Should I Buy Riviera?

[Lee Matthews]

I hope to stay at those cabins one day too. Perhaps when my kids are older and we're not so focused on the parks. I'd really want to do nothing but to enjoy the cabin and resort amenities. And there are LOTS of amenities at WL.

It looks incredible

saying that, I’ve just looked at the points charts for CCV and yeah… I’ll probably be adding on at AKV now. They are a lot higher

 

[HIRyeDVC]

Can I ask the rational for buying DVC to begin with? Is it based on what you spend yearly on vacation?

This is a loaded question and depends completely on your situation. How often would you go to Disney? What kind of accommodations do you prefer? How many nights a year?

If you go every year, the math clearly works in DVC's favor. For example, if you were to stay at Disney's Animation Resort (value resort) every year for a week, it would probably cost you about $200 per night (depending on the season), which would come out to $1750 per trip. In 20 years, it would cost $28,000, (assuming prices don't go up, but we all know it will so the overall cost would be much more).

If you go DVC, say you purchase a 150 point contract at Bay Lake Tower, which is a very deluxe resort. dvcresalemarket's last average price report from May lists BLT at $178pp (which is kinda high). That contract would cost you $26,700. Additionally, 20 years worth of maintenance fee would cost $20,700 (MFs will go up every year by about 2-3%). This would equate to about $2370 per trip at around $339 per night. But this would be staying at a deluxe resort instead of a value resort. Deluxe resorts tend to cost anywhere from $500-1200 per night, for a studio!!

So bottom line is, if you're ok with staying value and off property resorts, then DVC is not for you. If you like disney deluxe accommodations, then it's no brainer in my opinion.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

It looks incredible

saying that, I’ve just looked at the points charts for CCV and yeah… I’ll probably be adding on at AKV now. They are a lot higher

I don't blame ya. CCV has a huge points disparity problem where most owners only have enough points to stay in studios or maybe 1BRs. But the cabins (which no one really rents) take up a lion share of the points in the system, leaving most people fighting for the small amount of affordable rooms. If you want to stay in CCV, you need to own CCV, unless you got like a billion saratoga points. Then you could ball out in the cabins, which isn't a bad strategy I think. I never felt the need to own AKV because you could usually always find availability at the 7 months, unless you're shooting for the value or concierge, which is crazy hard I've heard, even at the 11mo window.

 

[scoobdoo]

The best perk/benefit of DVC is the ability to use points at all current and future resorts.

This right here is the single biggest reason why I've decided to buy RIV direct. The FOMO would just be too great once future DVC resorts are unveiled and to be locked out from them all with a resale contract.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

This right here is the single biggest reason why I've decided to buy RIV direct. The FOMO would just be too great once future DVC resorts are unveiled and to be locked out from them all with a resale contract.

I don't know though. I think this so called perk may be a mirage if restrictions continue. If more of these contracts end up on the resale market, those contracts will no longer be able to book anywhere else, which could lead to DVC eventually becoming a traditional timeshare program, being only restricted to the resorts we own by necessity.

 

[prs_14]

This right here is the single biggest reason why I've decided to buy RIV direct. The FOMO would just be too great once future DVC resorts are unveiled and to be locked out from them all with a resale contract.

I agree and I am frankly surprised that so many people are willing to buy resale right now. You hear many people saying that resale is thriving right now and that the resale restrictions did nothing to hurt the resale market. Disney is playing the long game here. Just you wait. When people wake up and realize that 1) the "original 14" resorts are really only 7 in WDW post 2042, and 2) they are boxed out from staying at the "new" Beach Club and BoardWalk and Boulder Ridge in ~2043, while their "direct" peers get to stay everywhere, there are going to be a lot of today's resale buyers kicking themselves. And, what they will end up doing is buying more direct points in the future. Now who's saving money?

I will gladly pay the 10-15% premium today (remember, everyone has to pay maintenance fees and they are half of what you are signing up for!) so that I can continue to get access to BCV/BWV/BRV and anything else they build in the next 45 years.

Now, if you bought resale before the restrictions, that is of course the best of all worlds. But I cannot wrap my head around buying resale today. The 10-15% premium is worth it to me.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I agree and I am frankly surprised that so many people are willing to buy resale right now. You hear many people saying that resale is thriving right now and that the resale restrictions did nothing to hurt the resale market. Disney is playing the long game here. Just you wait. When people wake up and realize that 1) the "original 14" resorts are really only 7 in WDW post 2042, and 2) they are boxed out from staying at the "new" Beach Club and BoardWalk and Boulder Ridge in ~2043, while their "direct" peers get to stay everywhere, there are going to be a lot of today's resale buyers kicking themselves. And, what they will end up doing is buying more direct points in the future. Now who's saving money?

