Poll: Are you going to buy at Riviera

[Bruin_mouse]

I find it interesting that a lot of the same folks that blow up any poor soul who refers to DVC as an “investment,” are now delving into speculation about DRR resale prices ad neaseum. I’ve personally have always thought of a situation where I’m spending thousands of dollars with any kind of expected future return as an investment, but I understand their sentiment.

Here’s the deal. Riviera is shaping up to be a fantastic resort in a high demand area of WDW. I bought points there because I want to vacation there for at least the next 20 years or so and dont want to pay Disney nightly rate prices. If I lose my job next month and have to end up selling my contract do I expect to get anywhere close to $188/point? Nope. What I do expect, however, is that if I get 20 years of use out if it I will have saved a lot of money over what I would have otherwise paid.

If at the end of that you offer me $50/point to buy my contract, I’d politely decline and offer you my points to rent at $20/point. But if you offered me $120? Along with the money I had saved on vacations over 20 years, maybe that would be worth it. My point is that the advice here has been to buy DVC because you like Disney vacations and want to save money on accommodations over the long run, these new restrictions haven’t changed that principle. As I’ve always said about the ceaseless chanting of the never finance mantra on here, you need to do your own math and think for yourself. For those of us under 50, this is the first realistic chance most of us have had to buy an Epcot area resort direct from Disney. For me, that alone was a very compelling reason to purchase at Riviera. But the main reason was to save money on accommodations at Riviera in the long run. That has always been the point of DVC. Endless speculation on the effects of the new resale restrictions doesn’t change that.

 

[kmc33]

the advice here has been to buy DVC because you like Disney vacations and want to save money on accommodations over the long run

Also, the advice has been to buy where you want to stay. That is why we are interested in RVA.

I think it's really hard to predict what will happen in the long term for these contracts. Most likely any new DVC resort from here on out will have those same restrictions. And possibly down the road, if you buy resale, you will be able to make a reservation at another resort by paying a processing fee.

In 15 years, there will only be 8 years left on some of the 2042 contracts and these newer (RVA and beyond) will still have 35+ years left. True, if you are thinking you want to buy RVA now and sell it in 5, 7, or so years, it's probably not your best bet. Buy because that’s where you to stay and you want to save money on your accommodations over a long period of time.

 

[ziravan]

This doesn't just apply to DRR but it affects them worse - but I agree we should most nervous about what ever other restrictions occur. I've said it elsewhere but if they ever changed it so new resale buyers can't book at their home resort until 10 months instaed of 11 months, this would be bad for everyone but it would be CRUSHING for Riviera. Imagine you buy a property resale that you aren't allowed to swap out of, and aren't allowed to book at 11 months until after all the other owners are allowed to book. Basically meaning you better be really flexible in your travel, cause you'll never get to go to Disney in Oct-Dec again.

Unless you buy a Fall Frenzy fixed week resale.

IF I bought direct at Riviera, I’d only consider buying a Fall Frenzy fixed week. That will go far to preserve resale value.

 

[ELMC]

DVC is an anomaly in the timeshare world wrt "getting out at least close to whole". FWIW, I think that expectation is not realistic, especially since we actually bought a deeded interest in a right-to-use lease. Since it is important to you, you are wise to refrain from buying more.

This is a very good point. I also own a Marriott Vacation Club timeshare that we bought for about $15,000 that we could maybe get $2,000 for if we were lucky. But we have used that to vacation all over the world for the past 20 years, so it worked out pretty well. The difference is that like Bing alluded to, Disney has conditioned us to think otherwise through their marketing and quite frankly from our experiences. There is not a single owner of DVC who bought at opening prices up until and including VGF that couldn't get out whole now. Whether a realistic expectation or not, it was the case. But pricing has shifted and that is no longer realistic. I don't want to debate whether this is good or bad, because while I feel one way, there are many others who feel differently and have very eloquently stated their case on here. All I'm saying is that we should acknowledge the paradigm shift and how it relates to our motivations and how it impacts who should and should not be buying now.

