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

[RivShore]

But this is ignoring the room/bed layout as well. We own BWV and RIV, and we have a split stay booked with the first half in a 1BR at RIV and the second half in a 2BR at BWV. This is because the 1BR at BWV only has one real bed, while the 1BR at RIV has three including the two Murphy beds, which I consider to be vastly better than traditional sofa beds. We have a son and a daughter, and this setup is conducive to us staying in a 1BR at RIV for longer whereas we’re already upgrading to a 2BR at BWV.

This is a very important part of the decision making process that all of our dollar and point analysis completely ignores.

The fact that a studio at RIV sleeps 5 and has 2 real beds can be a real point saver for a family of 5 vs. having to upgade to a 1 BR at a resort with studios that cap out at 4.

It was one of the major things that pushed us from buying resale at CCV to direct at RIV.

 

[RivShore]

They were vacation guest accommodations for quite awhile.

I recall reading somewhere that after planning the residential section and maybe even a model or two Disney realized that would have permanent residents with voting rights within Reedy Creek. Those people would get a say on taxes, development etc. And so that idea came to an end. It's so easy to find instances where Disney had some fairly simple oop's moments like this that I always chuckle when people state how Disney has a plan and always knows exactly what they are doing. Sure, they have a plan. They also miss things - sometimes very obvious things.

That makes sense, they couldn't have any regular folks having a say in how the kingdom was run.

We have a copy of the neighborhood plans showing each treehouse location and more than a few marked "sold' so they must have been pretty far along before some genius realized this was not a good idea.

To continue this thread drift...sorry...how are they getting around the issue of permanent residents in that new Golden Oak neighborhood? Is it not within RC?

 

[ELMC]

I also feel that the new restrictions change everything.


I want these new restrictions to fail.

I completely agree with your first point. The restrictions will change everything. Your second point is also valid and I think varies greatly on the individual, with the majority being in agreement. In thinking about it, I actually think 100% the opposite. Here's why.

One of the biggest things I've learned during these tumultuous few months in DVCland is that there are cohorts of owners who think very similarly to other members of that cohort and very differently from members of other cohorts. I think sometimes the mistake we make on here (at least I know that I have) is that we try to convince those in another cohort that they should see things our way. I don't think that's a good use of our time. So building on that, and being cognizant of the fact that I am a member of a particularly conservative, strict, and rather uptight cohort, I actually want to see these restrictions succeed. In fact, I want the restrictions to get even harsher. I mean that 100%, not an ounce of sarcasm. Here's why I think this: many people are buying RIV after much research and being fully aware of the restrictions because they want to own there and they want to stay there. They do so knowing it's expensive and probably beyond whatever "value proposition" that I'm always blathering on about. They simply don't care. And good for them. They don't plan on selling and they know that if they do sell, they will get a smaller return then they would have absent the restrictions. But again, they simply don't care. And again, more power to them. I wish that for just one moment I could be less stiff, less rigid, and think like that. It's probably an easy and fun way to view things. So my point is, these owners do not really feel that they are being hurt by the restrictions. Let's not forget, the key component of a timeshare purchase is its use, not its barter or sale. So there is a cohort of owners who believes that the restrictions are not relevant to them. And as we established earlier, it's probably not a good use of time to try to convince them otherwise. However, at the same time, these restrictions (and hopefully in the future even harsher restrictions) create an opportunity for people like me.

So let's look at the flip side. DVC in 2019 is too expensive for my cohort. We are the frugal people. The rigid people. The inflexible people. It's not that we can't afford it, for the most part we can, it's that we can't justify it at the current price. And again, that is a very personal decision. People like me don't care about blue cards or special events or AP discounts or trading to other resorts or whatever other perks they come up with. People like me want to own DVC to stay in a DVC room. And we want to do so for as little money as possible. Hard stop. These restrictions create an ecosystem that allows people like me to participate once again. And to take it one step further, I don't think Disney likes this. But it's a situation that they created.

