Analysis of Riviera sales as of 5/10/2019

[Cyberc1978]

I sat through a presentation from a guide who stated unequivocally that "resale owners were abusing the system." Those. Exact. Words. And that is the saddest thing about this whole thing to me over these new restrictions.

Did you or anyone else challenge that or did the guide at least elaborate "how" resale owners abused the system?

 

[zavandor]

As to the existence of millions of cheap resale points and the 7 month window, until and unless we know how points are actually being used, and what effect that has on the system, it is all just guess work and your guess is as good as mine. I realize the popularity of the resale market on this board and the prevailing view that DVD actions must be in the wrong because DVD hates resale. I just happen to disagree.

I do not understand your point. You have demonstrated that the amount of resales is way way lower than everyone thought here on the boards. The urban myth that the average time a buyer keeps his contract is 10 years was believed by everyone here and you have demonstrated it's false. If someone had told me that 50% of SSR is currently owned by resale purchasers, I would have believed it.
If really OKW, SSR and AKV are creating a problem for DVC because of the 7 months booking windows, then the impact of direct owners is way higher (6x) than resale owners.

 

[Madame]

Personally I think they system “broke” because of two main things:

1) change in marketing and intentions of those buying DVC. Originally people bought to upgrade their accommodation size for similar prices they were paying before. Basically buying into the home away from home attitude and wanting the 1-2 beds. Now many are buying to save for the same accommodation size (hotel to DVC studio) or upgrade from values/moderates to deluxe

And

2) DVC created a resort (SSR) with the sole purpose to get rid of the Disney Institute that failed after 9/11. They may have rebuilt the property but did very little to increase amenities at the resort, considering when all later resorts (and most before) were attached to deluxe hotels thus giving them a strong edge. SSR is an outlier in the system (aside from OKW but that was the first, has the benefit of huge rooms, and cheaper point charts) DVC knew that when selling which is why from most accounts on here it was pitched as buy these points to stay at that resort. We see them fixing some issues with splitting into two categories to drop the greedy point charts it was sold under and the revitalized DS and rehab of the resort should help if resale buyers start buying to stay there and direct owners clamor to stay there (both of which could eventually happen).

And

3) high cost point units

4. Aulani

 

[Cyberc1978]

I do not understand your point. You have demonstrated that the amount of resales is way way lower than everyone thought here on the boards. The urban myth that the average time a buyer keeps his contract is 10 years was believed by everyone here and you have demonstrated it's false. If someone had told me that 50% of SSR is currently owned by resale purchasers, I would have believed it.
If really OKW, SSR and AKV are creating a problem for DVC because of the 7 months booking windows, then the impact of direct owners is way higher (6x) than resale owners.

I dont believe that owners of any resort is causing a problem at 7 month at least not during "fall-frenzy" Why? because during "fall-frenzy" most studios if not all are gone when the 7month opens.

7 month window might cause 1br to be booked up pretty fast but owners are these resort have had their fair share of time to book when it opens to others.

 

[Bing Showei]

Did you or anyone else challenge that or did the guide at least elaborate "how" resale owners abused the system?

He likened resale owners to people coming into your neighborhood and buying your house for half the price, driving your property value down. Also talked about resale buyers becoming renters and abusing the system.

I should’ve pointed out that “those people” are actually who’s holding up my property value as my property is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If I own it and am holding onto it, it doesn’t matter if the property is being sold at $120/pt, and more to the point, it doesn’t matter if I paid $188/pt or $65/pt.

But I failed to say that. I instead suggested that, as a whole, SSR is likely what has taxed the system (studios still available 30 days out, today), and that his example used earlier in the conversation about using his direct SSR points at VGF was demonstrative of that. This was an exchange issue, not a resale issue. I also suggested that he be more thoughtful about vilifying resale owners in his sales pitch. He clarified it wasn’t all resale owners, just certain ones (again) abusing the system. A distinction he chose not to make originally.

 

[chicagoshannon]

Here's the thing. Resale owners in general* buy the resale property for MORE than the original owner paid. So there really is no such thing as a "cheap" resale owner. (except for maybe Vero or HH and those are so cheap because no one wants to pay those super high dues)

People really need to check their attitude about the resale owners. Seriously. It's not like resales are adding more points into the system they're just taking over points already there. We pay just as much in dues as direct buyers. In total we put more money out than the original owners!

*excludes downturn in the economy when even Disney didn't want the points back so they were selling for pretty cheap but NEVER pennies on the dollar like other timeshares.

 

[katandmouse]

I think I was the one who reignited the “cheap resale points” debate on another thread and I regret that.
I was trying to prove that resale was not the cause of any booking difficulty and should not be a scapegoat. For all the reasons people have stated again here, and I’ll add a couple more:

1. From what I can see, the number of SSR, OKW, AKV resales is not disproportionate to the other resorts, relative to the total number of points at each resort and the time they’ve been on the market. Those resorts are also cheapest to buy direct from Disney. So any “cheap point” effect is more related to the resorts overall and not the minor percentage of resale owners.

2. IF this resale restriction were a “solution” to members’ booking difficulties because of those “cheap points,” it would not actually fix the problem. The restriction does not single out SSR or others; it groups all L14 resorts together. Any difficulty this restriction creates for SSR owners trying to book another L14 resort will be experienced by everyone trying to book a L14 resort.
(It could make it easier for others to book the new resorts for a time though. Would members be happy with that trade-off? I don’t know. The other side of it is that this effect might be so small that it never makes any difference, so still not an effective “solution.”)