Thanks for pointing out that once again this is a timeshare and the fact that it has any cash value at all is an anomaly.

 

[LAX]

This is a very good point. I also own a Marriott Vacation Club timeshare that we bought for about $15,000 that we could maybe get $2,000 for if we were lucky. But we have used that to vacation all over the world for the past 20 years, so it worked out pretty well. The difference is that like Bing alluded to, Disney has conditioned us to think otherwise through their marketing and quite frankly from our experiences. There is not a single owner of DVC who bought at opening prices up until and including VGF that couldn't get out whole now. Whether a realistic expectation or not, it was the case. But pricing has shifted and that is no longer realistic. I don't want to debate whether this is good or bad, because while I feel one way, there are many others who feel differently and have very eloquently stated their case on here. All I'm saying is that we should acknowledge the paradigm shift and how it relates to our motivations and how it impacts who should and should not be buying now.

Thanks for pointing out that once again this is a timeshare and the fact that it has any cash value at all is an anomaly.

If DVC becomes just another timeshare, can it compete with every other timeshare out there? Probably not when one looks at the 3 standalone resorts in the system? I have to believe that there can't be too many more pixie-dusted diehard Disney fans down the road who are willing to drop some serious cash and not care about getting inferior accommodations (relatively speaking to other timeshares out there per some reports I have read) or any residual values on the contract. The thing that bothers me more is not a potential hit to resale value on my contract, but the general negative attitude/trend towards the membership as a whole (both direct & resale; obviously more so resale). It's the fact that DVD/DD can literally change anything unilaterally so that it earn an extra million or two. If the contract I bought a few years ago "guarantees" me to stay at BLT for 1 week every two years remains that way for the rest of that contract, I guess that's really the "only" thing I signed up for. However, I am not optimistic even that will be the case given all these recent changes.

Hence, for those of you that shrug and claim unrealistic expectations about these restrictions, what should be the proper expectations when purchasing DVC?? Buy and hope you can stay whenever, wherever, and for however long DVD tells you so?

LAX

 

[ELMC]

If DVC becomes just another timeshare, can it compete with every other timeshare out there? Probably not when one looks at the 3 standalone resorts in the system? I have to believe that there can't be too many more pixie-dusted diehard Disney fans down the road who are willing to drop some serious cash and not care about getting inferior accommodations (relatively speaking to other timeshares out there per some reports I have read) or any residual values on the contract. The thing that bothers me more is not a potential hit to resale value on my contract, but the general negative attitude/trend towards the membership as a whole (both direct & resale; obviously more so resale). It's the fact that DVD/DD can literally change anything unilaterally so that it earn an extra million or two. If the contract I bought a few years ago "guarantees" me to stay at BLT for 1 week every two years remains that way for the rest of that contract, I guess that's really the "only" thing I signed up for. However, I am not optimistic even that will be the case given all these recent changes.

Hence, for those of you that shrug and claim unrealistic expectations about these restrictions, what should be the proper expectations when purchasing DVC?? Buy and hope you can stay whenever, wherever, and for however long DVD tells you so?

LAX

I think the reasonable expectation is the same as it's always been...the right to stay at your home resort every year in a certain room for a certain number of days, with minor variances, and the ability to change out every once and awhile. To answer your question about Disney being able to compete with every other timeshare out there, I absolutely think it can. The reason HHI, VB, and AUL are not competing all that well is because they all lack the same thing...access to the parks. As long as Disney Parks exist, DVC will be viable. We represent a very small percentage of the population who is this critical. My guess is somewhere around 90-95% of DVC owners don't ever think about the things we talk about incessantly on here.

 

[Bing Showei]

I find it interesting that a lot of the same folks that blow up any poor soul who refers to DVC as an “investment,” are now delving into speculation about DRR resale prices ad neaseum. I’ve personally have always thought of a situation where I’m spending thousands of dollars with any kind of expected future return as an investment, but I understand their sentiment.