Back to your point, I agree with you that these restrictions are going to change everything. They will likely create an entirely new DVC ecosystem. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually think this new ecosystem will allow more people to participate. Will some owners get hurt? Sure. I want to be clear that I'm not rooting for that. I feel badly for the person who doesn't know what they bought and loses their shirt when they're forced to sell. But that happened before these restrictions and it will happen after. I actually think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

I love the Riviera. I love the location, the look, the feel, the rooms, the layout, the amenities, etc. I'm not crazy about the point requirements and the dues are a little high. And I DON'T love the buy-in cost. But put some points out there on the resale market for $60-80 (which could happen) and I'll take the restrictions and higher maintenance fees all day long.

@Bing Showei and I are on the same page....nothing against those that buy at Riviera - but Disney is now creating an inferior product. By inferior product I am not talking about that the product itself is worse - but by restricting resale, they are harming the direct owners in two major ways:

1) They are reducing the resale value of the product. And I'm sorry - there is NO doubt that this will happen - the question is only HOW MUCH it hurts the resale value. Perhaps Riviera's location on the Skyway will keep those prices up, but imagine an SSR with resale only allowing you to stay at SSR. That resort would be going for less than $50 a point.
2) Reducing the resale value will not stop many owners from selling. People sell because they either financially need to or they tire of the product. Therefore, there will eventually be a lot of resale owners at the resort. Maybe it's only 20% after 20 years, maybe it's 40%. Whatever it is, those owners will all be rushing to book at 11 months - because the CAN'T go anywhere else. They can't possibly risk waiting until 7 months when people from other resorts can book in. This means the competition for rooms at 11 months will become fierce - and this will also hurt direct owners, who if not ready to book at 11 months will be shuffled off to OKW or SSR at 7 months.

These are problems that all previous owners did not have to contend with. But Riviera owners (and all resorts going forward) will. Obviously if you choose to buy a fixed week, then #2 doesn't apply to you, but #1 does.

And understand - while both these items fail harm the direct owner - they HELP Disney. Low resale values on a restricted product give them better opportunity to rebuy resorts. Resale owners that aren't shrewd in booking their points will lose their points - making more breakage and lining Disney's pockets. Another win for Disney.

So - nothing against the owners - but Disney saying they are doing this for benefit of the owners - certainly not.

I agree with everything you say here. But as I said above, I have a slightly different take. The situation you laid out above describes just about every other timeshare system out there. Disney was an outlier...up until now perhaps. But we have seen posters on here like @Dean who have mastered the acquisition and use of resale points in various timeshare systems for mere pennies on the dollar. Disney might be moving in that direction, and personally, and for ENTIRELY SELFISH motives, I'm all for it. I for one would love to get my hands on some sub-$50 SSR points. I would learn to love that resort like it was my own child.

 

[Great3]

I completely agree with your first point. The restrictions will change everything. Your second point is also valid and I think varies greatly on the individual, with the majority being in agreement. In thinking about it, I actually think 100% the opposite. Here's why.

One of the biggest things I've learned during these tumultuous few months in DVCland is that there are cohorts of owners who think very similarly to other members of that cohort and very differently from members of other cohorts. I think sometimes the mistake we make on here (at least I know that I have) is that we try to convince those in another cohort that they should see things our way. I don't think that's a good use of our time. So building on that, and being cognizant of the fact that I am a member of a particularly conservative, strict, and rather uptight cohort, I actually want to see these restrictions succeed. In fact, I want the restrictions to get even harsher. I mean that 100%, not an ounce of sarcasm. Here's why I think this: many people are buying RIV after much research and being fully aware of the restrictions because they want to own there and they want to stay there. They do so knowing it's expensive and probably beyond whatever "value proposition" that I'm always blathering on about. They simply don't care. And good for them. They don't plan on selling and they know that if they do sell, they will get a smaller return then they would have absent the restrictions. But again, they simply don't care. And again, more power to them. I wish that for just one moment I could be less stiff, less rigid, and think like that. It's probably an easy and fun way to view things. So my point is, these owners do not really feel that they are being hurt by the restrictions. Let's not forget, the key component of a timeshare purchase is its use, not its barter or sale. So there is a cohort of owners who believes that the restrictions are not relevant to them. And as we established earlier, it's probably not a good use of time to try to convince them otherwise. However, at the same time, these restrictions (and hopefully in the future even harsher restrictions) create an opportunity for people like me.

