First RIV resale contract sold for?

[Pyotr]

I've heard elsewhere 2 RIV contracts have gone for $100 a point, and 1 for $90. Does anyone else have some definite info on any that sold yet?

I’m definitely interested in $90 a point unless it’s a large contract.

 

[Boomatt]

I've heard elsewhere 2 RIV contracts have gone for $100 a point, and 1 for $90. Does anyone else have some definite info on any that sold yet?

We know for sure that 1 went for $100pp but that was bought by the broker himself so it’s a little suspect. Haven’t heard of any other confirmed sale dollar amounts.

 

[ELMC]

I’m definitely interested in $90 a point unless it’s a large contract.

Here's the thing...I'm sure everyone has different thoughts on this but I'm not interested even at that price; I'd rather have VB to be frank. It's only $1.10 more per point in dues, it's about $30 less upfront, and I can use it to book eleven on-property resorts instead of just one.

 

[TexasChick123]

Here's the thing...I'm sure everyone has different thoughts on this but I'm not interested even at that price; I'd rather have VB to be frank. It's only $1.10 more per point in dues, it's about $30 less upfront, and I can use it to book eleven on-property resorts instead of just one.

Yeah. You'd have to know you're ok with only booking Riviera, Reflections, whatever other resort if you buy via resale going forward. If that isn't for you, then resale won't be for you at any of the new properties. I do think this will push some people out of the resale market long-term and push them to direct which is DVD's goal. Others will come to accept it as the new norm. Those of us who purchased prior to the latest restrictions should consider ourselves lucky that we didn't have to make that decision. We are in a strange time of transition from the "old way" to the "new way". Some impact on the bottom line is to be expected during this transition. Once the changes are accepted as part of the rules of DVC for a while, it will be interesting to see if it affects direct and/or resale sales long term.

 

[Pyotr]

Here's the thing...I'm sure everyone has different thoughts on this but I'm not interested even at that price; I'd rather have VB to be frank. It's only $1.10 more per point in dues, it's about $30 less upfront, and I can use it to book eleven on-property resorts instead of just one.

True but I already have direct points and can stay at any property. I have zero interest in VB as I live in Florida 15 minutes away from the beach.

I would take 150 points at $90 any day. I would either use them for Food and Wine or rent them out to people wanting to stay there.

 

[JETSDAD]

I'd far rather have Riviera resale than VB. This way I still have 11 month booking at WDW and at what appears to be a beautiful resort and the contract is much longer. The harder decision would be Riviera resale vs other WDW resorts such as SSR. Would I rather have a 50 year resale contract at Riviera vs a resale contract at SSR? I personally like SSR so it might get the edge for me but I would put them around equal for my own valuation. Those wanting studios in the Epcot area for F&W are going to have better luck with owning Riviera vs SSR.

 

[DougEMG]

I'd far rather have Riviera resale than VB. This way I still have 11 month booking at WDW and at what appears to be a beautiful resort and the contract is much longer. The harder decision would be Riviera resale vs other WDW resorts such as SSR. Would I rather have a 50 year resale contract at Riviera vs a resale contract at SSR? I personally like SSR so it might get the edge for me but I would put them around equal for my own valuation. Those wanting studios in the Epcot area for F&W are going to have better luck with owning Riviera vs SSR.

I also would rather have a resale SSR over a resale RIV. I really think that once the RIV has a significant amount of resale owners that can only book at the RIV, that finding availability at the RIV is going to be a huge pain. And if you can't get a room for the nights you want, why bother owning there.

 

[ELMC]

True but I already have direct points and can stay at any property. I have zero interest in VB as I live in Florida 15 minutes away from the beach.

I would take 150 points at $90 any day. I would either use them for Food and Wine or rent them out to people wanting to stay there.

I'd far rather have Riviera resale than VB. This way I still have 11 month booking at WDW and at what appears to be a beautiful resort and the contract is much longer. The harder decision would be Riviera resale vs other WDW resorts such as SSR. Would I rather have a 50 year resale contract at Riviera vs a resale contract at SSR? I personally like SSR so it might get the edge for me but I would put them around equal for my own valuation. Those wanting studios in the Epcot area for F&W are going to have better luck with owning Riviera vs SSR.

