Riviera vs. 2042

I understand you’re not affected and that you don’t care about others, but my question was:

How do these new restrictions better serve the ownership?

Because until I can understand how the restrictions help the ownership, I will see this move only as an attempt by Disney to line their pockets at ownership expense. Maybe these restrictions never effect me, but I have to wonder how the next, more severe round might. Or how much they can devalue ownership before the legs come out from underneath all of us and no one wants to buy into the system anymore. Hyperbole? Maybe. But these restrictions are a slippery slope of diverting ownership value to their coffers, not unlike the 2020 reallocation that diluted ownership interest wholesale across the resort we each bought into in order to increase their point stakes in each resort.
You are right and this is not something that is discussed enough: the new restrictions hurt only direct purchasers.
Who will buy Riviera and future resorts resale will know very well about the restrictions. They will either pay less for the lost flexibility or they'll love the resort so much that they'll be ready to pay a higher price to stay there.
Some of people who purchase direct know about the implications and they either don't care because they don't plan to sell and value the flexibility of staying at all resorts and are ready to pay a premium.

The true losers (if really prices crash) here might be the people who buy direct and have only a modest or null knowledge of how the system works. People who are caught with pixie dust in their eyes while on vacation and may discover the sad reality of having purchased a timeshare that is worth much less than they paid for.
 
Bing

I have a business I don't care if Disney lines their pocket at my expense I know enough to make a choice to give them my hard earned money and I have stated what I consider value. Business needs to make money that is how they stay viable.

Restrictions will never bother me....that is fact

You are trying to convince yourself Riviera is a bad buy for you but maybe it's not.

The best thing we all have in life is to make choices and they will not always be the best but at least you have a choice to make it win or lose.
As a business owner myself, my clients are my lifeblood.

I work hard to earn their business. I don’t line my pockets at their expense.

There’s a significant difference and it’s not just semantics. The most important distinction being that with the former, there is consideration for how my clients benefit from the choices I make with the work I do for them. With the latter, my ability to make money supersedes all else.

Disney sold out CCV at a record pace and has sold out every last WDW resort. Disney Vacation Development Inc. has been consistently one of the most profitable subsidiaries for the mother ship. But that wasn’t enough for them.

A large part of my business is built on my reputation and the recommendations my clients make to other potential clients. That’s how my business has grown for the past 20 years. Disney, for 22 years has created a product that owners believed in, could get behind, and proselytized it’s virtues to anyone who would listen. These new restrictions are fundamentally changing that dynamic.

The success of Disney’s timeshare, a long term engagement that all owners have a vested interest in seeing continue growth and success, is threatened with these restrictions. No owner should be ok with that.
 
Spark, you might care about the restrictions in ten years when there are more Riv resale owners who can only stay at RIV, making it harder for you to book there to enjoy the “magic.”
 
I understand you’re not affected and that you don’t care about others, but my question was:

How do these new restrictions better serve the ownership?

Because until I can understand how the restrictions help the ownership, I will see this move only as an attempt by Disney to line their pockets at ownership expense. Maybe these restrictions never effect me, but I have to wonder how the next, more severe round might. Or how much they can devalue ownership before the legs come out from underneath all of us and no one wants to buy into the system anymore. Hyperbole? Maybe. But these restrictions are a slippery slope of diverting ownership value to their coffers, not unlike the 2020 reallocation that diluted ownership interest wholesale across the resort we each bought into in order to increase their point stakes in each resort.
Business needs to make money- Disney was already making money- hundreds of millions off the back of DVC has been made, incredibly profitable.

But that wasn't enough- and making moves to potentially devalue what customers bought to make even more money.

That is where the line was drawn for me.

Your statement 'Restrictions will never bother me' is incredibly prophetical. You could suffer severe illness, lose your job, house, business or whatever in the next 50 years, and have to sell. You may even surprise yourself and just get sick of going to Disney. It is not something to necessarily 'hand down' either- the people may never want it, it's a huge financial commitment. Then if you come to sell, perhaps on your uppers, you will definitely be bothered by the restrictions. I cannot understand how restrictions which will devalue your asset (that seems to be beyond doubt as Riviera will be worth more without them) would never bother you- even if you have no plans to sell. Surely you would be delighted if they were removed?