So let's look at the flip side. DVC in 2019 is too expensive for my cohort. We are the frugal people. The rigid people. The inflexible people. It's not that we can't afford it, for the most part we can, it's that we can't justify it at the current price. And again, that is a very personal decision. People like me don't care about blue cards or special events or AP discounts or trading to other resorts or whatever other perks they come up with. People like me want to own DVC to stay in a DVC room. And we want to do so for as little money as possible. Hard stop. These restrictions create an ecosystem that allows people like me to participate once again. And to take it one step further, I don't think Disney likes this. But it's a situation that they created.

Back to your point, I agree with you that these restrictions are going to change everything. They will likely create an entirely new DVC ecosystem. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually think this new ecosystem will allow more people to participate. Will some owners get hurt? Sure. I want to be clear that I'm not rooting for that. I feel badly for the person who doesn't know what they bought and loses their shirt when they're forced to sell. But that happened before these restrictions and it will happen after. I actually think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

I love the Riviera. I love the location, the look, the feel, the rooms, the layout, the amenities, etc. I'm not crazy about the point requirements and the dues are a little high. And I DON'T love the buy-in cost. But put some points out there on the resale market for $60-80 (which could happen) and I'll take the restrictions and higher maintenance fees all day long.

I agree with everything you say here. But as I said above, I have a slightly different take. The situation you laid out above describes just about every other timeshare system out there. Disney was an outlier...up until now perhaps. But we have seen posters on here like @Dean who have mastered the acquisition and use of resale points in various timeshare systems for mere pennies on the dollar. Disney might be moving in that direction, and personally, and for ENTIRELY SELFISH motives, I'm all for it. I for one would love to get my hands on some sub-$50 SSR points. I would learn to love that resort like it was my own child.

Interesting viewpoint I never thought about. Although I would like to the restrictions to fail miserably, so less direct owners get affected, I can see how the restrictions can help resale buyer get into the DVC game if the resale market tank for Riviera. However, as long as there are enough buyers than there is supply, maybe Riviera resale prices won't tank so badly, but I believe it will be closer to $100 / pt. rather than the $140 - $160 we see for resale of the other newer DVC resorts. Although I can see $60 - $80 / point happening possibly for Riviera, I doubt it will get there due to supply/demand, there are probably enough people are willing to pay $100+.

Great3

 

[emchen]

One of the biggest things I've learned during these tumultuous few months in DVCland is that there are cohorts of owners who think very similarly to other members of that cohort and very differently from members of other cohorts. I think sometimes the mistake we make on here (at least I know that I have) is that we try to convince those in another cohort that they should see things our way. I don't think that's a good use of our time. So building on that, and being cognizant of the fact that I am a member of a particularly conservative, strict, and rather uptight cohort, I actually want to see these restrictions succeed.

@ELMC ...I love your self-knowledge and clear, rational thinking. I think you've hit the nail right on the head! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as always, and helping others like me aspire to similar levels of introspection.

 

[ELMC]

Interesting viewpoint I never thought about. Although I would like to the restrictions to fail miserably, so less direct owners get affected, I can see how the restrictions can help resale buyer get into the DVC game if the resale market tank for Riviera. However, as long as there are enough buyers than there is supply, maybe Riviera resale prices won't tank so badly, but I believe it will be closer to $100 / pt. rather than the $140 - $160 we see for resale of the other newer DVC resorts. Although I can see $60 - $80 / point happening possibly for Riviera, I doubt it will get there due to supply/demand, there are probably enough people are willing to pay $100+.

Great3

I can totally see how you say this and it makes complete sense. I also can definitely see how my perspective is different from the paradigm that we've come to expect. And that's the thing...that's what I think Disney is trying to do here...they're trying to change our thinking.