I think the people who are most at peace with their DVC ownership are the ones who recognize it to be a sunk cost and have zero expectation of being able to sell for what they paid. TexasChick123 spoke eloquently to this in another post. ELMC used the term "buy to use" which is also appropriate, and to your point, it's a purchase you plan to use for 15 years which is also a healthy way to look at it.

But viewing a DVC purchase, especially a Riviera purchase, as an "investment," even in the loosely defined terms that you do, is exactly what can lead to the sort of risk analysis, doom and gloom scenarios that have run rampant around Riviera.

For decades, DVC has defied logic in terms of the economics of a depreciating asset. This is in part attributed to the most comparable alternative: paying cash to stay on site. And that has gone up steadily year after year. Another part is that from ROFR to completely nonsensical increases in retail prices ($225 for BCV comes to mind), Disney pulls levers that distort the market, so all bets are off the table as to what will happen with resale in the future.

Who would've projected in 1991, that after more than half the RTU life on a timeshare contract has expired, that the resort would be selling for more than what was paid? I think a lot of the speculation around Riviera falls into the logic trap. Logically, all of the doom and gloom makes sense in a free market, but Disney controls so many variables that determine "value."

Also, the emotional draw of the Disney ecosystem can not be discounted. Add to that the fact that most of us here, even the most hardened cynics, hang around a forum that talks about a Disney timeshare in greatest details. As much as we'll rail against the system, we're still a part of it. And even knowing all the things we see them do around reallocations and restrictions, we keep coming back. What chance does you average, happy-go-lucky DVC owner have to question the Mickey Math of DVC?

While I think the projected pitfalls in Riviera resale value is grounded and reasonable, I'm acutely aware that there are far too many other elements in play to dismiss the possibility that in 15 years, if Bruin_mouse decides to walk away from it all, that he won't make out like a bandit, laughing at all the prognosticating and handwringing that he had to sit through because he decided to buy into what many reasonably see as a risky endeavor.

 

[ziravan]

Wyndham has an 1100 room resort basically on property (Bonnet Creek) and two more in close proximity (Star Island and Cypress Palms).

I paid $1200 total for 399k points in that system which provides me the same number of nights, more or less, as my 520 DVC points and the DVC points cost me, well, a whole lot more.

And.

We love Bonnet Creek.

There’s just something to say about staying on property, though.

If DVC is going to become “just another timeshare”, well, there are plenty of cheaper options of those to choose.

 

[ELMC]

Wyndham has an 1100 room resort basically on property (Bonnet Creek) and two more in close proximity (Star Island and Cypress Palms).

I paid $1200 points for 399k points in that system which provides me the same number of nights, more or less, as my 520 DVC points and the DVC points cost me, well, a whole lot more.

And.

We love Bonnet Creek.

There’s just something to say about staying on property, though.

If DVC is going to become “just another timeshare”, well, there are plenty of cheaper options of those to choose.

I think there's a difference between DVC becoming just another timeshare in the way it operates on the back end and becoming just another timeshare in being a physical structure that is not Disneyfied. While the first may very well happen, the second likely won't. I think that's the one most people care about because like you said, there's just something to say about staying on property.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I think the reasonable expectation is the same as it's always been...the right to stay at your home resort every year in a certain room for a certain number of days, with minor variances, and the ability to change out every once and awhile.

Not quite true for some of us who have been members for a long time. I have never stayed at SSR using my SSR points (purchased in 2006) -- not once. At the time it was all Disney was selling direct, and I was not interested in resale. We bought with the plan of using them at 7mos and only booking SSR if there was no other option. They heavily sold the ability to use points at other resorts. They created that expectation -- so I'd argue that used to be a "reasonable expectation". That's changing now, clearly.