As an aside, the idea of resale driving property value down is laughable. The market sets the price, and even that is artificially inflated by ROFR. Not to mention that this is not actually real estate property - it is a timeshare lease that will expire and the property value will be $0. If anything resale buyers help keep the value higher than it otherwise would be.

That being said, I’m new to DVC, so I’m trying to gain some context. I also know the internet tends to exaggerate negatives and anxieties, so I’m trying to keep an open mind. I’ve been trying to imagine a reason for the new resale restriction (other than profit) but so far coming up blank. I could just be speaking for myself here, but I think the reason people have been upset about this is that it has the potential to affect everyone negatively - in terms of lowering resale value, making booking more difficult, questionably changing the contract terms, and damaging the brand. I’m having trouble finding a positive to counteract that. Maybe just that these concerns won’t end up having much of an impact?

 

[dvcsince93]

Wow-reading these posts- the arguments all have the emotional baggage one would expect if DVD had broken up in a relationship with resale buyers. Moreover, the arguments start with the same conclusion- DVD bad, resale good.

Let’s look at some of the arguments one by one and compare them to the facts.

The sentiments of this statement captures beautifully the success of Disney’s campaign against the resale market.

It would suffice for you to say simply “As to the existence of millions of cheap points and the 7 month window...” but instead you chose to single out resale.

I singled out resale because the facts in my possession point to differences in point usage between direct and resale purchasers:

1. There are numerous posts on this board where people say they are buying cheap only to use elsewhere-never the home resort.
2. People on this board freely disclose that they own hundreds of points at SSR and also disclose how much they avoid SSR.
3. A number of direct purchasers on this board have pointed out how much the like SSR and don't avoid SSR at all costs.

The issue is not whether there is block of resale points that are never used in their home resort, it is how big is that block- based on resale numbers, that block may be as large as 3-4 million points.

And the evidence to support the argument that there is a similar block of direct points never being used at their home resort is?


To me, this is interesting because for YEARS, Disney sold SSR direct with exactly this pitch. “Don’t worry you can use these points anywhere.” This was part of the sales pitch when SSR was the actively sold resort.

DVD used the same sales pitch everywhere- and its still true today- for direct purchases.

Where is the evidence that DVD told direct purchasers they should buy but never stay in the home resort?

Where is the evidence that direct buyers purchased SSR with the idea that they would never stay there?

On the other hand there are numerous strings on this site that people say they are buying cheap and never plan to stay at their home resort.

There is a difference between staying in multiple resorts and never staying in your home resort. It will effect the point balance between 7 and 11 months-it is simply math. Resale buyers may not like it, but that doesn't make it false.


As supported by your contractual findings, there are far more direct SSR owners out there than resale owners. And statistically, they will have paid far less than most SSR resale owners. But ignoring that inconvenient little fact, and with zero data on how those points are being used, you’re prepared to perpetuate the notion that the millions of cheap resale owners continue to tax the smaller resorts.

This is one of my favorite examples of arguments I've seen repeated on this board where the facts not only don’t support the argument- they seem to contradict them.

First, I have seen no one offer any facts to support the argument that resale buyers paid more, much less "far more" than direct buyers.

Lets look at the inconvenient facts surrounding who paid what for SSR:

The lowest direct price (before incentives) for SSR was $89. It rose quickly in 2004 to $95 and ultimately the direct price rose to to $105 in 2006. Currently the direct price is $160.

In April 2019, the resale price averaged $104 according the DVC Resale Market while going back just to 2018, the average price was regularly below $100. In July-August 2017, the value was about $87.

While I don't have easy documentation of what the price was before that- in reading posts on this board, people say they were buying large contracts of resale points of SSR not so long ago in the $50-60 range. - which is even less when you consider the $105 was in 2006 dollars.

So what is the evidence that direct owners have "paid far less"?

Disney sold SSR contracts on their flexibility to fill a gaping hole that the Disney Institute left behind. They knew the location was not ideal.

Once again, that is an opinion period. Disney Institute failed. In fact, DI was not the first project that failed on the site. So what?

It's totally clear that you don’t like the resort or the location-again-so what?

Whether you like or dislike it does not establish that SSR is a bad resort or DVD had bad motives for buiding it.

Don't stay there. If you have points there, sell.


Plenty of direct owners bought and continue to be sold today direct OKW/SSR/AKV points that do not bear the restrictions that were conceived to address the 7-month booking issue.

Yes they do, but the price they pay is greater than resale and I haven’t seen any evidence that direct owners avoid SSR at all costs. On the other hand…


And as a lovely proxy bonus they get owners out there perpetuating the fallacy that the ills that a broken system are not the fault of the product and how it’s sold, but rather the resale cretins who have corrupted the once perfect system that Disney has created.

Funny, but the only person I have seen call anyone is cretin is you.

It is not an issue of placing blame. However, the fact that resale purchasers will not even entertain the idea that their actions have any effect at all on DVC, or the new restrictions, is what I find sad.

Then again the posts on this board reflect the fact that people are quick to attack anyone who disagrees with the position that everything is DVD's fault.


