Why SSR over AKL for "value"

[MountainMouse]

When I read threads or articles on buying DVC people always seem to bring up SSR as the place you want to buy if you want the best value and are ok with the risk of getting stuck at SSR. Why isn't AKL considered more for value buyers? It's marginally more expensive (resale) than SSR but also has a marginally longer use life. Really seems comparable but folks always bring up SSR for value.

 

[CMOORE185]

Low buy in combined with the 2nd lowest dues is the reason SSR is considered a value.

 

[MountainMouse]

Low buy in combined with the 2nd lowest dues is the reason SSR is considered a value.

I can see the dues being somewhat more of a factor at $1.08/pt more. The buy in is even closer, looking at current resales I can't see much of a difference. SSR may be the best value but I just don't see that it's a big enough difference to even consider.

 

[lions1995]

Why not buy into both. That's what we did

 

[DizBub]

I can see the dues being somewhat more of a factor at $1.08/pt more. The buy in is even closer, looking at current resales I can't see much of a difference. SSR may be the best value but I just don't see that it's a big enough difference to even consider.

Over the course of ownership that difference in MFs can really add up and end up costing more than your initial buy-in cost.

In the end it's about where you want to be. I prefer SSR over AKV any day but don't feel the need to own there. But you do have to own at AKV to be able to book the value villas at 11 months consistently. That's the real value of owning at AKV IMO.

 

[bobnrobhall]

Over the course of ownership that difference in MFs can really add up and end up costing more than your initial buy-in cost.

I agree. You definitely need to add the difference in the cost of MFs to determine the best value.

 

[MountainMouse]

Over the course of ownership that difference in MFs can really add up and end up costing more than your initial buy-in cost. In the end it's about where you want to be. I prefer SSR over AKV any day but don't feel the need to own there. But you do have to own at AKV to be able to book the value villas at 11 months consistently. That's the real value of owning at AKV IMO.

I'm talking about buying where you don't want to be because of an attempt at maximizing savings. If SSR is where you want to stay then absolutely buy there. The difference in MFs just seems so in the noise to me, on a 200 pt contract this is $216/year. If I were looking to buy value, I would look at both resorts along with 2057 OKW and decide where I would most like to get stuck. The value difference just seems negligible.

 

[mwwagner]

I'm talking about buying where you don't want to be because of an attempt at maximizing savings. If SSR is where you want to stay then absolutely buy there. The difference in MFs just seems so in the noise to me, on a 200 pt contract this is $216/year. If I were looking to buy value, I would look at both resorts along with 2057 OKW and decide where I would most like to get stuck. The value difference just seems negligible.

You are right that from a dollar per year standpoint, the difference in dues is not a large sum of money (especially in terms of Disney) but when making a comparison, isolating numbers can skew results. I agree that the longer term for some resorts justifies a slightly higher initial buy in. The longer term, as you stated, offsets the initial outlay of funds. When looking at the dues though, I think it is better to look from a percentage standpoint. Someone who buys into AK will be paying roughly 20% more annually in MF. 20% is 20%. It may be noise to some or more meaningful to others but either way it is 20% more. Hence the, SSR is the cheaper theme you find throughout the boards. Just my two cents.

 

[Tracy2014]

I can see the dues being somewhat more of a factor at $1.08/pt more. The buy in is even closer, looking at current resales I can't see much of a difference. SSR may be the best value but I just don't see that it's a big enough difference to even consider.

I personally also worry that AK over the years will be costly to upkeep (size plus all the animal "stuff"). I don't know the historical percentage increase over previous years, but I worry about future. I could be totally wrong- I have no data on this. Also, agree- it's not a huge difference a year currently on a small contract (although Mwagner made good point- 20% is 20%) , but if it's easy to get in there anyway, why pay more? Unless your travel plans are rigid or you want value/concierge.

Just some of my thoughts as I've been weighing same thing!

 

[CMOORE185]

I personally also worry that AK over the years will be costly to upkeep (size plus all the animal "stuff"). I don't know the historical percentage increase over previous years, but I worry about future. I could be totally wrong- I have no data on this. Also, agree- it's not a huge difference a year currently on a small contract (although Mwagner made good point- 20% is 20%) , but if it's easy to get in there anyway, why pay more? Unless your travel plans are rigid or you want value/concierge.

