Rumor has it ...

[ornurse]

Rumor has it DVC will no longer offer 150 points DVC packages. The new number of smallest number of points you can no buy affective 09/01/02 will be 175 points... heard this rumor from a DH.. anyone else out there hear anything...

 

[Disney Doll]

Not yet. When we bought in 1997, they offered 150 with the disclaimer that it might not be enough points to trade out to some of the properties outside the DVC properties(the II etc.) We bought 200, since we figured that would give us at least 2 or 3 weeks in a studio.

 

[chris1gill]

Hmm... interesting rumor... I wonder how that will affect sales with the 80.00 per point price....

 

[Laurajean1014]

IS DVC going to $80 a point? At what price is it not going to sell at?

We bought at $58 and $62/point and had 47 and 46 years to use. At what point will consumers say, why pay $~~~ a point when I can only use it for 25 or 30 years?

When I bought, I thought it would take me 5 years to break even. With higher prices, higher nightly rates and shorter length of time, why would people still buy?

 

[DeeP]

Laurajean, this amazes me also.

 

[Dean]

Price goes to $80 pp in June, it has been announced for some time. As for when the remaining right to use (RTU) affects the price, my guess would be somewhere close to 30 years or just under. That would give us a while yet. To me, it's not the price per point that DVC has to worry about but the incentives and extras of the new resort(s) as the new announced resorts will not have a park or location hotel to aid in selling.

Remember that 150 has not been the floor forever. The floor for point purchases has been at 190, 210 and 230 at one time or another if memory serves me correctly. With the last 2 new resorts having much higher points per unit per week costs, it only makes sense that DVC would increase this level. It's also a way of changing the distribution of unit sizes reserved. If the studios are hard to come by because they're being booked almost exclusivley by those with smaller contracts, an increase in minimum points required may affect that somewhat over time. Whether it'll be enough at this late date to make a difference, I doubt it. If they do raise the min, I suspect they will raise the min add on as well back to 50 points.

And before we get a waive of posts about how this will make DVC not affordable for some, that is not necessarily their goal. DVC is in it to make money and if they could build it and sell it all out to one person making the same money and keeping total control, they would and be done with it. I'm sure DVC would prefer to have a lot less members owning more points per member. The incentive to change the min was to make more people able to buy so they could speed up sales, there was no altruistic motive. Timeshares as a rule are aimed at those making $75000 or more, some of them target those making $60000 or more. No insult intended, just anticipating where this thread might go.

 

[Doctor P]

I don't believe this rumor (or at least the particulars of it) for even a minute. At BCV, 150 points is sufficient to reserve a studio for a week 49 of 52 weeks (if I recall the chart correctly--I'm too lazy to get back up and look at it again ) and 175 points would be insufficient for reserving a week in a studio during those weeks. If you told me that when DI and Eagle Pines come up for sale that they will have a new point minimum, that might be possible because they could have a new point schedule. By banking, 150 points is sufficient for most II exchanges and 175 points in a single year (recalling Doc's recent post) would still be insufficient for the average exchange. Soooo....I think it's possible, but not that soon and/or not a 175 point minimum.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by Doctor P
I don't believe this rumor (or at least the particulars of it) for even a minute. At BCV, 150 points is sufficient to reserve a studio for a week 49 of 52 weeks (if I recall the chart correctly--I'm too lazy to get back up and look at it again ) and 175 points would be insufficient for reserving a week in a studio during those weeks. If you told me that when DI and Eagle Pines come up for sale that they will have a new point minimum, that might be possible because they could have a new point schedule. By banking, 150 points is sufficient for most II exchanges and 175 points in a single year (recalling Doc's recent post) would still be insufficient for the average exchange. Soooo....I think it's possible, but not that soon and/or not a 175 point minimum.