I sat through a presentation from a guide who stated unequivocally that "resale owners were abusing the system." Those. Exact. Words.

So, after reading the posts on this board, I know it is not popular, but where is the evidence that he is wrong?

For example, show me where the addition of as many as 3-4 million points which are never used during the 11 month window has no effect on resort availability at 7 months.

Alternatively, show me evidence that direct purchasers use points in the same way as resale purchasers.

Without such evidence, you may not like or agree with the guide, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It doesn't mean that it is true, but without evidence, it is just your opinion vs. his- prove him wrong.


I should’ve pointed out that “those people” are actually who’s holding up my property value as my property is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If I own it and am holding onto it, it doesn’t matter if the property is being sold at $120/pt, and more to the point, it doesn’t matter if I paid $188/pt or $65/pt.

The comparison of vacation club investments to home real estate investments is convenient for the argument but there is no evidence to support the link.

DVC offers a timeshare which is first and foremost a prepaid vacation scenario for a term of years. No matter what anyone does, at the end of the term, the value will necessarily drop to 0- real estate doesn't.

If you are looking for a real estate investment, look elsewhere, and if don't like the DVC vacation plan or the company, the solution is easy-sell.


Good luck, y’all. I came on this board to see what the deal was with the new restrictions. I now know more than I ever wanted.

 

[Madame]

Wow-reading these posts- the arguments all have the emotional baggage one would expect if DVD had broken up in a relationship with resale buyers. Moreover, the arguments start with the same conclusion- DVD bad, resale good.

Let’s look at some of the arguments one by one and compare them to the facts.

The sentiments of this statement captures beautifully the success of Disney’s campaign against the resale market.

It would suffice for you to say simply “As to the existence of millions of cheap points and the 7 month window...” but instead you chose to single out resale.

I singled out resale because the facts in my possession point to differences in point usage between direct and resale purchasers:

1. There are numerous posts on this board where people say they are buying cheap only to use elsewhere-never the home resort.
2. People on this board freely disclose that they own hundreds of points at SSR and also disclose how much they avoid SSR.
3. A number of direct purchasers on this board have pointed out how much the like SSR and don't avoid SSR at all costs.

The issue is not whether there is block of resale points that are never used in their home resort, it is how big is that block- based on resale numbers, that block may be as large as 3-4 million points.

And the evidence to support the argument that there is a similar block of direct points never being used at their home resort is?


To me, this is interesting because for YEARS, Disney sold SSR direct with exactly this pitch. “Don’t worry you can use these points anywhere.” This was part of the sales pitch when SSR was the actively sold resort.

DVD used the same sales pitch everywhere- and its still true today- for direct purchases.

Where is the evidence that DVD told direct purchasers they should buy but never stay in the home resort?

Where is the evidence that direct buyers purchased SSR with the idea that they would never stay there?

On the other hand there are numerous strings on this site that people say they are buying cheap and never plan to stay at their home resort.

There is a difference between staying in multiple resorts and never staying in your home resort. It will effect the point balance between 7 and 11 months-it is simply math. Resale buyers may not like it, but that doesn't make it false.


As supported by your contractual findings, there are far more direct SSR owners out there than resale owners. And statistically, they will have paid far less than most SSR resale owners. But ignoring that inconvenient little fact, and with zero data on how those points are being used, you’re prepared to perpetuate the notion that the millions of cheap resale owners continue to tax the smaller resorts.

This is one of my favorite examples of arguments I've seen repeated on this board where the facts not only don’t support the argument- they seem to contradict them.

First, I have seen no one offer any facts to support the argument that resale buyers paid more, much less "far more" than direct buyers.

Lets look at the inconvenient facts surrounding who paid what for SSR:

The lowest direct price (before incentives) for SSR was $89. It rose quickly in 2004 to $95 and ultimately the direct price rose to to $105 in 2006. Currently the direct price is $160.

In April 2019, the resale price averaged $104 according the DVC Resale Market while going back just to 2018, the average price was regularly below $100. In July-August 2017, the value was about $87.

While I don't have easy documentation of what the price was before that- in reading posts on this board, people say they were buying large contracts of resale points of SSR not so long ago in the $50-60 range. - which is even less when you consider the $105 was in 2006 dollars.

So what is the evidence that direct owners have "paid far less"?

Disney sold SSR contracts on their flexibility to fill a gaping hole that the Disney Institute left behind. They knew the location was not ideal.

Once again, that is an opinion period. Disney Institute failed. In fact, DI was not the first project that failed on the site. So what?

It's totally clear that you don’t like the resort or the location-again-so what?

Whether you like or dislike it does not establish that SSR is a bad resort or DVD had bad motives for buiding it.

Don't stay there. If you have points there, sell.


Plenty of direct owners bought and continue to be sold today direct OKW/SSR/AKV points that do not bear the restrictions that were conceived to address the 7-month booking issue.

Yes they do, but the price they pay is greater than resale and I haven’t seen any evidence that direct owners avoid SSR at all costs. On the other hand…


And as a lovely proxy bonus they get owners out there perpetuating the fallacy that the ills that a broken system are not the fault of the product and how it’s sold, but rather the resale cretins who have corrupted the once perfect system that Disney has created.

Funny, but the only person I have seen call anyone is cretin is you.

