that their "investment" stays in tact.



I agree. I think Riviera specifically is a different beast because they are selling it with the resale restrictions already in place. Whether they mention it in the sales pitch or not, the information is widely available. If someone doesn't take the time to do very basic research before spending thousands of dollars, that's on them.

However, the resale restrictions put on contracts that were established before Jan 2019 have effectively diminished the resale value of those contracts. Management is not acting in the best interest of the ownership. They are acting in the best interest of themselves. And while they may be within their legal right to do this based on specific wording buried into the thousands of pages these contracts, these possibilities would not have been easily forseen by average joe before buying the contract initially. IMO, this is an unethical, and shady business tactic.

Personally, I bought after the restrictions were in place, so I went into it with eyes wide open. But I feel for those who purchased prior.

I hear ya, and obviously I wish there was no restrictions and maybe one day they will reverse that decision.

I'm not sure any purchase of DVC would result in a proportionate return once you sell. In theory it should work but resale prices don't always increase along with direct, and of course some actually decline (or will) over time.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I'm not sure any purchase of DVC would result in a proportionate return once you sell. In theory it should work but resale prices don't always increase along with direct, and of course some actually decline (or will) over time.

I agree. There will always be outside influences that affect the demand and there is nothing DVC management can do about it. However, they should do everything reasonably within their control to keep value in line with depreciation. These restrictions are not an outside influence. It is internal decision making put in place with the purpose of lowering the resale value (with the end goal of directing more people to buy direct) for it's owners.

 

[Marionnette]

But it was never marketed that way, nor has any timeshare program anywhere been designed to make money or break even on the contract sale. Not everyone has made money on the contract nor will they, because the value is supposed to be derived from the savings on vacations.

Those that can benefit from a profit off resale were fortunate that there was an explosion of demand for both disney and dvc products over a certain period of time. If I bought any property direct today (L14 included) I wouldn't spin a profit in almost any scenario.

I obviously want resale contracts of all resorts to be high but it should really be a small part of any decision because the program is not designed to be profitable on sale of contracts.

It played into my decision to purchase, regardless of how DVC was marketing their product. No matter what large purchase I make in life, I want to know that there is an exit strategy. It's not so much that I would want to profit from selling my contracts, although I would in the current market. It was knowing that I could sell them, unlike a lot of timeshares that you cannot unload, no matter what the price is.

 

[Matty B13]

The 2 reasons we bought into DVC are

1) For our family of 5, staying in 2 hotels room would be cost prohibitive every year, heck every 3 years. So the 1 & 2 bedroom units were a draw.

2) Retained value of DVC, we have looked at other timeshares, but only DVC seemed to hold its value (2015-2016), all the others usually lose all value the minute the ink dries. Also it seems that other timeshares can change the contract restrictions at anytime, which could affect your use of the timeshare. My parents thought we were crazy to buy any timeshare at the time since they have seen the worst of timeshares from the 80's & 90's.

I think RIV will be a nice resort, and hope the new owners enjoy it as long as they want to own it. Chances are we will probably stay there at least once with grandfathered points. But...... I hope the resale restrictions fail miserably for DVC, since the restrictions are a move to the "industrial standard" of timeshares. Lucky for me I have a lot of grandfathered points.

 

[Brianstl]

It doesn't bother me at all really, I just find interesting that the tone on this particular thread is that people are almost happy that it "seems" to be back firing on DVD that resale prices might be low.

I'm happy with my purchase and if I have to sell tomorrow for half, life goes on!

Disney wants lower resales prices. Disney hopes that a much lower resale price at all resorts and blue card benefits will create a perceived difference in value and prestige in owning direct points. Much lower resales prices give the impression of something of lesser almost cheap value. Buying direct instead of resale is an emotional decision and not a rational one in 90% of the cases.