According to DVC News sales are slowing.


Haha I won't be here in 50 years if I am lucky I may get 20 and I won't get tired of going in that time frame. I will never lose my job because I am the job and I retire early in 3 years with several pensions and annuities. Not everyone is in the same position as others you just like to assume they are.
BTW DVC is hardly an asset ... assets don't have end lifes.
 


When I was at the last moonlight magic event at AK in the summer, I spent over 30 minutes talking to the Disney executives. My number one point that I was trying to make them see was that the changes they are making are destroying the product and brand that they have with DVC.

Everything they are doing lately has hurt owners (direct and resale), all in the name of squeezing every last possible dime out of their customers. Think of the bungalows/cabins issue, their attempt at increasing the lock-off premium and the latest resale restrictions. If this continues, eventually they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In this interconnected multi-media world we live in, it doesn't take much for your brand to get destroyed. Once your most loyal customers start posting, blogging, and calling you out on what you are doing, you are destroyed.

I use to tell everyone I knew that had any interest in Disney about how great DVC was. I no longer do that. It just takes way to long before you start seeing any savings. And with all the changes DVC is making, who knows what the system will look like it 10 years, let alone 20 , 30 or 40 years. How many other owners are doing the same thing?
 
BTW DVC is hardly an asset ... assets don't have end lifes.

An asset is a resource with economic value that an individual, corporation or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. (Investopedia.com)

I think that under that definition, DVC is an asset. I certainly consider DVC an asset, same as I consider an annuity an asset or a car an asset. Both those items go to zero eventually.

Houses are also assets and eventual they fall down and go to zero, it just takes a long time.

One of the reasons that assets can be depreciated is that they go to zero eventually.

Maybe I am getting the wrong impression from your posts, but the impression I get is that you think it is perfectly reasonable for "timeshares" to have zero value the minute after they are sold. That fact that many of them do just means that the developers in my opinion are a bunch of crooks and con men looking to rip off their uniformed customers.
 
When I was at the last moonlight magic event at AK in the summer, I spent over 30 minutes talking to the Disney executives. My number one point that I was trying to make them see was that the changes they are making are destroying the product and brand that they have with DVC.

Everything they are doing lately has hurt owners (direct and resale), all in the name of squeezing every last possible dime out of their customers. Think of the bungalows/cabins issue, their attempt at increasing the lock-off premium and the latest resale restrictions. If this continues, eventually they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In this interconnected multi-media world we live in, it doesn't take much for your brand to get destroyed. Once your most loyal customers start posting, blogging, and calling you out on what you are doing, you are destroyed.

I use to tell everyone I knew that had any interest in Disney about how great DVC was. I no longer do that. It just takes way to long before you start seeing any savings. And with all the changes DVC is making, who knows what the system will look like it 10 years, let alone 20 , 30 or 40 years. How many other owners are doing the same thing?

We frequently used to encourage people we met in line, etc., to look into DVC if they were frequent visitors to WDW. We don’t do that anymore. Too much uncertainty - and also a lack of respect for owners on the part of management, demonstrated by the failure to discuss the significant changes to the points chart during the annual meeting and most especially by the TOTWL Fourth of July debacle, when the announcement of the paid event was made less than 3 weeks in advance.
 


An asset is a resource with economic value that an individual, corporation or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. (Investopedia.com)

I think that under that definition, DVC is an asset. I certainly consider DVC an asset, same as I consider an annuity an asset or a car an asset. Both those items go to zero eventually.

Houses are also assets and eventual they fall down and go to zero, it just takes a long time.

One of the reasons that assets can be depreciated is that they go to zero eventually.

Maybe I am getting the wrong impression from your posts, but the impression I get is that you think it is perfectly reasonable for "timeshares" to have zero value the minute after they are sold. That fact that many of them do just means that the developers in my opinion are a bunch of crooks and con men looking to rip off their uniformed customers.

Unfortunately Doug I don't really share your views on tangible assets. Like a vacation you shell out for at a one time possible cost of 5-10K I view my timeshare in the same light. I simply bought to have a vacation in place I enjoy at a reduced cost I don't expect other people to compensate me for it the future. I view most people here disregarding Riviera and DVC in general as tire kickers who just want.. want .. want like spoiled children and are never happy with what they get.