It is not an issue of placing blame. However, the fact that resale purchasers will not even entertain the idea that their actions have any effect at all on DVC, or the new restrictions, is what I find sad.

Then again the posts on this board reflect the fact that people are quick to attack anyone who disagrees with the position that everything is DVD's fault.


I sat through a presentation from a guide who stated unequivocally that "resale owners were abusing the system." Those. Exact. Words.

So, after reading the posts on this board, I know it is not popular, but where is the evidence that he is wrong?

For example, show me where the addition of as many as 3-4 million points which are never used during the 11 month window has no effect on resort availability at 7 months.

Alternatively, show me evidence that direct purchasers use points in the same way as resale purchasers.

Without such evidence, you may not like or agree with the guide, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It doesn't mean that it is true, but without evidence, it is just your opinion vs. his- prove him wrong.


I should’ve pointed out that “those people” are actually who’s holding up my property value as my property is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If I own it and am holding onto it, it doesn’t matter if the property is being sold at $120/pt, and more to the point, it doesn’t matter if I paid $188/pt or $65/pt.

The comparison of vacation club investments to home real estate investments is convenient for the argument but there is no evidence to support the link.

DVC offers a timeshare which is first and foremost a prepaid vacation scenario for a term of years. No matter what anyone does, at the end of the term, the value will necessarily drop to 0- real estate doesn't.

If you are looking for a real estate investment, look elsewhere, and if don't like the DVC vacation plan or the company, the solution is easy-sell.


Good luck, y’all. I came on this board to see what the deal was with the new restrictions. I now know more than I ever wanted.

I was sincerely going to provide rebuttal to your arguments, but the very first line is insulting, indicating to me you don’t want real discussion.

Just 2 things. Do you truly believe that all resalers buy SSR only? I paid a hell of a lot more resale for my BCV with half the contract gone than the original owners. You’re lumping all resalers together, which is very DVCish.

Finally, we also preach here “buy where you want to stay”. Are there people who buy VB, AUL, HHI and yes SSR with the intention of never staying there? Sure. It is a POINTS system. It is how the system functions. High points seasons are less desirable because of the high points. Most can no longer afford the massive contracts & high ppp to vacation as they wish, when they wish.

DVD created SSR, now they’re demonizing it and all resalers right along with it. Hypocrisy.

They have the power to fix the point inequity problem. What’d they do? Try to jack up BCV & BWV point costs via the lockoff premium to make DRR seem attractive. Underhanded.

 

[dvcsince93]

Unlike your post, I didn’t insult the person- I insulted the argument. Read it again.

Also, my arguments did not include the words “hypocrisy” or “underhanded” to describe people, can you say that?

As to your argument:

Just 2 things. Do you truly believe that all resalers buy SSR only? I paid a hell of a lot more resale for my BCV with half the contract gone than the original owners. You’re lumping all resalers together, which is very DVCish.

As to SSR-

First, I didn’t choose SSR, I was replying to another insulting poster who decided I was under the control of DVD.
Second, SSR seems to have a love-hate relationship with the resale crowd. They love to buy it cheap and hate to stay there. It is all over this board.
Third, I haven't seen a single place where DVD is demonizing the resort- I have seen it by people on this board however.

As to your BCV resale:

First, not sure when you bought, but BCV didn’t go on sale until 2002 with 2042 expiration so its only 40 years and that means half a contract isn’t until 2022. As it is only 2019, it was probably more than half a contract.

Second, the price in 2002- was $85-89/pt - I know I paid it. If you want to really compare spending, you need to look at the value of $89 in the year you bought it.

If you bought in 2014, the $89 (2002 dollar) was $117 and avg. resales price in Sept was $95.
If you bought in 2015, the $89 (2002 dollar) was $117 and avg. resale prices were $93 in March and $106 in Sept.
If you bought in 2016- the $89 (2002 dollars) was $118 and avg. resale price in March 2016 was $117
If you bought in 2017- resales prices were 100-130 depending on contract size. $89 (2002 dollar) =$121.17
If you bought in 2018 - resale prices were 110-147 depending on contract size $89 (2202 dollar)=$124.23

So, if you bought in the last three years, it’s possible the value you paid was more than the direct purchaser but likely not a “hell of a lot more”. Then again, it’s also possible the value you paid was less than $89 in 2002.

Facts are a funny thing.

 

[Madame]

Unlike your post, I didn’t insult the person- I insulted the argument. Read it again.

Also, my arguments did not include the words “hypocrisy” or “underhanded” to describe people, can you say that?

As to your argument:

Just 2 things. Do you truly believe that all resalers buy SSR only? I paid a hell of a lot more resale for my BCV with half the contract gone than the original owners. You’re lumping all resalers together, which is very DVCish.

As to SSR-

First, I didn’t choose SSR, I was replying to another insulting poster who decided I was under the control of DVD.
Second, SSR seems to have a love-hate relationship with the resale crowd. They love to buy it cheap and hate to stay there. It is all over this board.
Third, I haven't seen a single place where DVD is demonizing the resort- I have seen it by people on this board however.

As to your BCV resale:

First, not sure when you bought, but BCV didn’t go on sale until 2002 with 2042 expiration so its only 40 years and that means half a contract isn’t until 2022. As it is only 2019, it was probably more than half a contract.