I'm going to push back on your thinking that direct owners are affected by the restrictions and posit that in one manner of speaking they are not impacted at all. The key to DVC (and any timeshare really) lies within its use. DVC is meant to be purchased and owned and used for the entire lifespan. That's its value and that is what Disney is putting its money into. They don't care about protecting the cash value of contracts and that is evidenced by the resale restrictions. But for those who purchase to use and enjoy, they will see minimal impact to their usage (aside from booking congestion theories...but time will tell on that). I think this change is going to be difficult for some people, but ultimately it will be better for the system and for the end-users. We've been experiencing a melt up of sorts over the past few years. It's unsustainable in my opinion. I think the ultimate impact of these restrictions is that the resale market will be damaged and deflated, and DVC salespeople will have to work slightly harder to overcome the objections in the near term until they become generally accepted. The happy by-product of that is that many new owners can enter the DVC marketplace with their discount and heavily restricted points...just like every other timeshare system out there. But at the end of the day, they're in the same rooms as everybody else.

@ELMC ...I love your self-knowledge and clear, rational thinking. I think you've hit the nail right on the head! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as always, and helping others like me aspire to similar levels of introspection.

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[Great3]

I can totally see how you say this and it makes complete sense. I also can definitely see how my perspective is different from the paradigm that we've come to expect. And that's the thing...that's what I think Disney is trying to do here...they're trying to change our thinking.

I'm going to push back on your thinking that direct owners are affected by the restrictions and posit that in one manner of speaking they are not impacted at all. The key to DVC (and any timeshare really) lies within its use. DVC is meant to be purchased and owned and used for the entire lifespan. That's its value and that is what Disney is putting its money into. They don't care about protecting the cash value of contracts and that is evidenced by the resale restrictions. But for those who purchase to use and enjoy, they will see minimal impact to their usage (aside from booking congestion theories...but time will tell on that). I think this change is going to be difficult for some people, but ultimately it will be better for the system and for the end-users. We've been experiencing a melt up of sorts over the past few years. It's unsustainable in my opinion. I think the ultimate impact of these restrictions is that the resale market will be damaged and deflated, and DVC salespeople will have to work slightly harder to overcome the objections in the near term until they become generally accepted. The happy by-product of that is that many new owners can enter the DVC marketplace with their discount and heavily restricted points...just like every other timeshare system out there. But at the end of the day, they're in the same rooms as everybody else.

I understand what you are saying, the value of any timeshare is in its use. But I consider an exit strategy for every timeshare(s) I own. That's just me. But, I don't buy any timeshare assuming I get something back on resale (I just pretend it is 100% sunk cost and assume I get nothing back when I need to get rid of the timeshare, and base my affordability calculations off of that). Anything I get back is just gravy when the times come for me to exit. But, in doing so, I also refuse to take the initial hit of direct developer costs unless I have a cost recovery model (which with DVC is possible, in terms of enough APs savings to WDW). For other timeshares, there's no cost recovery possible, so I always buy resale, and live with whatever restrictions there are with whatever I choose to buy. DVC was the first timeshare I ever considered buying direct. Nothing in life is forever or a sure thing.

So, while I understand your argument, and it's sound to me, from your perspective (and actually truly makes sense), the decisions I make are for me. Since I won't be a direct owner, and probably won't be a resale Riviera owner either (unless resale prices drop $10-$20 below SSR's going market price), this won't affect me too much. The rules are the rules going in, you know what they are, and you make choices accordingly that works for you and your family. And if Riviera works for your family, than it's an excellent choice that will lead to many fond memories that you can't put a price on.

Great3

 

[Matty B13]

I completely agree with your first point. The restrictions will change everything. Your second point is also valid and I think varies greatly on the individual, with the majority being in agreement. In thinking about it, I actually think 100% the opposite. Here's why.