 

[LAX]

Wyndham has an 1100 room resort basically on property (Bonnet Creek) and two more in close proximity (Star Island and Cypress Palms).

I paid $1200 total for 399k points in that system which provides me the same number of nights, more or less, as my 520 DVC points and the DVC points cost me, well, a whole lot more.

And.

We love Bonnet Creek.

There’s just something to say about staying on property, though.

If DVC is going to become “just another timeshare”, well, there are plenty of cheaper options of those to choose.

That was kind of my point. DVC was not conceived or marketed as just another timeshare and the current DVD/DD management is essentially changing the "core values" of DVC, which many others seem to be okay with.

LAX

 

[zavandor]

Buying DVC (or a timeshare in general) is an exercise in Risk Management. You pay upfront a large sum of money for a return in the form of savings year after year on your accommodation. To predict if this is a good choice, one has to evaluate all the risks involved in the purchase that might affect the future "returns".
Since I bought, many of the risks associated with DVC have gotten worst:

- Prices have gone up, a lot. I bought SSR at $50 per point, the resale price is now nearly double and some resort sell direct for more than 4 times that. This increases the risk because puts the breakeven point further away, increasing the chances that something changes in the meantime (i.e. you may want to sell due to an accident or change of interests, economy downturn which would cause Disney to heavily discount hotel prices, making your savings per year go down...). Buying resale mitigates this risk, but not as much as it used to be.

- Points to stay in your favorite accommodation might go up: we've seen this with the aborted 2020 reallocation. Both studios and 1BR went up, with an increase only partially balanced by a decrease in other categories. No one ever suspected this could happen. And Disney says they were within their powers to do such reallocation, so there is a high risk of it still happening next year. Budgeting for a cushion of points is wise, to mitigate the risk of having to cut vacation short, but ove the year the effect might compound to high losses.

- We do not know what the effect of the new restrictions on the resale prices will be in the future. The main risk used to be linked to a possible economic downturn, now there is an additional element. It's true that DVC is a luxury purchase and not an investment, but it is a bit silly to ignore that in 25 years it kept some value even during a recession. Now there is a good risk the price might plummet, at Riviera in the short term or when 2042 approaches and many resorts are due to exit the L14 portfolio.

- The resale restrictions might have an effect on availability too. What happens when resale purchasers can only book their own resort? Will they all start walking months in advance also for the most common rooms at their resort to avoid the risk being shut out the week they want to travel? Will this have an impact on direct purchasers who risk not being able to book anything at 11 months for peak periods? And if so, will DVC implement even worst restrictions on resale purchasers (i.e. 10 months home resort reservations, for example) that would impact resale price even more? Will there be a domino effect on other properties (i.e. Riviera direct owners being shut out of their resort at peak time, forcing them to struggle with availability at 7 months at other resorts, making even SSR and OKW difficult to book?)

- The biggest risk of all: DVC has demonstrated the willingness to bend the rules for personal economic advantage. When I bought I though the risk od DVC hurting the members for personal short term profit was very low. I though they valued the brand too much to risk being associated with shady practices deployed by other timeshares (the famous industry standards). This is not true anymore. Anyone buying now should be realistic that DVC is now managed just as any other timeshare, forget the brand you love.

Maybe none of those risks is a dealbreaker for anyone, but one should keep all of them well in mind before purchasign DVC now, both direct and resale.

 

[skier_pete]

I don't think DVC is yet "just another timeshare". The core benefit - a deluxe room on property at a "discounted" rate is still there. Disney has watered that down by (a) increasing costs to the point that the "discount" is MUCH smaller and (b) driven the resale market in such a way as to both devalue the product while at the same time keeping the costs up. (Disney was extremely clever to raise direct prices on the more popular resorts to ridiculously elevated prices.) This has made the resale product much less of a value as well.