Second, the price in 2002- was $85-89/pt - I know I paid it. If you want to really compare spending, you need to look at the value of $89 in the year you bought it.

If you bought in 2014, the $89 (2002 dollar) was $117 and avg. resales price in Sept was $95.
If you bought in 2015, the $89 (2002 dollar) was $117 and avg. resale prices were $93 in March and $106 in Sept.
If you bought in 2016- the $89 (2002 dollars) was $118 and avg. resale price in March 2016 was $117
If you bought in 2017- resales prices were 100-130 depending on contract size. $89 (2002 dollar) =$121.17
If you bought in 2018 - resale prices were 110-147 depending on contract size $89 (2202 dollar)=$124.23

So, if you bought in the last three years, it’s possible the value you paid was more than the direct purchaser but likely not a “hell of a lot more”. Then again, it’s also possible the value you paid was less than $89 in 2002.

Facts are a funny thing.

I think that YOU are the one taking this too personally. I described the actions of a multi-billion dollar company as hypocritical and underhanded. What’s your point?

Nowhere did I insult. I explained my interpretation of your opening volley. I paid 132$ for a stripped contract (large at 270 points & so less attractive and cheaper on the market) & with about 55% remaining life. I bought a yr ago. Now that $132 won’t make it past ROFR. & honestly, while inflation has increased, most wages have been stagnant for a long time - ours unfortunately has.

You can either believe first hand accounts like Bing’s about how resale is portrayed in the sales pitch or believe we are all fantasists. Your choice.

I don’t have a love-hate relationship with SSR. I like it. I’m looking forward to the refurb. If the tone of the DVC boards is not one you enjoy, then there are many others on DIS from which to choose.

 

[dvcsince93]

Your approach is to look at everything as black or white- there is no shade of grey.

There are more options than to belive Bing's one sided account of a sales pitch or that everyone is a "fantasist" (not sure what that is).

You want ot criticize companies-great- but what you are doing on this board is not criticism, the posts are full of moaning, complaining and whining about how bad DVD is. If there are facts that support your complaints, great, tell people.

If someone expresses an opinion different from yours- attack them as being "DVCish" which we know as an underhanded, hypocritical multi-billion dollar company.

As to my opinion on the tone of the boards, I could say the same to you about the opinions use express about the conduct of DVD- if they are so bad, I am sure there are other vacation clubs you could choose from.

 

[Madame]

Your approach is to look at everything as black or white- there is no shade of grey.

There are more options than to belive Bing's one sided account of a sales pitch or that everyone is a "fantasist" (not sure what that is).

You want ot criticize companies-great- but what you are doing on this board is not criticism, the posts are full of moaning, complaining and whining about how bad DVD is. If there are facts that support your complaints, great, tell people.

If someone expresses an opinion different from yours- attack them as being "DVCish" which we know as an underhanded, hypocritical multi-billion dollar company.

As to my opinion on the tone of the boards, I could say the same to you about the opinions use express about the conduct of DVD- if they are so bad, I am sure there are other vacation clubs you could choose from.

We leave the pixie dust only groupthink for the Facebook groups. I bought DVC because I like to visit WDW.

Unlike choosing to not be accusatory on a DVC board or skipping it all together will cost you nothing. Walking away from DVC will cost me handsomely.

I am not a love it or leave it type. I prefer to fight to improve what I enjoy. I’ve done more than merely moan on these boards, which you cannot possibly know as a new member - check out the older lawsuit thread if you wish. Have yourself a great evening.

PS. If have no idea if fantasist is a real English word. I speak French 90% of my daily life. I think the meaning is, however, clear.

 

[msjprincess]

PS. If have no idea if fantasist is a real English word. I speak French 90% of my daily life. I think the meaning is, however, clear.

You're correct, it is a real word.

fantasist
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈfæn.tə.sɪst/ US /ˈfæn.tə.sɪst/
someone who often has fantasies, or who confuses fantasy and what is real

 

[Bing Showei]

I singled out resale because the facts in my possession point to differences in point usage between direct and resale purchasers:

1. There are numerous posts on this board where people say they are buying cheap only to use elsewhere-never the home resort.
2. People on this board freely disclose that they own hundreds of points at SSR and also disclose how much they avoid SSR.
3. A number of direct purchasers on this board have pointed out how much the like SSR and don't avoid SSR at all costs.

The issue is not whether there is block of resale points that are never used in their home resort, it is how big is that block- based on resale numbers, that block may be as large as 3-4 million points.

And the evidence to support the argument that there is a similar block of direct points never being used at their home resort is?

Numerous is a pretty soft value and largely anecdotal. Far from the "evidence" you repeatedly demand be presented as an argument against your points.

In the two months since you’ve been hanging around here, how many posts have you read where people have proclaimed this: that they are going to buy cheap and never stay at SSR? Show me evidence of the hordes of people saying this is their policy. Let’s be generous and say you’ve seen 20 people say exactly this (you didn’t). Are you interpreting that number to represent a much larger number? Since you’re big on concrete numbers and statistics, put a number on it for me. Is it enough people to account for the 2 million points you say are resale at SSR, if not, what percentage do you feel those 20 people represent of all resale buyers?

I’ve searched the boards and I’m hard pressed to find anyone who has no plans to ever stay at SSR. In fact the biggest advocates of the feasibility of using SSR points at 7-months talk about how they actually like staying there if they can’t trade out.

