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

[Soap_1984]

Not at all! While I paid around $165 a point, my net cost for RiV is around $120..given my profit on BWV was around $53/pt.

So, ultimately, I now own a contract at RIV that is worth about the same $120 my BWV is worth in today’s market. But, I have points that expire 28 years later and I got my kids in as blue card members, who will capitalize on the AP discount.

Since I don’t intend to sell, and resale value has never been that important to me..I consider it a sunk cost, But, even so, say I had kept BWV and then Needed to sell in 10 years. I am pretty confident that at that point, with only about 12 years left, its resale value won’t be more than RIV.

Of course, I still own 150 BWV and 500 SSR points and If forced to sell, SSR would be the first to go, further cushioning me from the resale value Of a RiV.

The other piece is that profit I have in my DVC contracts is only worth something if and when you sell. So, as long as one keeps and uses DVC, IMO, it’s a profit that really means nothing. The good thing is that witch this transaction I put that profit to use to enhance my DVC membership.

I understand where you are coming from but how can you say resale has never been important when you are claiming the only reason you bought Riv is because your original contract was worth so much and you sold it?

 

[ELMC]

For the majority of current owners the resale restrictions are viewed as a problem, but I think that for a new (uniformed) person at WDW that goes to the sales presentation centre, the resale restrictions can be spun as a positive to get you to buy direct. After all, trading to other resorts is a big selling feature, so if you want to try out all those new resorts you need to buy direct.

This is the long term play. They can see it now, the glory days when people won't buy resale because it pales in comparison to direct. But it's a while off. And while I understand that DVC executives are in it for the here and now, nobody wants to be the one who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

 

[Sandisw]

I understand where you are coming from but how can you say resale has never been important when you are claiming the only reason you bought Riv is because your original contract was worth so much and you sold it?

It wasn’t a factor in my decisions when buying and if my BWV contract was worth zero today, I probably would not have added on at RIV for my kids now, but not because of resale restrictions. It would have been because I didn’t want to spend an additional $35k for more points. What would have happened, most likely, is that in a few years, I would have done it.

The fact that there is a good resale value and I benefited doesn’t change that I didnt consider resale value as part of my deciding factor for purchasing any of my contracts, including RIV I see it as a perk, like the AP. it’s great to have but if it went away, it’s no big deal.

The question was whether or not it bothered me that my RIV contract wasn’t worth what I paid..if you took out my profit..and I am not bothered by it because the profit is what made it a great deal, not just a good one.

Those 28 additional years was a much bigger factor i doing this now,

 

[Jenniebee]

I think Pete’s correct. I keep saying it but I would probably have bought Riviera. What the restrictions did was to put me off. So where do I buy? My resort where I have 3 other contracts- SSR. And I buy it resale. So it not only lost them a sale at the new resort, it lost them a direct sale.

Totally agree. I would never buy Riviera based on the resale restriction, but I was very tempted to buy Copper Creek direct in 2017/2018.

When they were promoting Copper Creek they sent an offer that was like if you went to WDW they would give you money toward your trip and that cost would be applied to your DVC membership... or something like that. I remember at the time thinking it was a really good offer and I was very tempted. I wonder if they will do something like this with Riviera soon.

 

[Sandisw]

Totally agree. I would never buy Riviera based on the resale restriction, but I was very tempted to buy Copper Creek direct in 2017/2018.

When they were promoting Copper Creek they sent an offer that was like if you went to WDW they would give you money toward your trip and that cost would be applied to your DVC membership... or something like that. I remember at the time thinking it was a really good offer and I was very tempted. I wonder if they will do something like this with Riviera soon.

At one time, that was something they did. it would be interesting to see if they decide to bring that back. They have a put out The discount a
ready for cash rooms so I could see them adding this to encourage sales for people staying on that promotion.

 

[ELMC]

It wasn’t a factor in my decisions when buying and if my BWV contract was worth zero today, I probably would not have added on at RIV for my kids now, but not because of resale restrictions. It would have been because I didn’t want to spend an additional $35k for more points. What would have happened, most likely, is that in a few years, I would have done it.

The fact that there is a good resale value and I benefited doesn’t change that I didnt consider resale value as part of my deciding factor for purchasing any of my contracts, including RIV I see it as a perk, like the AP. it’s great to have but if it went away, it’s no big deal.

The question was whether or not it bothered me that my RIV contract wasn’t worth what I paid..if you took out my profit..and I am not bothered by it because the profit is what made it a great deal, not just a good one.

