Two-Tier DVC coming??

[sweetdana]

If there is a 2 tr system.. It will be direct vrs non-dir. IE Direct pur can extend BC contracts, but resales will not be given option to. Or dir gets 7 month window trades, but resales do not. It will not be SSR and AK vrse BC and BLT. It would stink if a resale BC member could not get even an SSR unti at 4 months out, cause they were a second teir, and would effect the buyers dec. to possibly by direct. It would also change the value of SSR way up, as for non planners it is ideal.

Fairness to BC owners or even BLT owners is not a goal... selling more direct points at any resort is a goal. Something like these would certainly effect it.


* also I think there are alot of people who pick SSR over BWV. It is just there are more points/rooms there so it is always left. SSR is my second fav resort, and feel to be stuck there

 

[CMOORE185]

Not making an appropriate comparison on this one here. BLT has a substantially higher points per night cost over AKV...

1BDR right now in standard/Bay Lake view:

AKV- 228
BLT- 296

Run the Maintenance Fees for each contract:

AKV at $5.01= $1,142.38
BLT at $3.98= $1,151.44


Add in the additional per point cost to purchase, even before it went to $140 and dropped all incentives, and BLT is a good bit more expensive than AKV.

The biggest mistake the average person makes IMO with DVC is assuming when they buy their first contract that their contract gets them generally the same vacation across the resorts. If you generally stay at your home resort a 200 point contract will get you significantly less vacation time over a 200 point BLT.

This is only relevant if owners stay exclusively at their home resort. I think most owners utilize other resorts as well as their own.

 

[RobOnDisney]

This is only relevant if owners stay exclusively at their home resort. I think most owners utilize other resorts as well as their own.

Agree with you and Tim(tjkraz). But if the intent is not to buy a resort based on 11-month preference the majority of stays than why pay a per point premium for BLT at all? Why even buy direct and not the cheapest re-sale option available?

And let us not all forget-- you are only guaranteed access to your home resort over the life of your contract. While I do not expect Disney to ever disallow staying in other DVC resorts, that risk must be associated into the cost.

 

[tjkraz]

Agree with you and Tim(tjkraz). But if the intent is not to buy a resort based on 11-month preference the majority of stays than why pay a per point premium for BLT at all?

That's what I was trying to illustrate in my original response. BLT may cost more up front but the low dues offset some of the higher price and can even lead to long term savings. BLT also has the longest contract and we could make a pretty compelling argument that BLT will hold its resale value better than others.

Why even buy direct and not the cheapest re-sale option available?

Resale vs. direct is apples vs. oranges and you're really muddying the waters there. Your original comment was directed at BLT costing more than AKV, and that's true of both direct and resale.

Not sure I would really recommend a Vero resale above all else, though, even if it is the lowest price option.

And let us not all forget-- you are only guaranteed access to your home resort over the life of your contract. While I do not expect Disney to ever disallow staying in other DVC resorts, that risk must be associated into the cost.

If you don't expect it to happen, then I'm not sure why you would attach any risk to the possibility.

IMO, that's a pretty big red herring which frequently gets thrown into these discussions. Give me a few minutes and I could name a dozen things which are far more disastrous which DVC is also legally permitted to do.

Many risks are assumed in buying a DVC interest. DVC's entire marketing approach is built on the basis of selling the program rather than a single resort. The risk of members being held exclusively to their home resorts is infinitely small. IMO we are far more likely to see things theme parks sold off, dues with double-digit annual increases, radical changes to point charts, dramatic increases in costs of non-DVC destinations, elimination of non-DVC destinations, tiered perk programs, etc.

But I'm drifting way off topic and it probably seems like I'm badgering you (which was never my intent.) I agree that $125+ is a noticeable increase over the $93 per point that you paid. But IMO few people who have the means to pay $93 would draw a line in the sand at $125--particularly when there are so many emotional components involved. Even from an intellectual perspective, the low dues, extra years and probable resale value make BLT a justifiable purchase.