I agree with the theory that you should not look at DVC as something where "I will make X percent of my money back if I sell it." Anyone that's bought resale prior to 2017 could likely sell for more than they paid. Most direct owners can sell for only a 20-30% loss. But that doesn't mean this is what the future holds. Disney has spent the last 4 years looking for ways to undermine resale - we shouldn't presume they will stop now. The 2020 re-allocation charts - while rescinded - are the most disturbing piece of this puzzle - where DVC has decided that they can use the "lock-out" premium to raise points on studios and 1-bedrooms without off-setting the raise. If they try this again, then the value of all of our DVC points gets diminished.

But either way - I would argue there are fair reasons to still buy into DVC, and it is still a superior system to many timeshares in the way you have flexibility to book. However, I do think the sales pitch is much sketchier than it used to be - they are continue to sell it as the product it was 10 years ago.

 

[Bing Showei]

It's true that DVC is a luxury purchase and not an investment, but it is a bit silly to ignore that in 25 years it kept some value even during a recession.

I’ll maintain that a healthy way to view DVC is as a true sunk cost, or that you will get the value out of it by virtue of its intended purpose, which is to use it to stay in a “deluxe” room on Disney property, not unlike buying a nice car.

While your point is valid, you then make this point:

Both studios and 1BR went up, with an increase only partially balanced by a decrease in other categories. No one ever suspected this could happen.

And therein lies the problem with seeing DVC as anything beyond being a sunk cost. All it takes is the same kind of management change you’re warning potential buyers of resale or direct about (a willingness to make detrimental changes for personal gain) for the resale value calculus to change. The caveat would suddenly be, “Management decided to kill rentals and crippled the resale market after Riviera’s success, causing points to be resold for pennies on the dollar. No one ever suspected this could happen.”

Sure. Values have gone up, but if management were to fundamentally affect that, I’d rather be the guy who bought Riviera to use it and had zero expectations of being able to resell it, than the guy who bought Riviera thinking it will probably be worth something when I have to sell. Both will be in the same exact financial situation, but the first guy is still enjoying Disney and paying his dues while the second guy is back on these boards warning people about how much DVC has changed.

It will not have changed. It will just be more apparent then that despite the messaging otherwise, DVC is just another timeshare. A luxury purchase that should be considered a sunk cost. True in 1991, true in 2019, true in 202X should this comes to pass.

 

[ziravan]

For me, we bought knowing it’s a timeshare and resale prices don’t bother us that much because we don’t intend to sell.

So long as they grandfather and I’m not selling, the restrictions don’t affect me. But that’s not the point.

My biggest complaint since 2016, is the elemental unfairness of the restrictions.

I joined a club.

That club was murdered by current and just prior management.

Unnecessarily so.

I’m here in a forum about DVC because I’m a fan. I’d like to share that with others but it’s hard to recommend DVC in the current environment.

 

[ziravan]

This is what I said in an open letter to DVC in 2016:

“DVC is an expensive product. I bought in part because I wanted to believe that it’s a Club. I know, I know, it’s a (gasp) timeshare. That said, Disney and DVC have a reputation for being so much more. That’s why resale values are so high, and it’s why you can sell direct points at the price you do.

I know this change is an industry standard. “All timeshares do it”, frankly, is and should be beneath you. It’s an excuse, and a sad one at that.

When you purposely create 2nd class purchasers (not members by your own definition), you attack the special bond that DVC is otherwise well-suited to inspire. Those 2nd class purchasers are your customers, too! They attend your parks, buy in your stores and restaurants, add on via direct contracts, and so much more. All purchasers, resale and direct, are committing to spend tens of thousands of dollars over decades with Disney. That should not be slighted. Indeed, you are sending this message of class distinction at peril to the entire program:

If DVC will strip member benefits from one class of buyers, why not all buyers? That’s a chilling message, for all buyers, resale and direct.

I feel as though in some ways you don’t understand the value of your product, what makes DVC so special. Obviously, you’ve never received your long awaited and anticipated membership card in the mail! If you ever had, you would not be denying that essential magic. Honestly, refusing to give purchasers a membership card is a cheap shot. It’s like reserving “Welcome Home!” to members* and “You Again?!” to purchasers.

