ROFR Thread July to Sept 2019 *PLEASE SEE FIRST POST FOR INSTRUCTIONS & FORMATTING TOOL*

[mustinjourney]

I completely understand how and why it works the way it does. I also know that my thought would never ever happen. So lets say we call my Phase 1 Right of First Buy Back then, and if they decline on that, and take it from a buyer in Phase 2 because buyer made a great deal, that's when buyer also gets compensated for their time. Like I said ... I know this is not a realistic hope ... just my 0.02 on what would be fair to ALL parties involved. I know it's all about business though.

who's going to pay that finder's fee? Disney?

 

[mustinjourney]

I like the idea of a two phase RORF. Once listed it goes to Disney and they decide if they want the contract or not. If Disney passes on it it then goes out to the public. Then when someone bids to buy a contract the RORF is already done and can go right to closing. So ROFR is done first, a reverse of today’s system

That wouldn't work in many cases since people do not always pay list price. So in instances where disney passed on the list price, but the buyer negotiated it down a few $$ per point, under your system, Disney never actually got their opportunity for ROFR.

 

[kboo]

I think if (who am I kidding.. when) I attack another contract I may try to be a bit more shrewd and take some stabs at steals, when time is less important.

I definitely felt a lot more relaxed when adding on - while I had several offers where the seller declined to even counter (looking at you, BCV!), I ended up getting some good deals without feeling like I had vacations in the balance waiting on ROFR. One of our contracts actually had points I had to rent out because we couldn't use them in time.

 

[SherylLC]

SherylLC---$135-$22491-160-BLT-Feb-0/18, 0/19, 320/20, 160/21- sent 8/5

anyone think this'll pass?

 

[DisneyKid11]

SherylLC---$135-$22491-160-BLT-Feb-0/18, 0/19, 320/20, 160/21- sent 8/5

anyone think this'll pass?

That's a great contract! I try to look at it as everything could pass, and is worth a shot if you find what you want at a great deal. Good luck!

 

[Gryhndmom]

SherylLC---$135-$22491-160-BLT-Feb-0/18, 0/19, 320/20, 160/21- sent 8/5

anyone think this'll pass?

The odds say no but.....stranger things have happened.

 

[mlrl2288]

What area of the website is the report?

 

[Derian]

What area of the website is the report?

If you go to dvcresalemarket.com, it's under "blog". Title of the report is "DVC Right of First Refusal Report (ROFR): July ’19 Report". It only includes data for the contracts they've sold, so it wouldn't include all of the ones included here. But they sell enough to provide some pretty solid information to take into account when you are trying to determine what price you should offer. They only update that once a month, so this thread will often have more up-to-date information.

 

[What-r-ya Goofy?]

SherylLC---$135-$22491-160-BLT-Feb-0/18, 0/19, 320/20, 160/21- sent 8/5

anyone think this'll pass?

I think $146 is the magic number right now.

 

[ScubaCat]

I have to say, and I understand that this will not likely be a popular view point, but I don’t find it all that helpful to have such stringent rules for posting for the string. So much that I don’t even really look at the beginning of the thread and just look at the posts as they come (which I would add is super unhelpful when I get a notice for a new posting, but it is just someone telling them to click the link in the first post) I can tell what they are trying to convey whether they meet the formatting requirements. I would also add that a properly formatted string doesn’t actually convey accurate information. The price per point does not generally correlate to what people are actually paying per point and gives a false sense of people paying less than they are actually paying. Again, not trying to offend, just trying to point out that maybe the stringent formatting guidelines aren’t as useful as they are made out to be. I personally only look at the posts as they are posted and then have to do the mental math myself to see what people are actually paying per point because the string does not actually convey that without additional math. Also the string generator will not even generate a string in some circumstances, for instance, like when a seller gives a credit for future MFs. If you put the price/point the contract was listed at and then actually put the total price you are paying, there will be an error because the math doesn’t work out and it won’t give you a string.

This thread is immensely helpful, but sometimes way too hard to just post simple information that people can digest on their own. I wonder if we wouldn’t get more information if people weren’t required to meet an exact format that doesn’t necessarily give simple information that doesn’t require more analysis. And I know there is a string generator to do the work for you, but on a lot of computers/networks it doesn’t work.

Again, not trying to offend or make those mad who run this thread. I have been closely following these threads for years and have used them to buy numerous resale contracts in the past two years. But I haven’t used them in the way they purport to be useful. Just my 2 cents...

I respect and appreciate your viewpoint, I honestly do . Thank you kindly for the feedback and the food for thought. At this point in time, I plan to continue requesting that people use the formatting that I have set up over the years of running this thread by utilizing the ROFR string generator tool so that the information is clear, concise, uniform, and easily viewed and interpreted.

I will say that I have seen another ROFR thread with people posting everything willy-nilly and it made my head hurt trying to interpret the data that was being posted.

As well, all you need to do to figure out the “true” price per point, dollar for dollar, is to divide the total by the number of points on the contract. If the total is missing the MFs due at closing, or the broker’s admin fees, that number will be skewed and will not represent a valid data point.