 

[CMOORE185]

Agree with you and Tim(tjkraz). But if the intent is not to buy a resort based on 11-month preference the majority of stays than why pay a per point premium for BLT at all? Why even buy direct and not the cheapest re-sale option available?

And let us not all forget-- you are only guaranteed access to your home resort over the life of your contract. While I do not expect Disney to ever disallow staying in other DVC resorts, that risk must be associated into the cost.

Agreed, I would never by at BLT, because I do not need their 11 month booking window. I have had great success booking at the 7 month mark and love to stay at most of the resorts. The only one that could change my mind would be GF, if built, and I probably still wouldn't because of the price per point.

 

[RobOnDisney]

If you don't expect it to happen, then I'm not sure why you would attach any risk to the possibility.

My living is risk analysis/mitigation-- I monetize risk at every turn in nearly everything I do in life!

 

[brenbrady]

We just returned from the Disney Dream cruise and the only incentives was for Animal Kingdom and Hawaii, BLT there was no incentives.

 

[Dean]

Not making an appropriate comparison on this one here. BLT has a substantially higher points per night cost over AKV...

1BDR right now in standard/Bay Lake view:

AKV- 228
BLT- 296

Run the Maintenance Fees for each contract:

AKV at $5.01= $1,142.38
BLT at $3.98= $1,151.44


Add in the additional per point cost to purchase, even before it went to $140 and dropped all incentives, and BLT is a good bit more expensive than AKV.

The biggest mistake the average person makes IMO with DVC is assuming when they buy their first contract that their contract gets them generally the same vacation across the resorts. If you generally stay at your home resort a 200 point contract will get you significantly less vacation time over a 200 point BLT.

DVC does not have a track record of increasing the cost of new resorts by raising points simply as a means of increase. BLT has higher points because it offers something that many see as more valuable. BLT also costs more points regardless of which points you own. When VWL came on board, many felt it would and should be less than BWV preferred (I agreed with them, still do), same for BCV due to the lack of views there. I also felt SSR should have been more in line with OKW.

Still, the lower dues don't make up for the higher costs and it is my opinion that the spread in dues will not last. The age of a resort has some impact which is part of the reason that BWV is more than BCV.

If there is a 2 tr system.. It will be direct vrs non-dir. IE Direct pur can extend BC contracts, but resales will not be given option to. Or dir gets 7 month window trades, but resales do not. It will not be SSR and AK vrse BC and BLT. It would stink if a resale BC member could not get even an SSR unti at 4 months out, cause they were a second teir, and would effect the buyers dec. to possibly by direct. It would also change the value of SSR way up, as for non planners it is ideal.

Fairness to BC owners or even BLT owners is not a goal... selling more direct points at any resort is a goal. Something like these would certainly effect it.


* also I think there are alot of people who pick SSR over BWV. It is just there are more points/rooms there so it is always left. SSR is my second fav resort, and feel to be stuck there

I think the odds are that you are correct but the assumption that all who buy direct will be the same is a potentially flawed one. Other systems have certainly gone from having no tiered system to having one or several for existing members. Generally tiered system as tiered based on numbers with a qualifying factor being "qualified" points which for DVC would almost certainly mean direct or purchased before 21 March, 2011.

 

[icydog]

DVC does not have a track record of increasing the cost of new resorts by raising points simply as a means of increase. BLT has higher points because it offers something that many see as more valuable. BLT also costs more points regardless of which points you own. When VWL came on board, many felt it would and should be less than BWV preferred (I agreed with them, still do), same for BCV due to the lack of views there. I also felt SSR should have been more in line with OKW.

Still, the lower dues don't make up for the higher costs and it is my opinion that the spread in dues will not last. The age of a resort has some impact which is part of the reason that BWV is more than BCV.

