Riviera Sales by the numbers (vs CCV) for 2019 - (December added 1/16/2020)

[emchen]

Pete, that is absolutely crazy! Guaranteed vacation at the same place for the next 50 years?

You forgot other options: bank, borrow, and lease.

 

[eMoneyBug]

Count me in for some RIV resale if prices drop into the ~$85s

 

[Royal Consort]

Pete, that is absolutely crazy! Guaranteed vacation at the same place for the next 50 years?

I just love the irony in this.

 

[skier_pete]

Pete, that is absolutely crazy! Guaranteed vacation at the same place for the next 50 years?

Can't comment on Crazy - it's less than $188 direct by $48 a point, so it's a better deal for the buyer than the seller that lost $8000 and didn't even get to stay in it. No idea if it will close since the seller will need to pay off the difference.

 

[Hjs33]

I think I saw on the Rofr thread that someone got a resale Riv contract. They paid $140 pp I think it was 160 point contract

Ummmm.... no thank you. At $140 I would rather pay the extra $48 to have the flexibility of booking anywhere for the next 50 years. Versus only being able to book 1 resort and having to worry about not being able to use my points.

But that is probably how Disney wants me to think about it.

 

[KStash]

Ummmm.... no thank you. At $140 I would rather pay the extra $48 to have the flexibility of booking anywhere for the next 50 years. Versus only being able to book 1 resort and having to worry about not being able to use my points.

But that is probably how Disney wants me to think about it.

I'm with you on this. If I was going to pay 140 for Riviera resale, I would just pay the 188. I wouldn't buy RIV resale for anything more than 100.

 

[Jenniebee]

I wouldn't buy RIV resale for anything more than 100

Even then I wouldn't - it just doesn't make sense. For $100pp you can buy SSR or OKW and get 14 properties to choose from including Aulani - ?? I just don't get Riviera at all.

 

[Soap_1984]

I'm with you on this. If I was going to pay 140 for Riviera resale, I would just pay the 188. I wouldn't buy RIV resale for anything more than 100.

I thought the exact same thing. I think at 175 points with the promotions you actually are paying closer to $180/pp (I can't recall exactly but I think you get 5-10 points free in the Riv promo at that point level so $177-182/pp).

 

[KStash]

Even then I wouldn't - it just doesn't make sense. For $100pp you can buy SSR or OKW and get 14 properties to choose from including Aulani - ?? I just don't get Riviera at all.

I like the theming and location of the resort, so I wouldn't mind buying a CHEAP small (75 points or so) resale contract down the line to stay there every other year (to add onto my current L14 contract). In fact, if Disney didn't have the resale restrictions, I likely would have bought RIV instead of my 200 point resale Poly contract, because I really do like the resort and the gondolas (though I hope I'll never have to see the infamous "defecation bags.")

 

[WIll C]

I thought the exact same thing. I think at 175 points with the promotions you actually are paying closer to $180/pp (I can't recall exactly but I think you get 5-10 points free in the Riv promo at that point level so $177-182/pp).

150 points was 5 extra...175 was 10. This was back in September.

 

[Sandisw]

Ummmm.... no thank you. At $140 I would rather pay the extra $48 to have the flexibility of booking anywhere for the next 50 years. Versus only being able to book 1 resort and having to worry about not being able to use my points.

But that is probably how Disney wants me to think about it.

Unless the owner has plenty of points to stay elsewhere and bought for only staying at RIV. if it’s not the only contract and they really want hard to get rooms, I can see saving the money.

 

[RivShore]

Even then I wouldn't - it just doesn't make sense. For $100pp you can buy SSR or OKW and get 14 properties to choose from including Aulani - ?? I just don't get Riviera at all.

Except when you take years left into account. More than twice as many with RIV actually makes it cheaper for those of us planning on utilizing all those years.

 

[Jenniebee]

Except when you take years left into account. More than twice as many with RIV actually makes it cheaper for those of us planning on utilizing all those years.

Yes that's true - I keep forgetting to take length of time into account. For me it does not matter, I am almost 50, but if I were younger this would be more important.

 

[Soap_1984]

Based on averages, those over 40 will be dead with 10+ years left on the contract.

If you are over fifty you will likely be dead with 20-25 years left on a 50 year contract. Attributing half the value of your contract to a time you cannot use it doesn't make sense so I don't consider that either. Just pick a period of estimated use (I.e. When you expect to be alive and able to travel to Florida) and then use that period to determine if it is worth it.

You'd have to be 15 years old to reasonably expect you use all 50 years, which is why the contract length only matters insofar as you can potentially receive more for it in the resale market; that's why the new restrictions put a damper on the math for me.

 

[SPLzero]

You'd have to be 15 to reasonable use all 50 years which is why the contract length only matters insofar as you can potentially receive more for it in the resale market; that's why the new restrictions put a damper on the math for me.