I agree the number is a little screwy but decided not to add that variable to my previous post. If it changes, I'd suspect 190-210 as the new amount. If it doesn't, wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[DeeP]

I am very surprised that the declining number of years available for use with DVC has not already effected sales. This is the one big objection I always hear from people that own other timeshares is that they own theirs forever and can will them to their children etc., while we only own our DVC for a certain number of years. As others have speculated Disney is going to have to do something in regards to this because eventually people are not going to pay the highest timeshare prices around for a very limited amount of use. As the point price increases and the use years decrease so does the value decrease that you get for your money.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by DeeP
I am very surprised that the declining number of years available for use with DVC has not already effected sales. This is the one big objection I always hear from people that own other timeshares is that they own theirs forever and can will them to their children etc., while we only own our DVC for a certain number of years. As others have speculated Disney is going to have to do something in regards to this because eventually people are not going to pay the highest timeshare prices around for a very limited amount of use. As the point price increases and the use years decrease so does the value decrease that you get for your money.

From what I see, most of the negative talk about RTU is in regards to DVC. In many cases, it's a disguised way of DVC bashing. You almost never hear anyone talk about RTU at other resorts in such a negative tone. In the Timeshare world, DVC and it's owners are basically outsiders. Personally, I think it's a lot pf Pe..s envy. There are many RTU properties out there and a number of the best ones started at 30 years from day 1. There are advantages and disadvantages. I own 4 resorts (6 weeks or contracts) that are RTU and only 2 resort (3 weeks) that are deeded. The shortest term I have is 31 years and I just bought it last year. It's a points resort in MX and we will visit there next June staying in a 3 BR oceanfront unit for 8 nights then decide whether to keep it and whether to use or exchange it after that.

While I think that JUST UNDER 30 years will start to affect the prices somewhat, I don't think we'll see a lot of affect until around 20 years or so.

 

[DeeP]

Dean,
Thanks fro the explanation. Even though we have owned our DVC membership for years we are really timeshare novices because DVC was the only timeshare we ever looked in to, we were ever interested in and the only timeshare we ever bought. I did not even know there were other timeshares that only had a limited number of use years like DVC does! I am assuming that is what a RTU timeshare means. I also never knew DVC owners and the DVC timeshare were considered outsiders! I know all the people that I know that own other timeshares besides DVC all think we were nuts to buy DVC but I really do not care what they think because it was my money that was spent on DVC and also our DVC has given us and will continue to give us a great deal of pleasure and happiness. Thanks again for the Intro to Timeshares 101! LOL!

 

[fkj2]

was correct about how many points were the minimum buy-in. In 1992 when I purchased, the minimum was indeed 230.

 

[PamOKW]

It is amazing how there seems to be no end to the desire to own DVC. The pace of sales for BCV during what is suppossedly a downturn in the economy and the travel industry must surely have surprised even DVC. I don't expect to see the prices come down for quite some time. Just think what will happen as the economy rebounds and more foreign visitors return to their FL/WDW vacations!

For those owners who got in when the life of DVC was closer to 50 years it's hard to grasp why people would buy for less time. But, having vacations for 30-40 years is still quite a long time and the cost advantage is still there. Lots of folks certainly seem to be okay with that timeframe. I agree that less than 30 years may be harder to sell.

The arguement that you can own other timeshares "forever" doesn't really matter to me. Why would you want to own something that could very well be falling apart in 30-40 years? Passing it on could just be a burden for your heirs. While this isn't the case with all timeshares, it is a reality that gave the timeshare industry a bad name in the first place. With Disney, we know they maintain their properties to look like new even 25 years in. The limited time ownership seems to be the norm with all the high quality timeshare companies like Marriott, Hilton and Disney.

 

[Richyams]

I just don't think so, I think that most people who buy 150 points, add on. I just don't think they want to raise the buy in way, way above 10k.

It could be a move in preperation for more dramatic price increases. They may go to 200 or so for a while, get the price to $100 per point for the opening of EP and/or VDI, and then look like heros lowering the minimum back to 150.

My inclination is to discount this.

I am going to post a poll to test my theory,

 

[CarolMN]

I'm not so sure prices will be negatively impacted at 30 or even 20 years, but that is JMHO. That's assuming there will still be people who want Deluxe/HAFH accomodations and enjoy Disney one or more times annually. And it also assumes educated buyers.

Most financial analyses that I have read concerning DVC state that the "break even" point is 5 - 7 years. If that is true, I see an advantage to owning DVC even if the RTU term is only 10 years. DVC would still cost less than 10 years of "pay as you go" vacations and the DVC accomodations would be higher in quality.