I think the odds are that you are correct but the assumption that all who buy direct will be the same is a potentially flawed one. Other systems have certainly gone from having no tiered system to having one or several for existing members. Generally tiered system as tiered based on numbers with a qualifying factor being "qualified" points which for DVC would almost certainly mean direct or purchased before 21 March, 2011.

I think while BLT is selling points the cost per point for Maintenance Fees will be less. As the resort ages the cost pp in maintenance will go up.

As far as a tiered system with non direct (read after March 21st) owners utilizing the points as they were told they could, will continue to be the rule.

Changing the rules after the fact has not worked in other timeshare systems and will not work with Disney either. If they implemented such a system the newest (resale) buyers will jump ship thereby devaluating the product even more than it has been lately.

Disney gains nothing by devaluation and new buyers, both retail and resale, will know that too. Look at Fairfield Resorts or Bluegreen Resorts. The Companies have left their owners flat-- and the price per point for these companies is less than a penny. Their beautiful resorts will fall apart because owners are going to default on loans and maintenance fees.Why pay so much for a worthless property is sound reasoning in my estimation? Why pay thousands in maintenance fees for a property that is worth pennies?

Without the influx of cash DVC will be in the same boat. Therefore, I reason that DVC will not institute a caste system, or a two tiered system, or any other kind of system or the like.

 

[csharpwv]

Am I the only one that thinks that Disney would be smart to devalue the product enough to have very aggressive buy back through the ROFR process, and then shore up those contracts by reselling them at a 'fair' price as primary points, possibly with updated expiration dates, and 'whole' points that can be used for trading in all of the options - just like primary market points.

Now, do I WANT our financial out lay to be devalued - NO, absolutely not - unless it is going to mean a higher revaluation eventually.

As Disney continues to build new resorts, with new expiration dates on the RTU, it makes no sense to leave long time members in the dark - in regard to expiration.

They didn't have a bevy of luck with offering the extension to OKW members - so I hope that Disney learned from that one, and has something better to offer in a few years with the number of years left on the contracts continues to pass.

Once again, I don't see a tiered resort system making any sense at all, for members - or for DVC/DVD.

I really do think that a tiered benefits system would really encourage a lot of members to add on, as long as the perks are good enough!

Perhaps the recent spate of ROFR buy-backs are an indicator of what might be coming. An add on push, running up to the implementation of a tiered benefits program. I would think that anyone with over 500 points deserves a little more as a member than someone with a 50 point resale contract - it only makes sense!

 

[Dean]

Am I the only one that thinks that Disney would be smart to devalue the product enough to have very aggressive buy back through the ROFR process, and then shore up those contracts by reselling them at a 'fair' price as primary points, possibly with updated expiration dates, and 'whole' points that can be used for trading in all of the options - just like primary market points.

Now, do I WANT our financial out lay to be devalued - NO, absolutely not - unless it is going to mean a higher revaluation eventually.

As Disney continues to build new resorts, with new expiration dates on the RTU, it makes no sense to leave long time members in the dark - in regard to expiration.

They didn't have a bevy of luck with offering the extension to OKW members - so I hope that Disney learned from that one, and has something better to offer in a few years with the number of years left on the contracts continues to pass.

Once again, I don't see a tiered resort system making any sense at all, for members - or for DVC/DVD.

I really do think that a tiered benefits system would really encourage a lot of members to add on, as long as the perks are good enough!

Perhaps the recent spate of ROFR buy-backs are an indicator of what might be coming. An add on push, running up to the implementation of a tiered benefits program. I would think that anyone with over 500 points deserves a little more as a member than someone with a 50 point resale contract - it only makes sense!

To devalue the product as a whole would be disastrous. There really is minimal downside to devaluing resales, including current owners. Realize that there's no scenario where DVC can make anywhere near as much money buying resale and then selling again retail as they do building new resorts and selling those. That's not to say they can't make any money, just not enough to justify the risks, aggravations and inherent costs of such a system. I agree that DVC has several options to extract money out of many of the current owners. I VIP system with enough teeth to get people's attention could do it as well as extensions tied to add ons.