Or you pass it on to your children or grand children. My parents bought OKW in 92 and I know any member of my family would be happy to take over their contract.

 

[Soap_1984]

Or you pass it on to your children or grand children. My parents bought OKW in 92 and I know any member of my family would be happy to take over their contract.

Yes fair enough. I would rather leave my kids money and let them decide what to do with it. Having three kids on one contract can actually get kind of messy (who pays, who wants it vs who doesn't, divorce etc). If this were the case I'd buy one contact for each child and hope it is worth something in the event they don't want it.

 

[anomamatt]

Based on averages, those over 40 will be dead with 10+ years left on the contract.

If you are over fifty you will likely be dead with 20-25 years left on a 50 year contract. Attributing half the value of your contract to a time you cannot use it doesn't make sense so I don't consider that either. Just pick a period of estimated use (I.e. When you expect to be alive and able to travel to Florida) and then use that period to determine if it is worth it.

You'd have to be 15 years old to reasonably expect you use all 50 years, which is why the contract length only matters insofar as you can potentially receive more for it in the resale market; that's why the new restrictions put a damper on the math for me.

Of course, there are also trusts... all my DVC deeds are in a trust. If you structure things correctly, as long as you have descendants, it makes sense to consider the full contract length from a financial perspective. And, of course, even without descendants, when you are 70, 80, 90... it could be useful to have a contract with 10-15 years left on it (versus zero years)-- as you could sell it and pocket some spending money.

And to be clear, I'm not justifying any particular price or resort... I'm just saying the idea of "being dead" before it ends doesn't mean one should ignore those extra contract years. They still matter! Even in 10-20 years, resale for SSR vs RIV will be VERY different due to the different contract lengths.

 

[Soap_1984]

Of course, there are also trusts... all my DVC deeds are in a trust. If you structure things correctly, as long as you have descendants, it makes sense to consider the full contract length from a financial perspective. And, of course, even without descendants, when you are 70, 80, 90... it could be useful to have a contract with 10-15 years left on it (versus zero years)-- as you could sell it and pocket some spending money.

And to be clear, I'm not justifying any particular price or resort... I'm just saying the idea of "being dead" before it ends doesn't mean one should ignore those extra contract years. They still matter! Even in 10-20 years, resale for SSR vs RIV will be VERY different due to the different contract lengths.

Yes that makes sense but I did say I consider years left for the value of selling them, which is why I am struggling with Riviera because even though the contract length will be longer, I am estimating that due to it only being usable at one resort it will be worth much less than it otherwise would without the restrictions by the time I am looking to sell. More length means worth more, but when comparing between resorts, what is the discount for only being useable at riviera? I have no idea in the future what this discount will be but if I compare to BLT, would someone pay more for Riv than BLT right now in resale? The answer is no, despite there being ten more years on the contract. With that in mind, why would I buy riviera direct and spend $40 pp extra and an extra $1.50per point in MF if I know I'm going to sell before expiration and already people have discounted Riv way below other contracts that have ten+ years less left on them?

I am not saying riviera isn't a beautiful resort. It looks awesome and my wife wants to stay there badly, but looking at the numbers it doesn't make sense to me to buy dvc at riviera. Also I only started even trying to factor in selling as the direct prices have skyrocketed; originally it wasn't really necessary because dvc could actually save you money in the foreseeable future without having to sell.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Of course, there are also trusts... all my DVC deeds are in a trust. If you structure things correctly, as long as you have descendants, it makes sense to consider the full contract length from a financial perspective. And, of course, even without descendants, when you are 70, 80, 90... it could be useful to have a contract with 10-15 years left on it (versus zero years)-- as you could sell it and pocket some spending money.

And to be clear, I'm not justifying any particular price or resort... I'm just saying the idea of "being dead" before it ends doesn't mean one should ignore those extra contract years. They still matter! Even in 10-20 years, resale for SSR vs RIV will be VERY different due to the different contract lengths.

If you have multiple children a trust does not protect against usage or even the issues of passing it on to children who may or may not be interested in it. It just makes it more simple to do it without probate. It can get just as messy with a trust for those children unless they all agree 100% of the time as well as their spouses agreeing 100% of the time and their children etc. etc.

 

[kboo]

Yes that makes sense but I did say I consider years left for the value of selling them, which is why I am struggling with Riviera because even though the contract length will be longer, I am estimating that due to it only being usable at one resort it will be worth much less than it otherwise would without the restrictions by the time I am looking to sell.

Putting it in a trust and passing it on to family members would alleviate the resale problem you talk about. As would making sure the trust is funded well-enough to pay MFs.

If you have multiple children a trust does not protect against usage or even the issues of passing it on to children who may or may not be interested in it. It just makes it more simple to do it without probate. It can get just as messy with a trust for those children unless they all agree 100% of the time as well as their spouses agreeing 100% of the time and their children etc. etc.

True. We have enough contracts that they can be fairly easily split 50-50 if it comes to that.