Those 28 additional years was a much bigger factor i doing this now,

Thanks for sharing your thought process. I have to say I've been thinking about it a lot because it's not your typical buy/don't buy decision and the additional variable of selling the BWV as part of this transaction complicated things in my mind (and here on the boards too). While the sale of your BWV did not make RIV any less expensive (the price you paid was absolute regardless of how you came about the money), it did offset the cost of upgrading your DVC portfolio and in that regard, it does have a valid application to the equation. Basically the way I've framed it to better make sense is to make it binary. You could either have option 1 or option 2 below:

Option 1:
22 years of use on existing BWV contract
$12,750 cash in your pocket

Option 2:
50 years of use on new RIV contract
Blue card for whole family
11 month advantage at another resort
25 more points than option 1

This is basically how it breaks down and from that point it becomes a personal decision as to which you prefer. Clearly you chose option 2, and congrats on your decision!

ETA: correct numbers

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks for sharing your thought process. I have to say I've been thinking about it a lot because it's not your typical buy/don't buy decision and the additional variable of selling the BWV as part of this transaction complicated things in my mind (and here on the boards too). While the sale of your BWV did not make RIV any less expensive (the price you paid was absolute regardless of how you came about the money), it did offset the cost of upgrading your DVC portfolio and in that regard, it does have a valid application to the equation. Basically the way I've framed it to better make sense is to make it binary. You could either have option 1 or option 2 below:

Option 1:
22 years of use on existing BWV contract
$21,000 cash in your pocket

Option 2:
50 years of use on new RIV contract
Blue card for whole family
11 month advantage at another resort

This is basically how it breaks down and from that point it becomes a personal decision as to which you prefer. Clearly you chose option 2, and congrats on your decision!

Great way to phrase it. But, in my case, if I had kept BWV, I would have had $12,750 in my pocket still...not $21,000..because that is all I am paying after my sale. My RIV contract is also now 175 points vs, 150 as well so some of what I spent did get me more points.

Overall, though, your options are pretty spot on to what my thoughts were.

 

[Brian Noble]

A couple of thoughts.

First, in regards to occupancy rates: Historically, WDW hotels are more or less always "full". Full means something in the mid-to-high 80s, because it's hard to get past that between orphaned nights, trying not to overbook too far in the face of expected cancellations, etc. There are many more people coming to visit the parks than can stay in WDW's hotels, and Disney will price in a way that makes sure they are getting at least reasonably close to that number. The fluctuations in WDW travel demand are felt most acutely by offsite hotels, and less severely in terms of the booked room rates of WDW hotels. In the limit, when things get really dire, they can take entire hotels offline (as they did during the aftermath of 9/11.)

And, this gives one a new perspective on at least one reason Disney has DVC: it is a way to transfer the risk of slumping travel demand away from Disney and onto individual DVC owners. DVC resorts are always "full", because the owners collectively own the stays---even if someone is not staying in one, the costs of the room contributing to overall resort operations are covered by dues, and the "profit" of the room was already captured in the sales price. It is no accident that DVC construction accelerated in the post-9/11 era while there was a several year moratorium on cash resort construction AND a conversion of cash rooms into DVC rooms at Contemporary, AKL, and now CBR.

Second, in regards to the success or failure of resale restrictions: I am confident they will succeed. That's because timeshare is a product that is sold, not bought. Very few people wake up in the morning with the intention to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars obligating them to a decades-long expenditure for the maintenance and operation of a luxury vacation condo---present company excepted. Most people who buy a timeshare do so while on vacation having the time of their lives. The sales person offers them the chance to bottle that feeling for decades to come "at today's prices." Who wouldn't want to do that? Those people also have little or no information prior to the tour about how the product really works, etc. Maybe more importantly, timeshare is an aspirational purchase. Almost no one is thinking about selling it later.

There are plenty of timeshares whose value sinks to 10% (or less) of their purchase price the moment the ink dries on the contract, and it would take maybe 30 minutes of online research for a new buyer to figure that out. Yet, they are able to sell at a healthy clip. Some are even able to continue selling to people who know that. Disney will be no different. They may have to get a little more aggressive in sales (and there are anecdotal reports that they already are) but they have a lot of headroom before they even get to Marriott-level pressure, let alone Wyndham or (shudder) Westgate.

 

[kboo]

Yes - the point being not so much that Riviera sales are really soft - but more that of the pool of direct buyers - why are such a high percentage (35-40%) choosing to buy old resorts versus previous years (15-20%). I only went back 2 years, but I could've gone back 5 years and the 15-20% number would have stayed the same. Why NOW are 35% of Direct buyers not buying the resort Disney is selling? It's not because Disney is marketing the old resorts more.