Just some of my thoughts as I've been weighing same thing!

Good points!
It is easy to get a room AKL, minus concierge, so buying SSR and staying at AKL saves money.
Second, I believe the MF gap between the two resorts is only going to increase.

 

[MountainMouse]

Good points about the difference in MFs increasing, that's speculative but a definite possibility. One could also speculate that demand at one could rise more quickly than another making it harder to book at 7 months. Also, agreed that 20% is 20% and no one wants to spend more than they need to. I guess from my perspective I spend so much on the vacation with tickets, food, travel that if it meant anything to me at all to be at one over the other I wouldn't let the current value difference affect me. If that difference grows over time it could change my thinking.

 

[CMOORE185]

Good points about the difference in MFs increasing, that's speculative but a definite possibility. One could also speculate that demand at one could rise more quickly than another making it harder to book at 7 months. Also, agreed that 20% is 20% and no one wants to spend more than they need to. I guess from my perspective I spend so much on the vacation with tickets, food, travel that if it meant anything to me at all to be at one over the other I wouldn't let the current value difference affect me. If that difference grows over time it could change my thinking.

A lot of people buy in because of a specific resort and will only buy at that resort regardless of price. There is definitely a passion for AKL by a lot of buyers. If you have that passion paying extra is worth it.

I love the Grand Floridian, and if I already didn't own so many points I would buy their.

 

[Dean]

When I read threads or articles on buying DVC people always seem to bring up SSR as the place you want to buy if you want the best value and are ok with the risk of getting stuck at SSR. Why isn't AKL considered more for value buyers? It's marginally more expensive (resale) than SSR but also has a marginally longer use life. Really seems comparable but folks always bring up SSR for value.

If you used AKV for value only or almost exclusively, AKV would be cheaper IF current fee trends hold. IIRC the crossover in cost occurred at around 65% and assumes buying less points to get the same size/length of reservation in the value rooms. Buying SSR and using for AKV standard is only slightly more and I believe the fees for SSR are likely to be more stable long term. The RTU is only 3 yrs difference, not enough to add any real value for AKV. Part of the issue for buying SSR over AKV is that for standard view and savannah view, availability should be easy long term. The cheapest plan is to buy SSR and use for OKW routinely and try/wait list for AKV value & possibly BWV standard. But if you want concierge you'll need to own at AKV. For the same number of points AKV will be at least 25% more long term.

 

[luckyman_apd]

MF are a big equation in DVC ownership. While you say $216 is not "that much more" it's just this year. Next year it could be $240. And the year after that it's $260. In 10 years from now it could be $500. Will that be a big deal then? Who knows. But I do know the trend for SSR is/has been showing the lowest % increase in dues compared to all others. While I'm not always a % guy....as 5% of $5 is roughly the same as 4% of $6.......you can make an over exagerated case with % that just don't make the same impact when you talk real money. I like to look at the real money increase in dues each year, and SSR remains the most economical. Remember, you will be paying those MF for the next 50+ years.

If you can always get AKV using SSR points why pay extra. Disclaimer....I'm certainly not implying you will always get AKV at 7 months, but it's definitely a higher possibility for most times of the year vs other resorts.

 

[disneynutz]

IMO the cost to manage the animals at AKV will be a negative factor.

If we did it over again today we would buy SSR and use the points to learn the DVC system, stay at different resorts and experience the difficulties if any booking at our favorite times.

Later if necessary, sell SSR and buy our favorite resorts to guarantee the ability to stay where we want, when we want.

Bill

 

[crisi]

MF are a big equation in DVC ownership. While you say $216 is not "that much more" it's just this year. Next year it could be $240. And the year after that it's $260. In 10 years from now it could be $500. Will that be a big deal then? Who knows. But I do know the trend for SSR is/has been showing the lowest % increase in dues compared to all others. While I'm not always a % guy....as 5% of $5 is roughly the same as 4% of $6.......you can make an over exagerated case with % that just don't make the same impact when you talk real money. I like to look at the real money increase in dues each year, and SSR remains the most economical. Remember, you will be paying those MF for the next 50+ years.