Now with that being said I am sure upper management won't care for my statement as well as the posters who frequent this forum. I am sure my new friend Bing Showei will attack me with vitriol for that but it won't bother me in the least. Resale .. resale .. resale it hurts the resale it doesn't hurt resale it hurts what you expect to get in return you want to pay 100% and get 150% back after you use it for ten years and then I hear how honest people treat their clients and Disney should return the favor. Some of you should listen to yourselves disingenuous at best.

Just so you know Doug because you are definitely unaware, it's not the house that makes the value it's the land, yes that's right, the real estate is the inherent value. I will see you at Disney I will be the guy with a big happy face enjoying myself at Riviera while you try to figure out how to get your money back and then some from your DVC purchase.

Sleep well and all the best
John
 
Yes, people on here spend their time bemoaning the loss of something which was really unusual, i.e. what DVC used to be. You can almost vividly see the Disney execs saying to each other "wow, that deal we've been dishing out for the past couple of decades was WAY too good...what were we thinking? How can we tactfully back out of it?" The ability to have spent well under $100pp years ago on the most in-demand resorts, use the contracts for 20 years, and then sell for 2-3x the original buying price -- that's not a time share, that's an irresponsibly good deal on the part of a company which doesn't need to be bargaining itself away in that manner. This forum is proof of it: what other Timeshare, in all other contexts a terrible use of one's money and typically marketed to the sadly uninformed via egregious gifts and freebies simply for tolerating the pitch, has ever inspired a whole community of people who lurk around here -- so excited as to not only talk about their own purchases, but to deliberate oddly year after year about other people's potential purposes, to speculate about pricing and point charts for resorts two years from opening, etc etc. All things which are too good to be true must come to an end, as is happening in this case.

We should not expect to get any significant amount of money back for our new contracts. It was odd that we ever could, and lately Disney has decided to acknowledge it.
 
People keep asking how the resale restrictions benefit owners.

This is controversial but it may benefit direct RIV owners for a good part of our contract.

Because while everyone points out the resale owners can only stay at RIV, the resales at the oldest resorts run about 20%.

That number may drop as watching the debate about RIV has shown some owners have sold because the price was too good to pass up.

There will still be resale, but I think the glory days of something like BCV selling for more than the purchase price is over for DVC. Which does suck, I agreed.

What is helpful, possibly, for RIV owners is you will no longer be competing against resale owners for stays.

The larger group of, buy resale SSR and AKL for SAP or only trading out, is blocked.

And, more specifically, I do think Disney wants to hit rental organizations who have the time to stalk reservations with resale points to cut the costs of cash stays. That does hurt Disney directly both in selling DVC (much smarter to rent if you don’t go yearly), and hurts by losing those dollars on rooms. It’s also a growing business.

So you are competing against direct owners only for stays at 7 months. Plus reading here the VIP contracts have people less likely to trade out to stay elsewhere. Plus RIVs points per night also make it more GFV-like to stay at point-wise, so also less attractive if you are stretching points or only have a small direct number of points.

I’m hesitant about the restrictions and trying to book, so don’t get me wrong, I wrote the above as discussion. I bought a guaranteed week because I can see how it could go poorly.

I also think my trying to stay at Poly is going to be much harder at 7 months because of this whole situation, so it has a big downside. To the point I know I’ll buy at Poly, either through resale or direct.
 
Unfortunately Doug I don't really share your views on tangible assets. Like a vacation you shell out for at a one time possible cost of 5-10K I view my timeshare in the same light. I simply bought to have a vacation in place I enjoy at a reduced cost I don't expect other people to compensate me for it the future. I view most people here disregarding Riviera and DVC in general as tire kickers who just want.. want .. want like spoiled children and are never happy with what they get.

Now with that being said I am sure upper management won't care for my statement as well as the posters who frequent this forum. I am sure my new friend Bing Showei will attack me with vitriol for that but it won't bother me in the least. Resale .. resale .. resale it hurts the resale it doesn't hurt resale it hurts what you expect to get in return you want to pay 100% and get 150% back after you use it for ten years and then I hear how honest people treat their clients and Disney should return the favor. Some of you should listen to yourselves disingenuous at best.