Of course I can't be sure - but if I was Disney I would be VERY concerned with why this is occurring. Not that Riviera sales are maybe down slightly versus year over year, but why buyers are choosing to buy elsewhere in much greater numbers than at Riviera.

I would be curious to see the raw data underlying that % choosing to buy old resorts - is it points, # of buyers, # of contracts, something else? What I do know is that in recent years they raised the minimum buy in for perks from 25 to 75 to 100, and it would be interesting to see if there was a surge in direct buy ins at old resorts when they announced either a price increase or a minimum points increase. I think without knowing how the price increases and minimum points increases (may be/are) driving direct add ons, it's still hard to compare year to year.

That said, I think I am in the minority in my stark realism on the resale restrictions. I'm prepared to be wrong but I think there is less than a 1% chance that Disney removes them. IMO you'll sooner see even higher prices on legacy resorts and greater discounts on RIV. The restrictions seem like an integral part of a much longer-term plan. I don't think they remove them over slightly slower than expected sales.

I'm with you in the minority! Except I'd say less than a 0.05% chance ... (see below)

This is the long term play. They can see it now, the glory days when people won't buy resale because it pales in comparison to direct.

There are a lot of people NOT on the DIS (we are a bit of an echo chamber here) who are like, "I would NEVER buy USED points!" and who (still) compare this to buying a used car. It still is a little shocking to me. I see DVC capitalizing on that, and long term, there are going to be more DVC direct buyers who *only* know that buying direct = you can trade, and buying resale = you can't trade.

When they were promoting Copper Creek they sent an offer that was like if you went to WDW they would give you money toward your trip and that cost would be applied to your DVC membership... or something like that. I remember at the time thinking it was a really good offer and I was very tempted. I wonder if they will do something like this with Riviera soon.

I was sorely tempted by that offer and actually passed it on to a friend - we both ended up buying BLT resale. I think it was a 4-night stay for $2500 and if you bought CCV they'd apply it to your purchase price? Then again, without any incentives we bought RIV direct. But I think like @Sandisw, we had other considerations that made it the right choice for us, notwithstanding the resale restrictions.

(BTW - I have a friend IRL who bought >1000 points direct at Poly and they've used them for the (imo) silliest things - most recently a Poly bungalow for 3 adults and 2 kids. Go figure. They bought while I was considering direct v. resale and brought up the "you lose perks" issue ... I'm willing to bet that even though they bought direct, all 1000 points are in 1 contract.)

 

[ray3127]

Yes - the point being not so much that Riviera sales are really soft - but more that of the pool of direct buyers - why are such a high percentage (35-40%) choosing to buy old resorts versus previous years (15-20%). I only went back 2 years, but I could've gone back 5 years and the 15-20% number would have stayed the same. Why NOW are 35% of Direct buyers not buying the resort Disney is selling? It's not because Disney is marketing the old resorts more.

Of course I can't be sure - but if I was Disney I would be VERY concerned with why this is occurring. Not that Riviera sales are maybe down slightly versus year over year, but why buyers are choosing to buy elsewhere in much greater numbers than at Riviera.

I think part of the reason for the bump in direct sales at sold-out resorts is the UY rule change. Since DVD can change the UY now, it is much easier for them to re-sell points they've bought back.

That may not explain the entire difference; I, too, believe Riviera is underperforming. But I think the UY rule explains a good chunk of the sales spike at the sold-out resorts.

 

[dmurf01]

Going back to my post on Page 33 comparing new resort sales versus overall:

October 2017: 183,200 total pts, 158,900 pts new resorts (87% from new resorts)
October 2018: 168,400 total pts, 137,600 pts new resorts (82% from new resorts)
October 2019: 148,900 total pts. 97,100 pts new resorts. (65% from new resorts)

Again, forgetting the drop in sales year-over-year - the % from new resorts is still considerably down. 65% version 80-85%.

Unless Disney is changing their strategy - and I doubt they are - they HAVE to be worried about these numbers. Rebuying an SSR contract at $100 and reselling it at $165 a point is NOT the business they want to be in. You may think - Oh they are making $65 a point doing nothing, why wouldn't this be great.

because a resort like Riviera probably costs around $300 million to build and will sell for around $1.2 BILLION. Or look at it this way - Riviera costs them$40-50 a point to build - and $188 a point to sell, meaning they are making a $138-148/pt profit on Riviera, and they are making $65 a point profit on selling an SSR point. Substituting old resort sales for new resort sales shows a negative impact on profits.

It comes back to what I said on Page #33, if the reason for slow sales in NOT the fact it is not yet open, then it's either due to the resort itself or the restrictions. If this sales trend continue I think Disney will be seriously considering rolling back the restrictions.