I will gladly pay the 10-15% premium today (remember, everyone has to pay maintenance fees and they are half of what you are signing up for!) so that I can continue to get access to BCV/BWV/BRV and anything else they build in the next 45 years.

Now, if you bought resale before the restrictions, that is of course the best of all worlds. But I cannot wrap my head around buying resale today. The 10-15% premium is worth it to me.

The percentage of savings from resale obviously depends on the resort. Probably not so much for resorts like VGF but resorts like AKL and SSR could save you 30-40% which is a big difference. I mostly agree with your sentiment though. I bought VGC resale because I didn't want to get on a 20 year waitlist. I also bought BLT resale because I love the resort, location, and rather pay $160pp rather than $245pp. Currently, there just isn't enough new resorts out there for people to be convinced of your argument. And Riviera, while nice, is highly divisive at best and DLT is just too far away for most. After DLT, I just can't see any other new DVC resort that could wow people for them to buy direct at 150pt minimum. And 2042 is still too far away for people to care. Just my opinion.

 

[prs_14]

The percentage of savings from resale obviously depends on the resort. Probably not so much for resorts like VGF but resorts like AKL and SSR could save you 30-40% which is a big difference. I mostly agree with your sentiment though. I bought VGC resale because I didn't want to get on a 20 year waitlist. I also bought BLT resale because I love the resort, location, and rather pay $160pp rather than $245pp. Currently, there just isn't enough new resorts out there for people to be convinced of your argument. And Riviera, while nice, is highly divisive at best and DLT is just too far away for most. After DLT, I just can't see any other new DVC resort that could wow people for them to buy direct at 150pt minimum. And 2042 is still too far away for people to care. Just my opinion.

I think you are right - it will likely take time.

But I don't think the savings are anywhere near 30-40%. The maintenance fees are a huge part of what every buyer signs up for. Based on the resale prices in the May report for the sponsor of this site, the $50 per point difference for AKL between direct and resale is fairly minor when you look at how maintenance fees will grow over time. On an NPV basis, I think you are getting an 11% discount for AKV resale and a 13% discount for SSR resale. Just not enough for what you are giving up, but that is only my opinion.

VGC is different. You basically can't get that direct.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I think you are right - it will likely take time.

But I don't think the savings are anywhere near 30-40%. The maintenance fees are a huge part of what every buyer signs up for. Based on the resale prices in the May report for the sponsor of this site, the $50 per point difference for AKL between direct and resale is fairly minor when you look at how maintenance fees will grow over time. On an NPV basis, I think you are getting an 11% discount for AKV resale and a 13% discount for SSR resale. Just not enough for what you are giving up, but that is only my opinion.

VGC is different. You basically can't get that direct.

What's is NPV? I'm not sure if I follow. Direct and Resale owners all pay the same MFs so that negates any long term costs. All the savings is upfront, which could be huge depending on the size of the contract. I would never buy a small resale contract at these prices. The savings is miniscule and the future restrictions make them totally not worth it. But if you could buy a 100pt SSR contract for $125pp instead of $190pp direct, that is a $6500 difference, which is almost 35%! No amount of AP and merch discount is worth that. I'd go resale everytime, especially with the meager direct benefits.

 

[prs_14]

What's is NPV? I'm not sure if I follow. Direct and Resale owners all pay the same MFs so that negates any long term costs. All the savings is upfront, which could be huge depending on the size of the contract. I would never buy a small resale contract at these prices. The savings is miniscule and the future restrictions make them totally not worth it. But if you could buy a 100pt SSR contract for $125pp instead of $190pp direct, that is a $6500 difference, which is almost 35%! No amount of AP and merch discount is worth that. I'd go resale everytime, especially with the meager direct benefits.

NPV is "Net Present Value". All I am saying is that, when you buy resale and direct, the up-front purchase price is only a portion of the cost. Using your SSR example, if you buy 100 points direct, it's $190pp up front and then $228pp (in today's dollars) in dues. Total cost is $418pp in today's dollars. If you buy resale, it's $127pp (per the sponsor of this site) up front plus $228pp in dues. Total cost is $353pp in today's dollars. So all I am saying is that certain entities (like the sponsor of this site) would love for you to believe that you are saving 35%, but you are really only saving 35% on a portion of the cost. The real savings (taking into account total costs) is more like 10-15%.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

NPV is "Net Present Value". All I am saying is that, when you buy resale and direct, the up-front purchase price is only a portion of the cost. Using your SSR example, if you buy 100 points direct, it's $190pp up front and then $228pp (in today's dollars) in dues. Total cost is $418pp in today's dollars. If you buy resale, it's $127pp (per the sponsor of this site) up front plus $228pp in dues. Total cost is $353pp in today's dollars. So all I am saying is that certain entities (like the sponsor of this site) would love for you to believe that you are saving 35%, but you are really only saving 35% on a portion of the cost. The real savings (taking into account total costs) is more like 10-15%.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand where you're getting $228pp in dues? SSR dues is $7.11 pp. For a 100 point contract from our example, that would cost $711 in dues per year. That is the same that Direct purchasers pay. So wouldn't the dues part be negated from our comparison and the only thing you have left to compare is the upfront cost? which is 30-35%? Just trying to understand your logic.