One of the biggest things I've learned during these tumultuous few months in DVCland is that there are cohorts of owners who think very similarly to other members of that cohort and very differently from members of other cohorts. I think sometimes the mistake we make on here (at least I know that I have) is that we try to convince those in another cohort that they should see things our way. I don't think that's a good use of our time. So building on that, and being cognizant of the fact that I am a member of a particularly conservative, strict, and rather uptight cohort, I actually want to see these restrictions succeed. In fact, I want the restrictions to get even harsher. I mean that 100%, not an ounce of sarcasm. Here's why I think this: many people are buying RIV after much research and being fully aware of the restrictions because they want to own there and they want to stay there. They do so knowing it's expensive and probably beyond whatever "value proposition" that I'm always blathering on about. They simply don't care. And good for them. They don't plan on selling and they know that if they do sell, they will get a smaller return then they would have absent the restrictions. But again, they simply don't care. And again, more power to them. I wish that for just one moment I could be less stiff, less rigid, and think like that. It's probably an easy and fun way to view things. So my point is, these owners do not really feel that they are being hurt by the restrictions. Let's not forget, the key component of a timeshare purchase is its use, not its barter or sale. So there is a cohort of owners who believes that the restrictions are not relevant to them. And as we established earlier, it's probably not a good use of time to try to convince them otherwise. However, at the same time, these restrictions (and hopefully in the future even harsher restrictions) create an opportunity for people like me.

So let's look at the flip side. DVC in 2019 is too expensive for my cohort. We are the frugal people. The rigid people. The inflexible people. It's not that we can't afford it, for the most part we can, it's that we can't justify it at the current price. And again, that is a very personal decision. People like me don't care about blue cards or special events or AP discounts or trading to other resorts or whatever other perks they come up with. People like me want to own DVC to stay in a DVC room. And we want to do so for as little money as possible. Hard stop. These restrictions create an ecosystem that allows people like me to participate once again. And to take it one step further, I don't think Disney likes this. But it's a situation that they created.

Back to your point, I agree with you that these restrictions are going to change everything. They will likely create an entirely new DVC ecosystem. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually think this new ecosystem will allow more people to participate. Will some owners get hurt? Sure. I want to be clear that I'm not rooting for that. I feel badly for the person who doesn't know what they bought and loses their shirt when they're forced to sell. But that happened before these restrictions and it will happen after. I actually think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

I love the Riviera. I love the location, the look, the feel, the rooms, the layout, the amenities, etc. I'm not crazy about the point requirements and the dues are a little high. And I DON'T love the buy-in cost. But put some points out there on the resale market for $60-80 (which could happen) and I'll take the restrictions and higher maintenance fees all day long.

I agree with everything you say here. But as I said above, I have a slightly different take. The situation you laid out above describes just about every other timeshare system out there. Disney was an outlier...up until now perhaps. But we have seen posters on here like @Dean who have mastered the acquisition and use of resale points in various timeshare systems for mere pennies on the dollar. Disney might be moving in that direction, and personally, and for ENTIRELY SELFISH motives, I'm all for it. I for one would love to get my hands on some sub-$50 SSR points. I would learn to love that resort like it was my own child.

What if they change the 11 month booking window to say 9 months for resale and keep 11 months for direct?

 

[Brianstl]

I can totally see how you say this and it makes complete sense. I also can definitely see how my perspective is different from the paradigm that we've come to expect. And that's the thing...that's what I think Disney is trying to do here...they're trying to change our thinking.

I'm going to push back on your thinking that direct owners are affected by the restrictions and posit that in one manner of speaking they are not impacted at all. The key to DVC (and any timeshare really) lies within its use. DVC is meant to be purchased and owned and used for the entire lifespan. That's its value and that is what Disney is putting its money into. They don't care about protecting the cash value of contracts and that is evidenced by the resale restrictions. But for those who purchase to use and enjoy, they will see minimal impact to their usage (aside from booking congestion theories...but time will tell on that). I think this change is going to be difficult for some people, but ultimately it will be better for the system and for the end-users. We've been experiencing a melt up of sorts over the past few years. It's unsustainable in my opinion. I think the ultimate impact of these restrictions is that the resale market will be damaged and deflated, and DVC salespeople will have to work slightly harder to overcome the objections in the near term until they become generally accepted. The happy by-product of that is that many new owners can enter the DVC marketplace with their discount and heavily restricted points...just like every other timeshare system out there. But at the end of the day, they're in the same rooms as everybody else.

Thank you for your kind words.