Again this is NOT a knock on those that bought at Riviera - however I have to say if you are an individual that will NOT buy at Riviera because of the resale restriction - please let them know. The harder they get this message the better for all of us - including Riviera owners that already bought.

I don't think that comparison really reflects anything material because it is a sliver of time and doesn't match apples to apples. In 2017, the new sales included two resorts (CCV and PVB). PVB had been selling for a long time and was in the normal drop month-by-month as the numbers ran down. CCV was open in its 4th month. For October 2017, the two resorts together were almost equally split. 2018 was solely CCV which was in its 15th month post opening. This year, the number is mostly RIV which is not even open and it has sold 674k points.

I have gone back through and read tons of articles that discussed the sales month by month over the past years and many of them were doom and gloom about PVB sales, then CCV sales, and now RIV sales. Sales always decrease at the end of year. Park attendance has also been lower this year. There are lots of factors involved, so we can't assume it is due to restrictions. RIV sales numbers have been fine and even better than some prior resorts.

I would start to have concerns if sales did not increase in January because that would indicate they are not following the consistent trends. Then we'd have to examine all factors involved. One thing I would like to see is tracking of resale points. Since there are only so many points available at existing resorts direct, will people increase resale purchases compared to pre-RIV showing that the same volume of people are buying DVC to match the trends, however, they are going with resale instead of RIV. That would signal a concern to me. If RIV continues selling as it has and consistently increases most month after month next year, then it follows the trends and resale restrictions are not impacting it. If we don't see the sales follow the normal trends, then it might cause DVC to rethink the restrictions.

 

[Soap_1984]

A lot of people on here defending the lower numbers sound like disney execs lol. The numbers are lower, that's a fact. If you want to say it isn't a perfect comparison etc then that's fine, but the reality is that if the numbers were stronger now you'd all be pointing to them to say Riv is doing great and wouldn't be discarding stronger sales and stating "well it isn't apples to apples so numbers being up means nothing".

 

[ELMC]

There are a lot of people NOT on the DIS (we are a bit of an echo chamber here) who are like, "I would NEVER buy USED points!" and who (still) compare this to buying a used car. It still is a little shocking to me. I see DVC capitalizing on that, and long term, there are going to be more DVC direct buyers who *only* know that buying direct = you can trade, and buying resale = you can't trade.

This is a great point. Up until recently this was a fallacious comparison as the points were functionally the same. But with the latest round of resale restrictions the points behave differently and the "used vs. new" argument applies. Congrats, Disney, it only took you four rounds of restrictions to get it right.

 

[dmurf01]

A lot of people on here defending the lower numbers sound like disney execs lol. The numbers are lower, that's a fact. If you want to say it isn't a perfect comparison etc then that's fine, but the reality is that if the numbers were stronger now you'd all be pointing to them to say Riv is doing great and wouldn't be discarding stronger sales and stating "well it isn't apples to apples so numbers being up means nothing".

Not quite. Looking at numbers requires looking at them in the correct context. I can easily say numbers mean XYZ. Comparisons only work when comparing two like scenarios. The facts are that RIV numbers for same time periods and like scenarios are higher that the last resort CCV. Even removing the fact that RIV is not even open, the sales are much higher than CCV. Look at Total year Jan-Oct: 2017: 1.925m, 2018: 1.878m, and 2019: 1.978m points. So, total point sales through October have already exceeded the two prior years and there are two months left. If I am a DVC executive looking at the overall numbers as well as RIV individual numbers, I am not worried at all. Now, if we see Jan/Feb not increase sufficiently, then I would start analyzing.

 

[ELMC]

Not quite. Looking at numbers requires looking at them in the correct context. I can easily say numbers mean XYZ. Comparisons only work when comparing two like scenarios. The facts are that RIV numbers for same time periods and like scenarios are higher that the last resort CCV. Even removing the fact that RIV is not even open, the sales are much higher than CCV. Look at Total year Jan-Oct: 2017: 1.925m, 2018: 1.878m, and 2019: 1.978m points. So, total point sales through October have already exceeded the two prior years and there are two months left. If I am a DVC executive looking at the overall numbers as well as RIV individual numbers, I am not worried at all. Now, if we see Jan/Feb not increase sufficiently, then I would start analyzing.

Great points. I would also like to add that numbers fluctuate due to a number of different variables, many of which are not always easy to account for. Whether it be DVC sales, stock prices, corporate profits, or whatever, we have been trained to only want to see numbers go up; but that is not possible. There will be always be fluctuations - minor ups and downs. The fact of the matter is that RIV is selling. Maybe slightly faster or slightly slower than other resorts based on how you look at it, but the sales are there. Unlike Aulani, which is still close to 50% available after 8 years...