Don't forget, one way to do all at one time is to create a new system that has crossover options. This is exactly what Marriott did last summer in addition to enhancing their VIP system.

I think while BLT is selling points the cost per point for Maintenance Fees will be less. As the resort ages the cost pp in maintenance will go up.

As far as a tiered system with non direct (read after March 21st) owners utilizing the points as they were told they could, will continue to be the rule.

Changing the rules after the fact has not worked in other timeshare systems and will not work with Disney either. If they implemented such a system the newest (resale) buyers will jump ship thereby devaluating the product even more than it has been lately.

Disney gains nothing by devaluation and new buyers, both retail and resale, will know that too. Look at Fairfield Resorts or Bluegreen Resorts. The Companies have left their owners flat-- and the price per point for these companies is less than a penny. Their beautiful resorts will fall apart because owners are going to default on loans and maintenance fees.Why pay so much for a worthless property is sound reasoning in my estimation? Why pay thousands in maintenance fees for a property that is worth pennies?

Without the influx of cash DVC will be in the same boat. Therefore, I reason that DVC will not institute a caste system, or a two tiered system, or any other kind of system or the like.

I have no doubt it'll happen after formal sales are complete there and likely over time, not all at once. I simply don't see a difference of 25% long term though I'm sure it'll still be one of the cheaper ones from a maint fee standpoint partly because more points to spread the costs over will cont to have some impact.

 

[RobOnDisney]

I have no doubt it'll happen after formal sales are complete there and likely over time, not all at once. I simply don't see a difference of 25% long term though I'm sure it'll still be one of the cheaper ones from a maint fee standpoint partly because more points to spread the costs over will cont to have some impact.

And thats a big piece of the calculus. Every resort may have differences in some items such as monorail, boats, savanna, etc and its mix with paying hotel guest via the attached Deluxe that will lead to different costs. But a big piece of that pie is how many points to spread that cost over. BLT is a perfect example-- more points per room = fewer fees per point.

 

[Dean]

And thats a big piece of the calculus. Every resort may have differences in some items such as monorail, boats, savanna, etc and its mix with paying hotel guest via the attached Deluxe that will lead to different costs. But a big piece of that pie is how many points to spread that cost over. BLT is a perfect example-- more points per room = fewer fees per point.

But it doesn't explain the entire difference and the nature of systems is to come together. My prediction is that the roughly 25% difference will slowly move to a 5-10% difference in 5-7 years and cont in that vein. The mix of hotel vs none really doesn't come into play in the way many people think about it. A larger resort will cost more and a smaller one less but often the smaller one is more per person/per room. For example, it's not the size of BWV or BCV that causes the difference but the size of the resorts overall (more specifically the number of guests not rooms). It's really YC and the shared transportation and amenities that generate a savings over BWV/BWI, not the relative size of the DVC portion alone. Also keep in mind that the risk of additional costs/fees is greater for BLT than any other WDW resort due to it's location near MK, monorail, etc.

 

[Sammie]

I have skimmed this and might have missed it but in this make believe tiering where does Hawaii, Vero Beach, Hilton Head and future non park resorts fit?

I am not sure tiering is possibly the right term but if any changes are forthcoming I feel it will be more restrictions to direct buy versus resale.

 

[Dean]

I have skimmed this and might have missed it but in this make believe tiering where does Hawaii, Vero Beach, Hilton Head and future non park resorts fit?

I am not sure tiering is possibly the right term but if any changes are forthcoming I feel it will be more restrictions to direct buy versus resale.

There are too many variables to truly know. My thoughts would be that IF any type of VIP system were to come about is that retail purchase (or before 3/21/11) would be hard qualifiers. After that it could be based on the number of qualifying points, new purchases, owners at new resorts, etc. I would think that number of qualifying points would be the most likely.