Why did you sell your resale contracts and buy direct?

[DanCali]

Tbf, the product is already intentionally being devalued if you’re only looking at it from its resale value.

And you’d pay up because most aren’t buying with the intent that their timeshare has investment value. Most are buying for better accommodations and regular stays at Disney. As it’s been said plenty, we here aren’t the regular DVC member. Resale savvy owners are the minority, probably by significant margin.

You have VGF and Poly that are selling resale at $150 and you have Riviera (a highly comparable resort in many ways) that is nearing $100 and trending down. The Riviera-style resale restrictions are what will cause the greater future disparity in resale/direct prices.

If the sales strategy relies mostly on uneducated buyers, then the product can't possibly be a good investment for the educated ones. Personally, I kind of feel obligated to explore better alternatives given the realities set by restrictions I don't control.

For me, it’ll be less so an issue about resale restrictions and what is better: direct or resale for long term; it’ll be more about owning where you want to stay. I think as time passes and the restrictions become more prevalent and 2042 looms closer and passes, 7mo availability will be much tighter so you better be happy with your home resorts (with an edge to direct/grandfathered points since they’ll have the most flexibility and options).

Of course an unrestricted, fully functional product is "better" and easier to use. But at what cost? How many 5-figure products are out there where you lose 50%, 60% or 70% of what you paid upfront after 10 days? A car costs about the same but doesn't even come close in terms of depreciation with all the talk of "drive it off the lot". Rationalizing things with "I plan to hold it for 50 years" maybe sweetens the blow but doesn't change that reality.

A timeshare may not be the best "investment" but it doesn't have to be a terrible one either. In a futuristic hypothetical world where resale contracts are 1-resort only and, consequently, resale prices are in the gutter, I would much rather use my available capital to buy 300 points (100 at 3 separate resorts where I'd want to stay) than buy just 100 points direct for the same price:

(i) I can use 150 points to vacation (the comparable direct buyer has only 100)
(ii) I can rent out the remaining 150 points to cover all my dues on 300 points (the direct buyer pays dues for the life of the contract)
(iii) If I ever sell my purchase(s) a couple of decades before expiration, I can recover much of what I paid upfront (the direct buyer is guaranteed a huge capital loss in that world)

In sum, with that strategy I have the same upfront cost, and I get 50% more vacation, I don't pay any dues for what I own (which are the majority of the ownership cost), and I reduce the risk of a capital loss substantially. What is "better" is totally in the eye of the beholder! But from a financial perspective only, it's not hard to see what's better.

 

[Girlstar30]

You have VGF and Poly that are selling resale at $150 and you have Riviera (a highly comparable resort in many ways) that is nearing $100 and trending down. The Riviera-style resale restrictions are what will cause the greater future disparity in resale/direct prices.

If the sales strategy relies mostly on uneducated buyers, then the product can't possibly be a good investment for the educated ones. Personally, I kind of feel obligated to explore better alternatives given the realities set by restrictions I don't control.



Of course an unrestricted, fully functional product is "better" and easier to use. But at what cost? How many 5-figure products are out there where you lose 50%, 60% or 70% of what you paid upfront after 10 days? A car costs about the same but doesn't even come close in terms of depreciation with all the talk of "drive it off the lot". Rationalizing things with "I plan to hold it for 50 years" maybe sweetens the blow but doesn't change that reality.

A timeshare may not be the best "investment" but it doesn't have to be a terrible one either. In a futuristic hypothetical world where resale contracts are 1-resort only and, consequently, resale prices are in the gutter, I would much rather use my available capital to buy 100 points at 3 separate resorts (like you said - where I want to stay) than buy just 100 points direct for the same price:

(i) I can use 150 points to vacation (the comparable direct buyer has only 100)
(ii) I can rent out the remaining 150 points to cover all my dues on 300 points (the direct buyer pays dues for the life of the contract)
(iii) If I ever sell my purchase(s) a couple of decades before expiration, I can recover much of what I paid upfront (the direct buyer is guaranteed a huge capital loss in that world)

In sum, with that strategy I get 50% more vacation, I don't pay any dues for what I own (which are the majority of the ownership cost), and I reduce the risk of a capital loss substantially. So what is "better" is totally in the eye of the beholder!

As much as I don't like it, I agree pretty much all of this which is why I've held off for the time being.

I don't like the idea of owning riv direct because what you stated above and I don't like the idea of owning poly direct because of how high the points chart is.

I don't like cfw for the high dues and trust. I don't like vdh because I'm not big on Disneyland right now and weird transient tax.

So that really leaves me nowhere where I really see value in owning direct right now speaking for myself only, and why I'd just rather rent my points every few years when I really want to stay at Riviera , which so far is the only blocked one i like.

Hopefully a new resort will come along that checks more boxes, but I doubt it, riviera could have been the one.

Truth is, i cannot responsibly afford 250 points direct from Disney with the other two resale contracts i have which is why I went with SSR resale. This is affording me two vacations a year in one and two bedroom villas with friends and family which creating lots of family memories was the reason i joined.

These are my reasons, others have their reasons and that's why they will both thrive and work for people. ️

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

You have VGF and Poly that are selling resale at $150 and you have Riviera (a highly comparable resort in many ways) that is nearing $100 and trending down. The Riviera-style resale restrictions are what will cause the greater future disparity in resale/direct prices.

If the sales strategy relies mostly on uneducated buyers, then the product can't possibly be a good investment for the educated ones. Personally, I kind of feel obligated to explore better alternatives given the realities set by restrictions I don't control.