 

[Ruttangel]

Great points. I would also like to add that numbers fluctuate due to a number of different variables, many of which are not always easy to account for. Whether it be DVC sales, stock prices, corporate profits, or whatever, we have been trained to only want to see numbers go up; but that is not possible. There will be always be fluctuations - minor ups and downs. The fact of the matter is that RIV is selling. Maybe slightly faster or slightly slower than other resorts based on how you look at it, but the sales are there. Unlike Aulani, which is still close to 50% available after 8 years...

Yes, but Aulani is half a world away

 

[ELMC]

Yes, but Aulani is half a world away

I think you might have missed the point. My point was that if ANY of their properties sells less than 50% in eight years then perhaps it is time to panic. RIV is far from that point, and so we might all be waiting for a long time for said panic to ensue.

 

[Ruttangel]

Not at all! While I paid around $165 a point, my net cost for RiV is around $120..given my profit on BWV was around $53/pt.

So, ultimately, I now own a contract at RIV that is worth about the same $120 my BWV is worth in today’s market. But, I have points that expire 28 years later and I got my kids in as blue card members, who will capitalize on the AP discount.

Since I don’t intend to sell, and resale value has never been that important to me..I consider it a sunk cost, But, even so, say I had kept BWV and then Needed to sell in 10 years. I am pretty confident that at that point, with only about 12 years left, its resale value won’t be more than RIV.

Of course, I still own 150 BWV and 500 SSR points and If forced to sell, SSR would be the first to go, further cushioning me from the resale value Of a RiV.

The other piece is that profit I have in my DVC contracts is only worth something if and when you sell. So, as long as one keeps and uses DVC, IMO, it’s a profit that really means nothing. The good thing is that witch this transaction I put that profit to use to enhance my DVC membership.

I’m sorry if this sounds personal but you could have bought a AKL resale contract at $100-110 and you would have had 37 years of visiting WDW and your family would still be happy. RIV is a luxury purchase based on emotion and that’s fine for you and many others.... but I reiterate Disney has deliberately devalued your investment which reverberates across all owners

 

[Sandisw]

I’m sorry if this sounds personal but you could have bought a AKL resale contract at $100-110 and you would have had 37 years of visiting WDW and your family would still be happy. RIV is a luxury purchase based on emotion and that’s fine for you and many others.... but I reiterate Disney has deliberately devalued your investment which reverberates across all owners

Why would I sell a contract like BWV to buy at AKL on the resale market and trade points qualified for ALL resorts, for ones only eligible for L14?

Not to mention that I am not a fan of AKL so owning there would be one of the last places I would buy.

With all due respect, I bought RIV because my children and I decided it was the home resort we wanted and to give us the best of all worlds..a 50 year contract, qualified points the same as the ones I was selling..AND. Y children being eligible for blue card benefits. My family would not have been just as happy if I had bought AKL..maybe BLT or VGF..but definitely not other resorts,

In terms of the value, as I said it’s worth, IMO, about what my BWV contract was worth, whether or not others agree. Yes, I understand I bought a product that Disney changed But I am not sure why that matters as I knew that before I bought and chose To not worry about it.

It seems to me that your post was more about how my decision to buy RIV hurts others and that I should be upset that what disney did was sell me a product that Isn’t as valuable as they once were.

But, I made the decision that made sense for us and for the $12,750 this entire transaction cost me to go from owning 150 BWV points to 175 RIV points with my children, I got what I wanted for my money and my family.

Everyone makes the decision they do for their own needs and I realize others may not do what I did, and may not like it, but The great thing about DVC is there are so many things and resorts that everyone can get what makes them happy.

ETA: I don’t consider DVC an investment,,,it is a timeshare to be used for vacations and my RIV contract provides exactly what it is intended for.

 

[AvidDisReader]

We have 2 separate issues at stake. One is what is best for an individual and their family, how they spend their money and choose to vacation is their decision. All issues were looked at with eyes wide open, I cannot see where there is any issue on this. The second issue is what is best for all DVC owners with regard to value, resale value. The resale restrictions will likely end up hurting all DVC owners in the long run when it comes to resale. However, if you plan on owning for 50 years, is it really hurting an individual--as many have said and to repeat DVC is at the heart a time share and not an investment. I find this whole issue very draining as I am in my mid 60's and know all too well how life can throw you curves (open Heart surgery last year was a real eye opener). So I maybe in a position in the future of being forced to sell my treasured DVC points. This is why I can clearly see both sides of the argument.