 

[prs_14]

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand where you're getting $228pp in dues? SSR dues is $7.11 pp. For a 100 point contract from our example, that would cost $711 in dues per year. That is the same that Direct purchasers pay. So wouldn't the dues part be negated from our comparison and the only thing you have left to compare is the upfront cost? which is 30-35%? Just trying to understand your logic.

Apologies for the confusion. I just did everything on a “per point” basis. Think of the $228pp as the $7/ year of dues * 32 years remaining on the SSR contract.

You are falling into their trap! You are ignoring the dues and calculating your savings only on up front cost. In my opinion, since dues are 50%+ of the cost, and you get no discount on the dues, one’s true savings are 10-15% of total cost (when you take into account t up front + dues).

Apologies if this is muddled/unclear.

 

[Lee Matthews]

Apologies for the confusion. I just did everything on a “per point” basis. Think of the $228pp as the $7/ year of dues * 32 years remaining on the SSR contract.

You are falling into their trap! You are ignoring the dues and calculating your savings only on up front cost. In my opinion, since dues are 50%+ of the cost, and you get no discount on the dues, one’s true savings are 10-15% of total cost (when you take into account t up front + dues).

Apologies if this is muddled/unclear.

Im not sure anyone includes the MF when talking about resale discount though, only the cost of ‘buy in’ of a particular property.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

Apologies for the confusion. I just did everything on a “per point” basis. Think of the $228pp as the $7/ year of dues * 32 years remaining on the SSR contract.

You are falling into their trap! You are ignoring the dues and calculating your savings only on up front cost. In my opinion, since dues are 50%+ of the cost, and you get no discount on the dues, one’s true savings are 10-15% of total cost (when you take into account t up front + dues).

Apologies if this is muddled/unclear.

Ok, I think I understand now. I think you're right if everyone keeps their contract until the end of its life, which comes out to a 15% overall discount in our SSR example because the overall cost that both direct and resale owners pay in the end is a large sum that makes the difference less pronounced. I'm not so sure if it's a trap per say though. Money now is worth more than money later as the old adage goes. And the $6500 difference now in our SSR example would be worth over $20,000 in the year 2057, at least according to one inflation calculator so there! hehe. People could do spreadsheets all day but I think the bottom line is that there at least "appears" to be a large savings by going resale, especially given the lack of current direct benefits. Thanks for your perspective though. Never thought of it that way.

 

[ajsanford]

Apologies for the confusion. I just did everything on a “per point” basis. Think of the $228pp as the $7/ year of dues * 32 years remaining on the SSR contract.

You are falling into their trap! You are ignoring the dues and calculating your savings only on up front cost. In my opinion, since dues are 50%+ of the cost, and you get no discount on the dues, one’s true savings are 10-15% of total cost (when you take into account t up front + dues).

Apologies if this is muddled/unclear.

Not to mention that, in your example, you did not include an uplift on the MF, which applies whether you go direct or through resale. I would think the savings really closer to 10% if you hold the contract for the full duration of the term... Granted, 10% is not nothing- it is still worth looking at, especially if you plan to sell out before the contract expires!
We could get into a lot of nitty gritty details though and looking at the different terms of different contracts, so I will stop there! It is fun to look at the math though... I crunched a lot of numbers before deciding to buy direct, but it is what made sense for me!

 

[PinkPixel]

This is a loaded question and depends completely on your situation. How often would you go to Disney? What kind of accommodations do you prefer? How many nights a year?

If you go every year, the math clearly works in DVC's favor. For example, if you were to stay at Disney's Animation Resort (value resort) every year for a week, it would probably cost you about $200 per night (depending on the season), which would come out to $1750 per trip. In 20 years, it would cost $28,000, (assuming prices don't go up, but we all know it will so the overall cost would be much more).

If you go DVC, say you purchase a 150 point contract at Bay Lake Tower, which is a very deluxe resort. dvcresalemarket's last average price report from May lists BLT at $178pp (which is kinda high). That contract would cost you $26,700. Additionally, 20 years worth of maintenance fee would cost $20,700 (MFs will go up every year by about 2-3%). This would equate to about $2370 per trip at around $339 per night. But this would be staying at a deluxe resort instead of a value resort. Deluxe resorts tend to cost anywhere from $500-1200 per night, for a studio!!