Maybe you're extrapolating this from the advice people will sometimes dispense about "buying cheap" as a means of entering the Disney timeshare system? But for every person who advocates buying cheap, there are many more who recommend buying where you want to stay.

But back to those resale owners; are you imagining that most resale owners never stay at SSR? Conversely, do you conclude that direct owners stay at SSR most of the time? Let’s put a number on that then. Let’s assume that the number is super low for direct owners, that only once out of every five years a direct owner will choose to stay somewhere other than SSR. With direct owners at 86% this represents 11 million points at SSR ownership and 2.2 million points being traded out by direct owners.

For a resale owner to have a greater impact than a direct owner, you would need to accept that 100% of SSR resale owners NEVER stay at SSR and that SSR director owners only trade out 20% of the time. As you pointed out, we don’t have those numbers, but that seems like a stretch to accept either of those assumptions. For your argument to hold that the resale owners represent a bigger problem than direct owners, those are the assumptions you'll have to make.

That's unlikely the case, and direct owners are AT LEAST taxing the system as much as resale owners, and it’s likely they are taxing the system much more than the 14% resale owners who would account for a total of 2 million out of 13 million points.

But you would rather go after the resale owner. I get that.

Disney has an SSR problem. I’m not saying that to disparage SSR owners, or to besmirch the resort. It's the fact that there are nearly as many points at SSR alone as there are at Beach Club, Boardwalk, Polynesian, and Grand Floridian combined.

But that's not where your focus is on, it's on the resale market because scapegoating resale is much easier than addressing the problem.

You bestow upon direct owners this automatic sense of just use of the points, where you assume them to trade out only occasionally, but mostly stay at their home resort. You also assume that most resale owners are never planning to stay there based on what, a few threads you've seen? Show me the evidence of these resale abusers. The kind of evidence you seem to be demanding to refute your "facts."

Where is the evidence that DVD told direct purchasers they should buy but never stay in the home resort?

...[snip]...

There is a difference between staying in multiple resorts and never staying in your home resort. It will effect the point balance between 7 and 11 months-it is simply math. Resale buyers may not like it, but that doesn't make it false.

That's a straw man argument. At no point did I say that "DVD told direct purchasers they should buy but never stay in the home resort." That's a pretty easy argument to set up to shoot down, but it was never a point I made.

What I did say, is that they were selling (and continue to today) the resort saying, these points can be used anywhere at 7 months. I've spoken specifically to one owner, who I hope will chime in, that this was exactly their sales pitch with SSR. They had gone in wanting to buy BWV, got on a waitlist, but was eventually hard sold on the longer RTU for SSR, being told specifically that it doesn't matter, that they would have no problem staying at BWV for their annual January travels. In Disney's defense, at the time, this was true. But it only reinforces my point that developers don't deal with the practice of time share usage. That is not their goal. Their goal is to sell. I don't imagine this was a unique experience for just this one buyer.

More recently, the guide I saw just three weeks ago was talking about how he was able to put up family at AKV and stay himself at VGF with his SSR points. This is a feature of the product, so of course the sales people are going to sell it. Two years ago, I sat with a guide for the first time, and when she didn't have the VGF points I wanted, she stated unequivocally that I could use the CCV points that Disney was selling to stay at VGF at 7 months. People report back to these boards that guides will push current resorts using 7-month charts as other stay opportunities.

If this practice is so prevalent today, what sort of evidence do you want that trading out at 7-months was being sold as a function of buying the direct points in 2004?

Again it takes a direct owner trading out only 20% of the time to equal the impact of resale owners... and again, this is assuming that EVERY resale owner never stays at SSR.

Are you arguing most direct owners at SSR don't trade out that much? If not, then blaming resale owners for an exchange issue of a system that Disney created is simply scapegoating. Great talking points for guides, but divorced from reality.

I have seen no one offer any facts to support the argument that resale buyers paid more, much less "far more" than direct buyers.

Lets look at the inconvenient facts surrounding who paid what for SSR:

The lowest direct price (before incentives) for SSR was $89. It rose quickly in 2004 to $95 and ultimately the direct price rose to to $105 in 2006. Currently the direct price is $160.

In April 2019, the resale price averaged $104 according the DVC Resale Market while going back just to 2018, the average price was regularly below $100. In July-August 2017, the value was about $87.

While I don't have easy documentation of what the price was before that- in reading posts on this board, people say they were buying large contracts of resale points of SSR not so long ago in the $50-60 range. - which is even less when you consider the $105 was in 2006 dollars.

So what is the evidence that direct owners have "paid far less"?

While it's convenient to point out how some were able to jump in during the greatest economic downturn of our generation to buy Disney timeshare points, the opportunity to buy SSR resale that cheaply was anomalous and those cases are outliers.

You yourself found that resale contracts have steadily risen over the years. As such, more SSR contracts have been sold in the last 18 months (when prices were higher) than the previous 18 months (when prices were lower) and the weighted average paid by resale owners are certain to exceed that of a direct owner when the resort finally sold out in 2008. Not sure where you got your $87 average from. In fall 2017, SSR was averaging asking for SSR $98/point and has gone up steadily since then.