I want to believe that we are creating a fifty year relationship with each other. Instead, you’ve sent the unmistakable message that DVC members are only worth consideration while the ink is drying on the contract, that you only care about the next sale.

Say it isn’t so! Please tell us that you aren’t creating a dangerous schism within the Club (members vs. purchasers) just to create a scapegoat for having to discount points to a price where they sell well.

I know I’m not supposed to be affected by this change. Except. I am. You’ve pulled back the curtain. You’ve given lie to the idea that this is a Club. You’ve made a demonstrable move towards being “just another timeshare”.

Some of the pixie dust is gone, not because I didn’t believe; because you didn’t.

That makes me sad, and that’s why I’m writing to you.”

 

[Bing Showei]

My biggest complaint since 2016, is the elemental unfairness of the restrictions.

To whom is this unfair, exactly? The person who bought post 2016? That person is me and I clearly saw the contract when I signed it. When I first bought in, I was most certainly aware of the 2nd class status, but for me it was a trade-off I could live with; compared with direct prices, I saved tens of thousands of dollars. I made the decision to buy in and add-on a direct 25 points contract to get those benefits. I can more clearly see today that this was a simple, symbiotic business transaction where I got access to the DVC timeshare system and the developers got my commitment to pay the bills for 46 years. It took me a little time to get to this point but it’s how I’ll approach any future purchase.

For me, we bought knowing it’s a timeshare and resale prices don’t bother us that much because we don’t intend to sell.

When you purposely create 2nd class purchasers (not members by your own definition), you attack the special bond that DVC is otherwise well-suited to inspire. Those 2nd class purchasers are your customers, too!

These two sentiments reflect diametrically opposed perspectives. The first suggests there’s recognition that this is a timeshare: a business model designed to make developers money on a committed long term real estate transaction with an owner who is looking to reduce the cost of repeated vacations over years of commitment. That’s a timeshare.

But the second statement speaks of a “special bond” that is the embodiment of marketing manipulation; the sentiment many of us have attached to Disney experiences as a whole, and that is being leveraged by the developer to sell a product.

I think for many, myself included at one point, the tendency is to look at a DVC purchase as some sort of promise of future magic for our families for years to come; that we didn’t just buy a timeshare, we are investing in future memories.

While this may be the net end result, it’s important to remember that this is a timeshare. Like, for real, a timeshare. It’s a pretty good timeshare that has some cool incentives to move product that I will take advantage of while they’re still around, but still just a timeshare. Merchandise and dining discounts, APs, free magnets? Yes, please. But I bought a timeshare. And like any other timeshare, showing the developer a healthy ROI is the primary driving factor.

So while I appreciate and once shared the sentiment you shared in your open letter to Disney, I think anyone who buys into a Disney timeshare expecting more than what is contractually outlined, is going to, at some point, become disheartened, disillusioned, or resentful of what DVC “has become.” I for one am lowering that bar. My expectation is only that I’ll be afforded the opportunity to book at my home resort at 11-months. As long as I still enjoy it, it’s a symbiotic relationship. As soon as the scales tip and the dues feel parasitic, I’ll get out.

 

[ziravan]

To whom is this unfair, exactly? The person who bought post 2016? That person is me and I clearly saw the contract when I signed it. When I first bought in, I was most certainly aware of the 2nd class status, but for me it was a trade-off I could live with; compared with direct prices, I saved tens of thousands of dollars. I made the decision to buy in and add-on a direct 25 points contract to get those benefits. I can more clearly see today that this was a simple, symbiotic business transaction where I got access to the DVC timeshare system and the developers got my commitment to pay the bills for 46 years. It took me a little time to get to this point but it’s how I’ll approach any future purchase.