If you can always get AKV using SSR points why pay extra. Disclaimer....I'm certainly not implying you will always get AKV at 7 months, but it's definitely a higher possibility for most times of the year vs other resorts.

Its also a time value of money thing. That $200 40 years from now that you spent this year to own at VAKL is worth $4000 if you get a mere 8% in the stock market on it. Over the course of your ownership - it will be more than $50k.

Now, inflation will eat into that, it won't be worth $50k. But it will still be worth quite a bit of money.

However, you don't live your life exclusively by TVM calculations - or we wouldn't go to Disney at all, we'd stay home and watch Disney movies for vacation . If VAKL is worth more to you to call your home, you should own it. Its my own position that SSR is the value choice - but that is a silly thing to talk about when making a luxury purchase. An Audi A6 is cheaper than an Audi A8....but its becomes a sort of intellectual exercise at a certain amount of disposable income, and its arguable if you should by DVC at all (or a luxury car) if you haven't hit that level of disposable income.

 

[Syndrome]

Some of it is emotionally tied too .
We absolutely hate SSR , and it would be painful every year to pay MF's for SSR . So we chose the next most "economical" WDW DVC resort , AKV . While we love AKV, and could use our points at most other locations at 7 months, we would not be unhappy if for some unforeseen reason AKV is the only DVC resort we were allowed to book in the future. After staying at SSR one time, we could care less if we ever go back again, and even paying the annual MF's at SSR would be difficult emotionally (for us) .
So if you dont ever want to be stuck at SSR (like us) , buy at a DVC location where you wouldnt mind being "stuck" at .
I feel AKL is the next in line for value after SSR . Even more so if you choose the value rooms.

 

[disneynutz]

Some of it is emotionally tied too .
We absolutely hate SSR , and it would be painful every year to pay MF's for SSR . So we chose the next most "economical" WDW DVC resort , AKV . While we love AKV, and could use our points at most other locations at 7 months, we would not be unhappy if for some unforeseen reason AKV is the only DVC resort we were allowed to book in the future. After staying at SSR one time, we could care less if we ever go back again, and even paying the annual MF's at SSR would be difficult emotionally (for us) .
So if you dont ever want to be stuck at SSR (like us) , buy at a DVC location where you wouldnt mind being "stuck" at .
I feel AKL is the next in line for value after SSR . Even more so if you choose the value rooms.

Problem is that until you stay at the different resorts you really don't know how they feel or fit. You may dislike SSR, others may find AKV out of the way and boring after awhile. We bought BLT before staying there and we just don't care for the place, we enjoy SSR and find the ponds and lake views more enjoyable than a savanna view.

Bill

 

[Syndrome]

Problem is that until you stay at the different resorts you really don't know how they feel or fit. You may dislike SSR, others may find AKV out of the way and boring after awhile. We bought BLT before staying there and we just don't care for the place, we enjoy SSR and find the ponds and lake views more enjoyable than a savanna view.

Bill

Yep, everybody has different tastes and thats why DVC works so well for many different people. I was just making a generalization about paying annual MF's on a resort that you may not like . For US its SSR.

Maybe we are in the minority, but we have rented points a bunch of times and cash stayed at just about every Disney resort before we purchased DVC. If we didnt stay at a DVC resort we thought about buying ..........we actually toured every resort we considered buying. That was the tricky part because when we toured SSR , we liked it. After one stay though, we knew it wasnt for us. AKV is not for everyone either.
AKV was not our first choice, but it was our first "value" choice we would enjoy being "stuck" at !

 

[littlestar]

Animal Kingdom Lodge feels isolated to me and I've only stayed there once and it's my dead last choice. I'd rather stay offsite at one of the vacation clubs at Hilton, Marriott or Sheraton than Animal Kingdom. So SSR was definitely more attractive to me than Animal Kingdom Lodge. Everybody feels differently about the DVC resorts, that's for sure. I also feel the dues will continue to climb higher because of the animals.