All that said, the numbers above tell only a part of the story. The part you are ignoring is that given the shorter RTU over contracts bought the last several years vs. the 50 years bought into when SSR was sold direct, resale owners are certainly paying more per point than direct owner. Never mind that every resale owner pays exactly what direct owners pay when dues come around every year.

But what does this matter? Why does it matter, unless you're Disney, that someone paid $55 dollars for SSR points? Would you care if someone bought SSR at $160 and did the same exact things you begrudge your phantom resale owner doing at $55? Or is that behavior ok because they paid more? If it's not ok to you, then again, you don't have a resale issue. You have an exchange issue. And again, these restrictions are not designed to address the exchange issue. It serves Disney sales well and gives the guides some creative talking points.

It's totally clear that you don’t like the resort or the location-again-so what?

What did I say that suggests I don't like the resort? I've never been there, how could I not like it? I'm actually looking forward to staying there after the refurb. May end up falling in love with it. Who knows?

Don't stay there. If you have points there, sell.

No thanks.

I'm using my SSR points to get a better fee for they system. I've only been doing this for a little over a year. I knew for my first few years of ownership I would want to try multiple resorts before settling into any one place (if ever). In this year, I'm learning I like BWV a lot; learning I don't like the 7-month booking scramble; learning I'm not in love with the monorail system (gasp!). I did most of that learning at 7-months, just as the system was designed to do. So I'll keep my SSR for now. I'll probably even stay at SSR in the future. Plenty of owners out there do the same thing, direct and resale. If you don't like that I can do that, maybe you should sell.

Plenty of direct owners bought and continue to be sold today direct OKW/SSR/AKV points that do not bear the restrictions that were conceived to address the 7-month booking issue.

Yes they do, but the price they pay is greater than resale...[snip]

And this is what it boils down to. This has nothing to do with booking issues. You don't care whether or not a direct SSR owner uses their points more than 1 out of every 5 times to stay elsewhere; that those direct SSR owners are stressing the system at least as much as resale owners are. You just care that they pay what you think should be paid for points. Again, this echoes the Disney selling points so beautifully. I recommend you visit the Disney's timeshare facebook group. You can find more moral support there for this equity as a measure of entry price paid.

I was going to continue down your post, but honestly, I'm tired. By the way, I did do a forum search and you are absolutely right that I'm the only one who called resellers cretins! From now on I'll refer to those of the resale ilk as abusers instead, in this context. Thanks.

Look, two scenarios are possible here. One, you're a Disney employee who's joined the boards to inject a bit of Disney defense, which I'll admit, could use a little more balance. Or two, you really are a guy who believes the Disney selling point that resale owners hurting the booking system and that the restrictions were appropriate.

If it's the latter, I go back to the 20% direct SSR point usage. If a direct owner trades out more than once every 5 years, they are taxing the system more than all of the resale SSR owners combined. That fact is based on your numbers, just put into a way to make my point.

In case it is the former, and you do indeed work for Disney, please understand where this frustration is coming from. I actually sat through a presentation where the argument was made that resale owners were abusing the system to such a degree that all owners, direct and resale alike, now will be subjected to the resale restrictions. I know you're not convinced this will hurt resale prices, but by design, you guys created a policy to do exactly that.

The abuse language was a first. This is the most outward expression of the whispers that I'm sure happens when we're out of the room, but I have never heard it so explicitly from a Disney employee. While that specific language may not have been laid out in this guide's training, I am left with the impression that it does reflect the sentiment of Disney management to the degree that they will use such language today to justify the restrictions they've imposed. I get the need for you guys to make money. As a Disney timeshare owner, I want Riviera to be successful. It means more resorts will be built. As a shareholder, I want Disney as a whole to be successful. In my first year of ownership, I have absolutely loved the wonderful CMs who are on the ground taking care of the owners. I attended a Moonlight Magic event where a CM gave me a water bottle when I asked for a cup of tap water because she didn't have a faucet nearby. "Please, take this. You guys are an important part of what we do here and we really appreciate you." That's what a lot of us resale abusers want to experience. I'm about as cynical as they come, I know, but that moment for me, felt real. My only wish was that sort of sentiment extended beyond the need to sell timeshare.

 

[dvcsince93]

I don't believe that fighting for what you believe make the ends justify the means. Unfortunately resale buyers don't seem to feel that way.

The posts of resale buyers start by whining and complaining about being blamed for all of DVC problems, insulted by virtually everyone at DVD, DVC, and anyone that can spell disney, but then the posts veer off on a number of tangents- hoping that RIV is an utter failure such that owners lose everything, dismissing any fact that is inconvenient as being a DVD plot, and making themselves feel superior to people with a different view of DVC- see, for example, the infamous pixie dust crowd.

Their actions all seem a bit hypocritical to me and they are not even a big corporation.

As for divesting youself from DVC-not sure it would be as expensive as you believe. It is my understanding there is a vibrant DVC resale market and I believe that you will get at least $132/pt since that is allegedly a level that the evil DVD (and its hoard of cretin supporters) exercises its ROFR. ROFR makes the sale very easy.

Also, I hear that Marriott has a great timeshare- point based but apparently no home resort setup- a fantastic resale market that is truly loved by Marriott- I mean lovely comments, gifts and so much more - Get this- No one blames resale for anything and no one is called a cretin. That itself is huge. I may be wrong but MVC seems to check the right boxes for people who are unhappy with the direction that DVC is going. And they have resorts right outside WDW.