So bottom line is, if you're ok with staying value and off property resorts, then DVC is not for you. If you like disney deluxe accommodations, then it's no brainer in my opinion.

But that's where I get confused, isn't DVC 43 years? Are you saying you can buy resale with a contract that's 20 years or less?

 

[HIRyeDVC]

But that's where I get confused, isn't DVC 43 years? Are you saying you can buy resale with a contract that's 20 years or less?

Length of contract depends on the property. Riviera, Disney's newest, expires in 2070, which gives you 49 years. BCV, BWV, and BRV expire 2042, which gives you 21 years. I just chose 20 years as an example of how much you might spend or save in that time frame. Great majority of DVC owners end up selling their contracts in 7-10 years, at which most owners get back what they initially paid. That means most owners actually pay only their annual dues to stay at these deluxe resorts. So for my example of BLT, an owner that only owns for 7 years and sells would have stayed at BLT for 7 years at $148 per night!!

 

[Soap_1984]

I agree and I am frankly surprised that so many people are willing to buy resale right now. You hear many people saying that resale is thriving right now and that the resale restrictions did nothing to hurt the resale market. Disney is playing the long game here. Just you wait. When people wake up and realize that 1) the "original 14" resorts are really only 7 in WDW post 2042, and 2) they are boxed out from staying at the "new" Beach Club and BoardWalk and Boulder Ridge in ~2043, while their "direct" peers get to stay everywhere, there are going to be a lot of today's resale buyers kicking themselves. And, what they will end up doing is buying more direct points in the future. Now who's saving money?

I will gladly pay the 10-15% premium today (remember, everyone has to pay maintenance fees and they are half of what you are signing up for!) so that I can continue to get access to BCV/BWV/BRV and anything else they build in the next 45 years.

Now, if you bought resale before the restrictions, that is of course the best of all worlds. But I cannot wrap my head around buying resale today. The 10-15% premium is worth it to me.

Yeah people are really going to be upset in 20 years.... The premium is generally more than 10-15% and there are no minimum number of point purchases through resale; even if it was 10% more, what are you getting for the money? I will be interested to see how many "new" dvc resorts go up in the next 20 years; I have direct points at Saratoga so can stay wherever but I would buy resale before I buy direct simply because you get basically nothing for the extra money. Right now you can't even get a Gold pass as a new owner as far as I'm aware.
Even if you love Riv I'd buy a small contract resale. the very fact that the resale market is booming may say something about inflation more than anything, but it also may say that basically no one cares about not being able to stay at riviera with their points. It's a good resort, but there are a lot of resorts that are amazing and the x number they build in the next 20 years, if they are that great, you can rent your points out and pay cash or rent points from that resort. Spending money 18 years from now is generally better than spending it today on something I may never use at a resort that doesn't even exist currently.

 

[KTownRaider]

I agree and I am frankly surprised that so many people are willing to buy resale right now. You hear many people saying that resale is thriving right now and that the resale restrictions did nothing to hurt the resale market. Disney is playing the long game here. Just you wait. When people wake up and realize that 1) the "original 14" resorts are really only 7 in WDW post 2042, and 2) they are boxed out from staying at the "new" Beach Club and BoardWalk and Boulder Ridge in ~2043, while their "direct" peers get to stay everywhere, there are going to be a lot of today's resale buyers kicking themselves. And, what they will end up doing is buying more direct points in the future. Now who's saving money?

I think this is a very valid point. The notion of resale SAP is going to erode until it eventually goes extinct. Only direct SAP will remain. I think a lot of it has to do with what stage you are in life. Your DVC long term view is going to be a lot different if you're 30 (direct points have more value long term), than someone in their early 60's where the O14 network will hold up just fine.

 

[prs_14]

Ok, I think I understand now. I think you're right if everyone keeps their contract until the end of its life, which comes out to a 15% overall discount in our SSR example because the overall cost that both direct and resale owners pay in the end is a large sum that makes the difference less pronounced. I'm not so sure if it's a trap per say though. Money now is worth more than money later as the old adage goes. And the $6500 difference now in our SSR example would be worth over $20,000 in the year 2057, at least according to one inflation calculator so there! hehe. People could do spreadsheets all day but I think the bottom line is that there at least "appears" to be a large savings by going resale, especially given the lack of current direct benefits. Thanks for your perspective though. Never thought of it that way.

Agree on the spreadsheet point, but my analysis actually takes the “now versus later” thing into account. As another poster mentioned, MFs will of course increase, so the nominal amount of MFs will be much higher, but in today’s dollars lower. My numbers are apples-to-apples in today’s dollars. So you can compare directly.

But I agree, the difference is perceived to be large and that is what is driving people to resale.