These two sentiments reflect diametrically opposed perspectives. The first suggests there’s recognition that this is a timeshare: a business model designed to make developers money on a committed long term real estate transaction with an owner who is looking to reduce the cost of repeated vacations over years of commitment. That’s a timeshare.

But the second statement speaks of a “special bond” that is the embodiment of marketing manipulation; the sentiment many of us have attached to Disney experiences as a whole, and that is being leveraged by the developer to sell a product.

I think for many, myself included at one point, the tendency is to look at a DVC purchase as some sort of promise of future magic for our families for years to come; that we didn’t just buy a timeshare, we are investing in future memories.

While this may be the net end result, it’s important to remember that this is a timeshare. Like, for real, a timeshare. It’s a pretty good timeshare that has some cool incentives to move product that I will take advantage of while they’re still around, but still just a timeshare. Merchandise and dining discounts, APs, free magnets? Yes, please. But I bought a timeshare. And like any other timeshare, showing the developer a healthy ROI is the primary driving factor.

So while I appreciate and once shared the sentiment you shared in your open letter to Disney, I think anyone who buys into a Disney timeshare expecting more than what is contractually outlined, is going to, at some point, become disheartened, disillusioned, or resentful of what DVC “has become.” I for one am lowering that bar. My expectation is only that I’ll be afforded the opportunity to book at my home resort at 11-months. As long as I still enjoy it, it’s a symbiotic relationship. As soon as the scales tip and the dues feel parasitic, I’ll get out.

Yes.

But before 2016 you could argue that it was a “special bond”. Even the 2011 restrictions were by all accounts, trivial.

Since then, you’d be crazy to not consider DVC nakedly to be a timeshare. You’d be crazy to not consider that DVC will aggressively and relentlessly attack any residual monetary value in your contracts going forward. You’d be crazy if you bought and didn’t fully understand that DVC considers you, 10 minutes after the recission period ends, to be their competitor and opponent.

And that’s the crux of what I’m saying; when I bought, I gut checked that this was indeed a timeshare but I hoped that it would continue to be treated by Disney as a highly profitable but yet still magical piece of their pie. Until 2016, Disney was selling a timeshare but they were also providing the “club” experience they were advertising.

DVC had an “on stage” persona (no, not Dee Vee Cee) and stayed in costume.

That costume has been tossed aside.

I bargained for a timeshare but that does not mean that I cannot be disappointed that the club mentality that Disney poured into DVC that existed when I bought - is gone.

 

[skier_pete]

Yes.

But before 2016 you could argue that it was a “special bond”. Even the 2011 restrictions were by all accounts, trivial.

Meh - I first bought in 2014 and even then I considered it a timeshare in which once you buy in you are but a number. I found that occasionally they treat me better than that - but if I keep that attitude I am rarely disappointed. Only the 2020 points chart re-allocation has really rocked me because that to me went beyond the base promise that they made - that one made me realize they will actually play dirty. I don't consider anything else they've done dirty, even the changes to the resale contracts. YMMV.

 

[ELMC]

It will not have changed. It will just be more apparent then that despite the messaging otherwise, DVC is just another timeshare. A luxury purchase that should be considered a sunk cost. True in 1991, true in 2019, true in 202X should this comes to pass.

I agree that is the construct of DVC. But you have to acknowledge that many of our experiences have been directly contrary to that, which makes it hard for us to shift our thinking back to what you describe above. Even though what you say is factually accurate, we have been conditioned to think otherwise. It's a bit of a paradox.

This is what I said in an open letter to DVC in 2016:

[SNIP]

That makes me sad, and that’s why I’m writing to you.”

Did you hear back? I'd be curious to hear their response.

My expectation is only that I’ll be afforded the opportunity to book at my home resort at 11-months. As long as I still enjoy it, it’s a symbiotic relationship. As soon as the scales tip and the dues feel parasitic, I’ll get out.

I'm curious, and this is an honest question not a veiled shot...in your mind how close to parasitic are starting dues of $8.31 per point?