A large part of the resale market was going to experience a correction without the new restrictions. Prices at some resorts just don't make sense, that was true even if you think hotel rates will continue to accelerate at a rate they never have outside the last decade. I don't think those kind of rate increases or sustainable in an industry where you face increasing competition from places like Airbnb. It reminds me a lot of the skyrocketing taxi medallion cost before the collapse of that market.

 

[crvetter]

What if they change the 11 month booking window to say 9 months for resale and keep 11 months for direct?

The odds of this happening are close to 0. The current restrictions where they are applied are in the BVTC agreement, though I realize this is for an counter-example. Thus the only restrictions they can play around with for all current resorts is with trading among resorts, as this document defines nothing for the home resort booking. So currently they can modify those restrictions; however, it isn't the appropriate document to introduce this type of restrictions. No other part of the POS suggests them being able to add this in; therefore, it is unlikely to happen and if it did I would guess it could only happen at a new resort.

 

[DougEMG]

The rules are the rules going in, you know what they are, and you make choices accordingly that works for you and your family.

For me the big problem is that the rules seem to change whenever Disney feels like it. That makes it hard to plan long term and to determine the risk of owning DVC.

 

[Matty B13]

The odds of this happening are close to 0. The current restrictions where they are applied are in the BVTC agreement, though I realize this is for an counter-example. Thus the only restrictions they can play around with for all current resorts is with trading among resorts, as this document defines nothing for the home resort booking. So currently they can modify those restrictions; however, it isn't the appropriate document to introduce this type of restrictions. No other part of the POS suggests them being able to add this in; therefore, it is unlikely to happen and if it did I would guess it could only happen at a new resort.

Thats good to hear, but do you trust the current management to honor this? Most people thought that DVC couldn't add a resort to the BVTC agreement with the restrictions that RIV has, but they did. Just seems like a really big mess right now.

 

[crvetter]

Thats good to hear, but do you trust the current management to honor this? Most people thought that DVC couldn't add a resort to the BVTC agreement with the restrictions that RIV has, but they did. Just seems like a really big mess right now.

From the beginning I did push back against the common assumption they couldn't do what they did with Riviera (before we saw the details) because they would do it with a new agreement. What you are proposing is modifying our current agreements, something that DVC hasn't attempted to do to the detriment of the owners. The only major one, I know of, was the change made to the agreements to allow for the change of UY which I find to be in the betterment of every owner and DVC alike.

I do trust they won't likely give resale and direct owners different home resort priority periods to all existing resorts because of the changes required and Florida wouldn't take too kindly to it. I also find it highly unlikely that Florida would ever approve a new resort with this rule, but I won't say never since Disney has a lot of pull. Is this something that current timeshares do? I haven't heard of any like that; the current resale restrictions I've heard similar to other timeshares, but never modifying the home resort priority period.

 

[ELMC]

I understand what you are saying, the value of any timeshare is in its use. But I consider an exit strategy for every timeshare(s) I own. That's just me. But, I don't buy any timeshare assuming I get something back on resale (I just pretend it is 100% sunk cost and assume I get nothing back when I need to get rid of the timeshare, and base my affordability calculations off of that). Anything I get back is just gravy when the times come for me to exit.
[snip]

Great3

Me too. Absolutely. You and I are much alike in that respect. The problem I have is that right now, the amount of the sunk cost is just waaaaaay too high. My first contract ever was a 150 point BWV contract for about $8,500. That was a cost I was willing to sink. That same contract today is between $18,000 and $29,000 (resale and direct) and has seven fewer years on it. Too much for me.

And if Riviera works for your family, than it's an excellent choice that will lead to many fond memories that you can't put a price on.

But unfortunately I am super uptight, so I do put a price on it.

What if they change the 11 month booking window to say 9 months for resale and keep 11 months for direct?

Yes, this is my point exactly. While a previous poster suggested that it is unlikely to happen, for the purposes of this conversation let's say it does. That would further reduce the resale value of the contract. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for when I call for more stringent restrictions. Sure I might not be able to get my perfect dates in my preferred category, but at 9 months I'll likely get some sort of room. And if the market prices reflect this kind of penalty, I'd be all for it. Others want to pay full price for flexibility and benefits. There are many different kinds of DVC users out there. I'm happy to see the possibility of the marketplace catering to all of them.