If you all are having issues generating accurate strings, please let me know. I have a guy I can talk to about that (paging @ScubaCat )!

Here's the best way to describe why we do it this way vs how the other folks do it. For the purposes of this demonstration, replace the phrase "brake pads" with "ROFR thread":

 

[lovethesun12]

I have to say, and I understand that this will not likely be a popular view point, but I don’t find it all that helpful to have such stringent rules for posting for the string. So much that I don’t even really look at the beginning of the thread and just look at the posts as they come (which I would add is super unhelpful when I get a notice for a new posting, but it is just someone telling them to click the link in the first post) I can tell what they are trying to convey whether they meet the formatting requirements. I would also add that a properly formatted string doesn’t actually convey accurate information. The price per point does not generally correlate to what people are actually paying per point and gives a false sense of people paying less than they are actually paying. Again, not trying to offend, just trying to point out that maybe the stringent formatting guidelines aren’t as useful as they are made out to be. I personally only look at the posts as they are posted and then have to do the mental math myself to see what people are actually paying per point because the string does not actually convey that without additional math. Also the string generator will not even generate a string in some circumstances, for instance, like when a seller gives a credit for future MFs. If you put the price/point the contract was listed at and then actually put the total price you are paying, there will be an error because the math doesn’t work out and it won’t give you a string.

This thread is immensely helpful, but sometimes way too hard to just post simple information that people can digest on their own. I wonder if we wouldn’t get more information if people weren’t required to meet an exact format that doesn’t necessarily give simple information that doesn’t require more analysis. And I know there is a string generator to do the work for you, but on a lot of computers/networks it doesn’t work.

Again, not trying to offend or make those mad who run this thread. I have been closely following these threads for years and have used them to buy numerous resale contracts in the past two years. But I haven’t used them in the way they purport to be useful. Just my 2 cents...

But if people do it your way, it leaves more room for error. If they give a cost per point it's inaccurate because no one knows exactly how Disney will increase their dues over the years.

If the rules were less strict, wouldn't it also be harder for people who keep up this thread on their own time to decipher information? That would just mean more work for them for something that is just out of the goodness of their heart anyway. Leave out a dollar sign with incorrect formatting and then you question does 120 mean $120 per point, or 120 point contract? Then ask and it turns out the 120 meant a use year of december and the 0 was a typo. Writing those questions and waiting for answers will take extra time.

Everyone uses the information in different ways. If one person wants cost per point over the entire contract, the next person will want that with financing, the next person with financing at a different rate, the next with projections for dues increases, etc. The best thing about the simple format is it lets you do whatever cost projections you want on your time. At least it has for me.

 

[marygrcevic]

marygrcevic---$108-$24634-220-AUL-Mar-0/18, 0/19, 220/20, 220/21-Subsidized dues- sent 8/7

 

[rongarbutt]

Another vote for consistent formatting. For spread sheet maniacs like myself, I can easily copy months worth of data into excel and run the numbers. Even with all that, my first offer was with my heart, not my brain!

 

[Doberge]

Also. The string generator includes a "notes" section that's useful for stuff like Mary's post above of a contract with subsidized dues.

"Closing Time" is an example of a thread where all there are many useful data points but so many that it's only digestible how it's run with each post being a different set of data points. Ultimately, it's difficult to get a sense of trends if needing to look through multiple pages. That's doubly difficult for a ROFR thread where data is more resort dependent, one could look through multiple five pages and not find a similar contract. Much easier to see it all in one post organized by status and resort in a format that's consistent.

My only suggestion would be to maybe change the leading "price per point" font to be bolded, italicized, or normal depending on current UY points. Maybe bolded for fully loaded contracts with some banked points, normal font for contracts without banked points but fo have current UY points, and italicized for a stripped contract. It moght help with some eye gymnastics looking over to see what is stripped, fully loaded, or neither.

 

[armsk]

armsk---$103-$8071-70-SSR-Aug-0/18, 36/19, 70/20, 70/21- sent 8/7

 

[aftereden]

aftereden---$105-$18730-160-AKV-Dec-0/17, 158/18, 160/19, 160/20- sent 8/07/2019

What do you all think is the likelihood we will pass ROFR? 30%?

 

[Pongo&Perdita9190]

We currently travel with my wife’s parents as they’re DVC members. Once I got introduced to DVC through them (8years ago) it’s been a dream of my wife and I to become DVC owner for ourselves.

After staying in Hilton Head Island for 8 days we headed home. That’s when we found out Disney waives the ROFR. This is our first contract!!!! What a way to finish off a vacation.

Pongo&Perdita9190---$105-$17345-160-AKV-Jun-0/18, 7/19, 160/20- sent 7/18, passed 8/2

 

[agirlcallededdy]

agirlcallededdy---$103-$24176-220-SSR-Feb-0/18, 4/19, 440/20, 220/21-50/50 MF '19- sent 8/7

 

[ScubaCat]

What do you all think is the likelihood we will pass ROFR? 30%?

 

[thelionqueen]

OMG LOL