Of course an unrestricted, fully functional product is "better" and easier to use. But at what cost? How many 5-figure products are out there where you lose 50%, 60% or 70% of what you paid upfront after 10 days? A car costs about the same but doesn't even come close in terms of depreciation with all the talk of "drive it off the lot". Rationalizing things with "I plan to hold it for 50 years" maybe sweetens the blow but doesn't change that reality.

A timeshare may not be the best "investment" but it doesn't have to be a terrible one either. In a futuristic hypothetical world where resale contracts are 1-resort only and, consequently, resale prices are in the gutter, I would much rather use my available capital to buy 300 points (100 at 3 separate resorts where I'd want to stay) than buy just 100 points direct for the same price:

(i) I can use 150 points to vacation (the comparable direct buyer has only 100)
(ii) I can rent out the remaining 150 points to cover all my dues on 300 points (the direct buyer pays dues for the life of the contract)
(iii) If I ever sell my purchase(s) a couple of decades before expiration, I can recover much of what I paid upfront (the direct buyer is guaranteed a huge capital loss in that world)

In sum, with that strategy I have the same upfront cost, and I get 50% more vacation, I don't pay any dues for what I own (which are the majority of the ownership cost), and I reduce the risk of a capital loss substantially. What is "better" is totally in the eye of the beholder! But from a financial perspective only, it's not hard to see what's better.

This is a great summary but this wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I was just pointing out the product is devalued no matter what you buy. And in fact, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, no argument (even if for me, I like having a chunk of direct points because I find it’s value, it’s thankfully not a financial burden on me and I will likely will buy a bit more in the future, but that’s a personal choice of course).

But yeah, my point wasn’t really about merits of resale v direct, which is what I said before. I just wanted to point out that whether one buys direct or resale, you should be happy with your home resort choice because I believe it will get much tougher to swap at 7mos in the future. I actually think it’ll be harder well before 2042 because those who own at BCV, BRV and BWV will likely want to actually use their points to stay at their home resorts for what little time they have there and won’t be swapping out often, if at all.

 

[sethschroeder]

I love the idea of saving thousands of dollars

I saved thousands by selling a couple resale contracts and buying direct back in 2020 to get access to the APs.

Additionally I just like the fact I have full membership so I get access to everything like discounts, lounges, moonlight (been once), and whatever else they do.

For me though I did the math and it wasn't that much different at that time (got RIV for like $155/point direct) and figured even if we didn't come out ahead we would get very close with AP discounts and stacking stays.

 

[Patmcpsu]

Of course an unrestricted, fully functional product is "better" and easier to use. But at what cost? How many 5-figure products are out there where you lose 50%, 60% or 70% of what you paid upfront after 10 days? A car costs about the same but doesn't even come close in terms of depreciation with all the talk of "drive it off the lot". Rationalizing things with "I plan to hold it for 50 years" maybe sweetens the blow but doesn't change that reality.

Let me put it this way: I have a 160 point resale contract at BLT and a 150 point direct contract at Poly. If I had to sell a contract, it would be the resale one because I would lose less utility at a relatively similar price. It would be a no-brainer for most people.

If I was starting fresh, and a buyer. the 160pt BLT resale contract and the 150pt direct Poly contract would be more of a toss-up / personal preference.

Don't look at the resale prices, and consider the direct contract's price-premium vanishing as soon as you buy it. The value is retained until you *sell* it.

 

[DanCali]

If I was starting fresh, and a buyer. the 160pt BLT resale contract and the 150pt direct Poly contract would be more of a toss-up / personal preference.

I do agree that buying the first 150 direct is a lot easier to justify for those want want a more "complete" ownership experience. I think it's harder to justify when looking to add-on beyond that.

And with PVB/PIT, VGF, BLT, CCV, AKV, AUL and VGC expiring in 3+ decades (throw SSR and the treehouses in there too), it'll stay that way for a while. 2042 is not quite Armageddon.

Don't look at the resale prices, and consider the direct contract's price-premium vanishing as soon as you buy it. The value is retained until you *sell* it.

Unless the "value" was never there.... If they asked for $300/pt for a direct purchase would you say the same? How about $400/pt? How about $500? If I can't look at resale prices to see what my asset is really worth when I offload it, then do I just trust that the monopolistic price paid to a timeshare developer is the right "value"?

When I look at resale prices I can quantify that "direct contract premium" and decide if to buy resale or direct. With the newest resale restrictions, that premium will inevitably become much higher since the resale product was made practically useless for exchanges.

Don't get me wrong - we have bought direct from Disney and also from Westin/Marriott. And multiple times too... But in the latter case, where resale prices are way low, it's always come with a resale-"washing" program where, as part of the direct purchase, some resale purchases were also grandfathered into the system as if they were bought direct.

It doesn't change the math of what happens when you go to resell - but it seems that developers who chose to have restrictions (that they made up) which grossly devalue their resale products, also seem to find the need to have strong incentives (that only they can offer) to sweeten the deal for potential buyers who do look at resale prices and can't justify the price difference in the name of "extra functionality". It's one thing if I need to pay $200/pt for 150 fully functional points that might be worth $100, or $75 if resold. It's another if I pay the same price, but also get 300 Riviera resale points I might already own grandfathered at the same time.

 

[Patmcpsu]

It doesn't change the math of what happens when you go to resell

Most of your argument is about dollars and cents. While money is important, the primary purpose of a timeshare is to enjoy yourself. And yes, there is always a cost/benefit analysis to be made with everything you buy in life.

Perhaps I should have stated from the start that I'm basing my analysis on current conditions, or my expectations of future conditions. I don't see how absurd hypotheticals about $500/pt direct contracts does any good.

As I said before, the difference between buying direct vs. resale (*at current conditions) is a toss-up / personal preference, and I stand by that. I don't believe buying resale is the open-and-shut savvy move that it was prior to resale restrictions.