Just so you know Doug because you are definitely unaware, it's not the house that makes the value it's the land, yes that's right, the real estate is the inherent value. I will see you at Disney I will be the guy with a big happy face enjoying myself at Riviera while you try to figure out how to get your money back and then some from your DVC purchase.

Sleep well and all the best
John
I think your using the wrong terminology, and that's where the confusion and disagreement is coming in.

Depreciable Asset is a class of asset that depreciates down to zero over a length of time (or use). In fact, almost all assets are depreciable. Only a handful are not. Land, stocks, and bonds etc are examples of assets that don't depreciate. Their change in value is based on market conditions. Buildings, cars, electronics, etc... are examples of depreciable assets. Their useful life is long term, but eventually they no longer provide value.

What makes something an asset (vs an expense) is that it provides value for an extended period of time (in accounting, general convention is 1 year). For example, if you buy groceries, this is an expense because it won't continue to provide value in a year from now. However, if you buy a plant that regrows every year, you've bought yourself an asset.

Using your Vacation and DVC as the example now, the vacation is an expense, while DVC is an asset. The vacation provides a great experience, but as soon as the vacation is over, its done. No more benefit. On the other hand, DVC will continue to provide value for 50 years. Thats why DVC is more expensive than a 1 time vacation.
 
....(snip)
BTW DVC is hardly an asset ... assets don't have end lifes.

An asset is a resource with economic value that an individual, corporation or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit. (Investopedia.com)

I think that under that definition, DVC is an asset. I certainly consider DVC an asset, same as I consider an annuity an asset or a car an asset. Both those items go to zero eventually........(snip).......
I think your using the wrong terminology, and that's where the confusion and disagreement is coming in.

Depreciable Asset is a class of asset that depreciates down to zero over a length of time (or use). In fact, almost all assets are depreciable. Only a handful are not. Land, stocks, and bonds etc are examples of assets that don't depreciate. Their change in value is based on market conditions. Buildings, cars, electronics, etc... are examples of depreciable assets. Their useful life is long term, but eventually they no longer provide value.

What makes something an asset (vs an expense) is that it provides value for an extended period of time (in accounting, general convention is 1 year). For example, if you buy groceries, this is an expense because it won't continue to provide value in a year from now. However, if you buy a plant that regrows every year, you've bought yourself an asset.

Using your Vacation and DVC as the example now, the vacation is an expense, while DVC is an asset. The vacation provides a great experience, but as soon as the vacation is over, its done. No more benefit. On the other hand, DVC will continue to provide value for 50 years. Thats why DVC is more expensive than a 1 time vacation.


Technically, a DVC contract is a deeded interest in a Right-to-Use lease. Those show up on balance sheets as assets. In our industry, they were capitalized and depreciated until the value went to zero, usually at the end of the lease. Depreciation methods differ - we used straight-line.
 
Really enjoying reading these posts that deal with where to buy, direct/resale, resort A vs B.

My pick if I had to just pick 1: Riv Resale vs a 2042 Resale. I'll pick Riv. It's new and shiny, sight unseen, I'll go with it :)
 
Unfortunately Doug I don't really share your views on tangible assets. Like a vacation you shell out for at a one time possible cost of 5-10K I view my timeshare in the same light. I simply bought to have a vacation in place I enjoy at a reduced cost I don't expect other people to compensate me for it the future.

If you were to go through a divorce, or a bankruptcy, and you had to list on a peice of paper what are your assets, the DVC Timeshare would be listed as an asset. Whether you consider it important to you or not, it does have value, that cannot be denied.
 
Just so you know Doug because you are definitely unaware, it's not the house that makes the value it's the land, yes that's right, the real estate is the inherent value. I will see you at Disney I will be the guy with a big happy face enjoying myself at Riviera while you try to figure out how to get your money back and then some from your DVC purchase.

Last time I checked my property taxes are broken down into land and house, so I am well aware of how each are valued. It is rather foolish of you to say I'm "definitely unaware" of that fact.
 
Unfortunately Doug I don't really share your views on tangible assets. Like a vacation you shell out for at a one time possible cost of 5-10K I view my timeshare in the same light. I simply bought to have a vacation in place I enjoy at a reduced cost I don't expect other people to compensate me for it the future. I view most people here disregarding Riviera and DVC in general as tire kickers who just want.. want .. want like spoiled children and are never happy with what they get.