In the past, direct owners were sour towards resale owners because they got the same thing as direct owners for a fraction of the price. That might not be fair. But to get something materially different (and potentially more individually desirable) for a fraction of the price? That seems more fair.

 

[mustinjourney]

That does not solve anything. The suggestion is still that if you’re knowledgeable, you wouldn’t buy Riviera.

That would not be unlike saying something to the effect of, “Buying SSR is a hard sell to anyone who is not a bargain-basement-shopper-type, it’s just too remote... for me”

“For me” doesn’t solve the problem with that statement. It’s still insulting.

I think if you preface it with "my truth is..." then it turns the opinion into a "truth," and therefore, you can't argue. So maybe that's what he/she should've done?

 

[mustinjourney]

I do not see VGF, BLT, SSR and PVB jump about $2.00 per point to be around RIV, I can see about $0.50 per point increase, but not much more.

I'll take the over on that. Those minimum wage increases are hitting the resorts again next year -- so you can definitely expect another big bump.

 

[skier_pete]

What if they change the 11 month booking window to say 9 months for resale and keep 11 months for direct?

this is my fear and why I bought another resale contract. If they did this - it would kill the resale market. If you were both locked into your home resort AND you weren't allowed to book at 11 months, you better really like 1-bedrooms in the summer.

 

[katandmouse]

The odds of this happening are close to 0. The current restrictions where they are applied are in the BVTC agreement, though I realize this is for an counter-example. Thus the only restrictions they can play around with for all current resorts is with trading among resorts, as this document defines nothing for the home resort booking. So currently they can modify those restrictions; however, it isn't the appropriate document to introduce this type of restrictions. No other part of the POS suggests them being able to add this in; therefore, it is unlikely to happen and if it did I would guess it could only happen at a new resort.

Riviera’s Membership Agreement does have a Future Restrictions, Limitations, or Changes clause (section 4.10). Attached is a screenshot from Riviera’s Declaration of Condominium (pp. 98-99), available on the OCC Public Records search. So while I agree I don't think they can make this change for the L14, DVD has reserved that right for RIV. Presumably since they have reserved the right now, any future changes could apply to existing RIV owners as well and not just future/prospective purchasers.

But I didn't think that, based on the prior agreements and FL statutes, they could admit Riviera under these terms and conditions, so who knows what else they could do.

I've been looking around TUG to try to find out more about how other timeshares operate. They vary a lot with their booking rules. Some, like Marriott and [Edit: Holiday Inn] I think, have different status levels with different booking windows. Others charge for resales to convert or qualify points (or if you buy direct points, then all your points can become qualified), and some like Westgate charge resales for seemingly everything, like cancellation or change fees, and there are still major restrictions on where/when you can book. Overall though it seems like most TS systems don't restrict resales to home resort only (like the current Riviera resale owner restriction).
ETA: I looked again and it seems like the TS that do restrict resales to home resort are fixed weeks, and they can’t convert the resale weeks to points.

 

[Bing Showei]

I completely agree with your first point. The restrictions will change everything. Your second point is also valid and I think varies greatly on the individual, with the majority being in agreement. In thinking about it, I actually think 100% the opposite. Here's why.

One of the biggest things I've learned during these tumultuous few months in DVCland is that there are cohorts of owners who think very similarly to other members of that cohort and very differently from members of other cohorts. I think sometimes the mistake we make on here (at least I know that I have) is that we try to convince those in another cohort that they should see things our way. I don't think that's a good use of our time. So building on that, and being cognizant of the fact that I am a member of a particularly conservative, strict, and rather uptight cohort, I actually want to see these restrictions succeed. In fact, I want the restrictions to get even harsher. I mean that 100%, not an ounce of sarcasm. Here's why I think this: many people are buying RIV after much research and being fully aware of the restrictions because they want to own there and they want to stay there. They do so knowing it's expensive and probably beyond whatever "value proposition" that I'm always blathering on about. They simply don't care. And good for them. They don't plan on selling and they know that if they do sell, they will get a smaller return then they would have absent the restrictions. But again, they simply don't care. And again, more power to them. I wish that for just one moment I could be less stiff, less rigid, and think like that. It's probably an easy and fun way to view things. So my point is, these owners do not really feel that they are being hurt by the restrictions. Let's not forget, the key component of a timeshare purchase is its use, not its barter or sale. So there is a cohort of owners who believes that the restrictions are not relevant to them. And as we established earlier, it's probably not a good use of time to try to convince them otherwise. However, at the same time, these restrictions (and hopefully in the future even harsher restrictions) create an opportunity for people like me.