Think about it and Have a great evening- My family lived in Bruxelles for six years and while my kids speak French- I only speak restaurant and grocery store French.

PS- After reading the definition (thank you msjprincess) I stand corrected -fantasist fits perfect with the posts offered by the anti-DVC, fact-free, resale-first, group on this board.

 

[Bing Showei]

I don't believe that fighting for what you believe make the ends justify the means. Unfortunately resale buyers don't seem to feel that way.

The posts of resale buyers start by whining and complaining about being blamed for all of DVC problems, insulted by virtually everyone at DVD, DVC, and anyone that can spell disney, but then the posts veer off on a number of tangents- hoping that RIV is an utter failure such that owners lose everything, dismissing any fact that is inconvenient as being a DVD plot, and making themselves feel superior to people with a different view of DVC- see, for example, the infamous pixie dust crowd.

Their actions all seem a bit hypocritical to me and they are not even a big corporation.

As for divesting youself from DVC-not sure it would be as expensive as you believe. It is my understanding there is a vibrant DVC resale market and I believe that you will get at least $132/pt since that is allegedly a level that the evil DVD (and its hoard of cretin supporters) exercises its ROFR. ROFR makes the sale very easy.

Also, I hear that Marriott has a great timeshare- point based but apparently no home resort setup- a fantastic resale market that is truly loved by Marriott- I mean lovely comments, gifts and so much more - Get this- No one blames resale for anything and no one is called a cretin. That itself is huge. I may be wrong but MVC seems to check the right boxes for people who are unhappy with the direction that DVC is going. And they have resorts right outside WDW.

Think about it and Have a great evening- My family lived in Bruxelles for six years and while my kids speak French- I only speak restaurant and grocery store French.

PS- After reading the definition (thank you msjprincess) I stand corrected -fantasist fits perfect with the posts offered by the anti-DVC, fact-free, resale-first, group on this board.

In one breath you accuse Madame of seeing everything as black and white with no shades of grey, and in the next, you paint all resale owners with one broad brush. Well done.

 

[zavandor]

I don't think all resale owners buy SSR and NEVER stay there:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/are-we-crazy-we-totally-love-saratoga-springs.3753086/

 

[msjprincess]

I agree with Bing Showei I think it's more of a SSR issue than a resale issue. I bought a resale at SSR. I rented points and stayed there before buying and knew I liked it. It's not my favorite resort but I like it's just fine. I've only stayed there once since buying 4 years ago. It was a 2 night stay where we weren't going to parks so we wanted to be near Disney Springs. I don't have a problem staying there but I like trying other resorts out. When I was planning my January trip I thought about staying at SSR. But I would want preferred to be close to Carriage House and DS. Eight nights in a one bedroom was only 5 points less than BCV. No thanks. I ended up booking DRR because I have no idea how hard or easy it wil be to book in the future.

I have a few friends who bought SSR direct because that's all that was available at the time. They very rarely stay at SSR. I just saw one couple last month. They had just come back from a BRV stay and said they haven't stayed at SSR in over 10 years.

 

[Madame]

I don't believe that fighting for what you believe make the ends justify the means. Unfortunately resale buyers don't seem to feel that way.

The posts of resale buyers start by whining and complaining about being blamed for all of DVC problems, insulted by virtually everyone at DVD, DVC, and anyone that can spell disney, but then the posts veer off on a number of tangents- hoping that RIV is an utter failure such that owners lose everything, dismissing any fact that is inconvenient as being a DVD plot, and making themselves feel superior to people with a different view of DVC- see, for example, the infamous pixie dust crowd.

Their actions all seem a bit hypocritical to me and they are not even a big corporation.

As for divesting youself from DVC-not sure it would be as expensive as you believe. It is my understanding there is a vibrant DVC resale market and I believe that you will get at least $132/pt since that is allegedly a level that the evil DVD (and its hoard of cretin supporters) exercises its ROFR. ROFR makes the sale very easy.

Also, I hear that Marriott has a great timeshare- point based but apparently no home resort setup- a fantastic resale market that is truly loved by Marriott- I mean lovely comments, gifts and so much more - Get this- No one blames resale for anything and no one is called a cretin. That itself is huge. I may be wrong but MVC seems to check the right boxes for people who are unhappy with the direction that DVC is going. And they have resorts right outside WDW.

Think about it and Have a great evening- My family lived in Bruxelles for six years and while my kids speak French- I only speak restaurant and grocery store French.

PS- After reading the definition (thank you msjprincess) I stand corrected -fantasist fits perfect with the posts offered by the anti-DVC, fact-free, resale-first, group on this board.

I lived in Braine-le-Comte, so about 30 mins via train outside Bruxelles.

I compare being a DVC resale buyer to being a teacher, which I am. Many will argue that teachers do nothing but complain about their jobs.

I argue that teachers are attacked so often that they are forced to explain & defend their job. If you honestly feel that resale buyers would be so vocal if we weren’t being targeted, then we must accept that we will never find common ground. & that’s okay too.

I personally don’t understand why DVC grandfathers perks. It would be so easy to retroactively deny perks to which resale has no claim. They won’t though, because they know that many of their direct buyers own resale. Their decision to vilify resale is their own, but they cannot expect us to not mount a defence.