Now with that being said I am sure upper management won't care for my statement as well as the posters who frequent this forum. I am sure my new friend Bing Showei will attack me with vitriol for that but it won't bother me in the least. Resale .. resale .. resale it hurts the resale it doesn't hurt resale it hurts what you expect to get in return you want to pay 100% and get 150% back after you use it for ten years and then I hear how honest people treat their clients and Disney should return the favor. Some of you should listen to yourselves disingenuous at best.

Just so you know Doug because you are definitely unaware, it's not the house that makes the value it's the land, yes that's right, the real estate is the inherent value. I will see you at Disney I will be the guy with a big happy face enjoying myself at Riviera while you try to figure out how to get your money back and then some from your DVC purchase.

Sleep well and all the best
John
You are interchanging the words asset and investment. DVC is unarguably the former. You can sell it for cash. It has value. Asset. Granted it is a depreciating one, but it as asset nonetheless. It is not an INVESTMENT. Get a divorce and tell the judge the DVC contract should be excluded as it is not an asset, see how that flies.

Also, The land is the valuable part of ones home in DENSELY populated areas. There are plenty of places where you can buy an acre of land for much less than you can build even a modest house on that land. You just dont live in one, and not everywhere is the same as where you happen to live, there are other scenarios.
 
I simply bought to have a vacation in place I enjoy at a reduced cost I don't expect other people to compensate me for it the future.

I think what other posters may be trying to warn you about is that it's not really that obvious, with the current policies in place, that you will actually have the "reduced cost" you're talking about here.

For stays at RIV specifically it is arguable that unless you can guarantee you're going to use it for pretty much the full 50 years, without fail, you'd be better off "cost"-wise by paying cash. That's at the root of what the "complainers" are saying in this and similar threads.

You may argue the math, but if for the sake of argument let's pretend for a moment that the math is this:

1) That there's a 50/50 chance (or more) that for the next 20 years you'd be better off with RIV cash stays instead of an up-front RIV DVC purchase.
2) That prior direct "new resort" DVC sales had math showing something more like an 80/20 chance that you'd be better off purchasing DVC for the same time period vs. cash stays.

If that's true, you can see why there would be a bunch of people talking a lot about how the product has changed.

But you're not debating the math, you're instead complaining about the "complainers". Ironic.
 
The one and only reason to buy DVC is to save money over paying cash for the same room annually.

That really is just a numbers calculation with a bunch of variable. We assume the long term risk that everything works out as promised while Disney front loads all their earnings. The longer till that break even happens the high the chance that things don't work out. My risk tolerance is a 7-8 year time period, other people are going to have different risk tolerance and that is fine because not everyone is in the same financial position.

The question people should be asking themselves is which option works best for them:
(1) Pay cash at Disney hotels
(2) Rent points to stay at DVC resorts
(3) Buy direct
(4) Buy resale
(5) Stay off site

Regardless of which option you pick, you are still going on vacation, hanging out with family and friends and having magical moments, etc.

I've enjoyed each and every WDW vacation regardless of where I stayed, off-site, in a value or moderate or in DVC room.
 
When I was at the last moonlight magic event at AK in the summer, I spent over 30 minutes talking to the Disney executives. My number one point that I was trying to make them see was that the changes they are making are destroying the product and brand that they have with DVC.

Everything they are doing lately has hurt owners (direct and resale), all in the name of squeezing every last possible dime out of their customers. Think of the bungalows/cabins issue, their attempt at increasing the lock-off premium and the latest resale restrictions. If this continues, eventually they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In this interconnected multi-media world we live in, it doesn't take much for your brand to get destroyed. Once your most loyal customers start posting, blogging, and calling you out on what you are doing, you are destroyed.

I use to tell everyone I knew that had any interest in Disney about how great DVC was. I no longer do that. It just takes way to long before you start seeing any savings. And with all the changes DVC is making, who knows what the system will look like it 10 years, let alone 20 , 30 or 40 years. How many other owners are doing the same thing?

I’d love to do this, although suspect the response would be frustrating.

What did they say Doug?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!









Top