So let's look at the flip side. DVC in 2019 is too expensive for my cohort. We are the frugal people. The rigid people. The inflexible people. It's not that we can't afford it, for the most part we can, it's that we can't justify it at the current price. And again, that is a very personal decision. People like me don't care about blue cards or special events or AP discounts or trading to other resorts or whatever other perks they come up with. People like me want to own DVC to stay in a DVC room. And we want to do so for as little money as possible. Hard stop. These restrictions create an ecosystem that allows people like me to participate once again. And to take it one step further, I don't think Disney likes this. But it's a situation that they created.

Back to your point, I agree with you that these restrictions are going to change everything. They will likely create an entirely new DVC ecosystem. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I actually think this new ecosystem will allow more people to participate. Will some owners get hurt? Sure. I want to be clear that I'm not rooting for that. I feel badly for the person who doesn't know what they bought and loses their shirt when they're forced to sell. But that happened before these restrictions and it will happen after. I actually think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

I love the Riviera. I love the location, the look, the feel, the rooms, the layout, the amenities, etc. I'm not crazy about the point requirements and the dues are a little high. And I DON'T love the buy-in cost. But put some points out there on the resale market for $60-80 (which could happen) and I'll take the restrictions and higher maintenance fees all day long.

I agree with everything you say here. But as I said above, I have a slightly different take. The situation you laid out above describes just about every other timeshare system out there. Disney was an outlier...up until now perhaps. But we have seen posters on here like @Dean who have mastered the acquisition and use of resale points in various timeshare systems for mere pennies on the dollar. Disney might be moving in that direction, and personally, and for ENTIRELY SELFISH motives, I'm all for it. I for one would love to get my hands on some sub-$50 SSR points. I would learn to love that resort like it was my own child.

Not gonna lie, I really wanted to dislike your post and try to reason my way out of your stark assessment which I see as so sadly dystopian. And your newly discovered embrace for Disney’s timeshare restrictions make me even more depressed than your assessment.

I was going to point out that this wasn’t what I signed up for, that the pre-2019 product is what made owning Disney’s timeshare worth considering. But we know none of that matters because you’re right. You’re right in both what you see happening in the future and what needs to be done for one to “win” in that environment. These restrictions won’t fail and sales will chug along. Foot traffic alone sells enough to keep Disney’s timeshare profitable.

Every time there is a perceived slight by Disney to the ownership, whether it’s the reallocation or these restrictions, I make noise, blather from atop my soapbox, send some emails, make some phone calls, and then... I settle into how in practice, this still works for my family. I justify staying in the game because these changes don’t really effect me or my use of the timeshare. Worst of all, I can afford the real impact of these changes.

The idea of broad ownership advocacy is quixotic at best; delusional is probably more accurate. The water temperature rises and we all become desensitized to its implications.

If what you project comes to pass, it’s great for you and those who can adapt and work within the system; buy super cheap and not care because it will afford you cheap stays and an opportunity to beat the system (and in the process, beat Disney at their own game). But I’m pretty confident that’s not a game I want to play. I don’t want such an adversarial relationship with my timeshare, and I wonder today when I will tire of justifying maintaining my ownership despite all the changes Disney implements to create that adversarial environment that you’re quickly adapting to.

Your post was depressing, but I can’t find fault in its logic. I’m just not sure how I fit into that future.

 

[mustinjourney]

Points are not going to drop to $80 for riviera. It’s just not going to happen. The value is there at $120 for rental purposes.
Now if the sky liner is a permanent failure, all bets are off.