After we reach our break even point, I will no longer be worried about getting my initial $$ back. Anything I get out of a sale (IF I would ever sell and that is a big IF) would be a bonus and just make the origianl deal sweeter.

I don't really consider DVC a timeshare, even though it is one. I look at it more as a prepaid vacation plan. Maybe that is why the term didn't really matter to me as long as the term was long enough to make the deal financially viable. Owning a timeshare "forever" never appealed to me, mainly because of all the horror stories I read about people not being able to get out of properties that were poorly maintained/operated. I like that Disney is making sure the resorts are kept in tip top shape.

Anyway, if you can be better off financially with DVC in only 5-7 years, I'm not so sure that prices will dip significantly at even 20 years. Again, JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CarolMN
Most financial analyses that I have read concerning DVC state that the "break even" point is 5 - 7 years. If that is true, I see an advantage to owning DVC even if the RTU term is only 10 years. DVC would still cost less than 10 years of "pay as you go" vacations and the DVC accomodations would be higher in quality.

After we reach our break even point, I will no longer be worried about getting my initial $$ back. Anything I get out of a sale (IF I would ever sell and that is a big IF) would be a bonus and just make the origianl deal sweeter.

Obviously the return depends on the assumptions. I personally would put the break even point at more like 12-15 years but one's vacation habits, specific assumptions and possible return on unused money will have a large impact on the final numbers.

I don't really consider DVC a timeshare, even though it is one. I look at it more as a prepaid vacation plan. Maybe that is why the term didn't really matter to me as long as the term was long enough to make the deal financially viable. Owning a timeshare "forever" never appealed to me, mainly because of all the horror stories I read about people not being able to get out of properties that were poorly maintained/operated. I like that Disney is making sure the resorts are kept in tip top shape.

And that is in large part the reason that DVC members are looked at as outsiders in the timeshare world. We are generally seen as arrogant and short sighted but you are right, this is how DVC members look at it. I've even had members argue with me that DVC isn't even a timeshare. I'm sure most of us feel the same way you do or we wouldn't own DVC. Just for the record, if one compares to a good value on a top rated non DVC Orlando Timeshare, the ownership would never pay for itself so obviously there is more to this than just numbers like "Welcome Home".

Anyway, if you can be better off financially with DVC in only 5-7 years, I'm not so sure that prices will dip significantly at even 20 years. Again, JMHO. YMMV.

If 5-7 years was an obvious break even for every member, I would agree with you. Trouble is I think that number only applies to the hard corp that would go every year and stay at deluxe places on WDW property with or without DVC. This is obviously not the case for many of us. Also, the psychological impact will start to affect the price at some point even if the numbers can be justified. I also doubt a 30-40 y/o strucure in Central FL will have the same allure that it did at 10 years old, regardless of maintenance and refurbishment.

 

[PamOKW]

I also doubt a 30-40 y/o strucure in Central FL will have the same allure that it did at 10 years old, regardless of maintenance and refurbishment.

I'm not sure about that. The Contemporary and Poly still have an awful lot of fans. And if you look at the premiere hotels in the U.S. many of them are much, much older than that.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by PamOKW


I'm not sure about that. The Contemporary and Poly still have an awful lot of fans. And if you look at the premiere hotels in the U.S. many of them are much, much older than that.

Agreed, it certainly won't be the getto. Still the GF, YC, BC, BW, AKL, WL have taken over for many of those fans. We shall see.

 

[Granny]

I posted on Richyam's poll before I saw this thread, but it's hard to believe the rumor.

My first reaction to any rumor about DVC is to ask "What's in it for Disney?".

In the case of DVC, they are selling at great leaps and bounds. VWL sold out fast and by all accounts BCV is selling like hot cakes. Why would Disney tinker with that? After all, increasing the minimum doesn't really make them more money other than to lower the total number of transactions in selling a place out (saves on transaction fees). And I guess it could conceivably speed the sell-out process and their return on investment. But those are pretty marginal reasons considering the potential for messing with current sales trends. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I've been around corporate America long enough to know that decision-making is not always the most rational of processes!

 

[Peter Johnson]

Back in '92 when we joined, we thought about the prices, and when they were going to start declining. We figured it would go up for the first 5 or 6 years, then level off for a few. By 2000 it would be sure to be dropping.

Boy, were we stupid!