I totally get it, and our having this conversation at all is the byproduct of the new resale restrictions. Up until now, all points were functionally the same. Sure, they carried different booking priorities, but their use was exactly the same. It created a system where people staying at BLT using BLT points were essentially paying a lot more than people staying there using SSR points. If you were willing to give up a bit of booking security, you could get the same for less.

But now, with these restrictions, they are starting to put an end to this. Points are materially different. No longer are we being asked to decide whether or not four months of booking window is worth it, we are being asked whether or not the ability to book at all is worth it. This is what they were going for and it's just the beginning.

That said, I think both of you hit directly on one aspect of my position but missed the other. RIV starting dues are $8.31 a point. From a strict cost standpoint, the VB contract will, for the life of both contracts, be a significantly better deal. So those other aspects have to mean a lot to you and, more importantly, you have to take advantage of them to make it worthwhile.

 

[JETSDAD]

I also would rather have a resale SSR over a resale RIV. I really think that once the RIV has a significant amount of resale owners that can only book at the RIV, that finding availability at the RIV is going to be a huge pain. And if you can't get a room for the nights you want, why bother owning there.

To be honest I don't think that will change much of anything. Everyone posts to book your home resort right at 11 months and how booking under 7 months may mean getting shut out of your home resort as it is. Studios from Oct-Jan are hard to get outside of 11 months already. Either way this is the reality of current DVC ownership. The bigger concern to me would be anyone buying Riviera resale who can't book 7-11. If you can't book during the home booking period you could be in trouble as you don't have the fall back of being able to book elsewhere.

 

[kboo]

I'd far rather have Riviera resale than VB. This way I still have 11 month booking at WDW and at what appears to be a beautiful resort and the contract is much longer. The harder decision would be Riviera resale vs other WDW resorts such as SSR. Would I rather have a 50 year resale contract at Riviera vs a resale contract at SSR? I personally like SSR so it might get the edge for me but I would put them around equal for my own valuation. Those wanting studios in the Epcot area for F&W are going to have better luck with owning Riviera vs SSR.

I think this makes AKV resale a great deal - it's not that much more than SSR and it's very close to its own park (and arguably has its own park on site). AKV would actually be among my top choices for a no parks stay.

I also would rather have a resale SSR over a resale RIV. I really think that once the RIV has a significant amount of resale owners that can only book at the RIV, that finding availability at the RIV is going to be a huge pain. And if you can't get a room for the nights you want, why bother owning there.

That presumes as an owner you don't have any flexibility in dates. And that every resale owner wants the same dates and units so badly that they are either walking or they can't go at all if they can't book the precise date they want.

We already see this with AKV value and concierge, and BWV standard studios during F&W, and CCV studios. It remains to be seen whether the sheer # of units available makes it less of an issue at RIV than at AKV, BWV and CCV as described above.

I'd also add that VGF studios are tough that way too.

To be honest I don't think that will change much of anything. Everyone posts to book your home resort right at 11 months and how booking under 7 months may mean getting shut out of your home resort as it is. Studios from Oct-Jan are hard to get outside of 11 months already. Either way this is the reality of current DVC ownership. The bigger concern to me would be anyone buying Riviera resale who can't book 7-11. If you can't book during the home booking period you could be in trouble as you don't have the fall back of being able to book elsewhere.

^^^ Agree - any RIV resale buyer needs to be able to book ASAP and certainly before 7 months. And be willing to walk if they really want a studio (especially a tower studio). If you're retired, for example, though, or have a lot of flexibility in your vacation time, I can see this being a risk that they're willing to assume at the right discount.

 

[Bearval]

I’m definitely interested in $90 a point unless it’s a large contract.

Problem is you may NEED a large contract since RIV is point expensive. We like to go in November and AKV is about 230 points for a 2 bedroom while RIV is over 300.

 

[Pyotr]

Problem is you may NEED a large contract since RIV is point expensive. We like to go in November and AKV is about 200 points for a 2 bedroom while RIV is over 300.

I live less than two hours away from Disney and am interested in Riviera for a weekend food and wine trip with my wife.

50 points will get me a preferred studio for a weekend in October.

And yes, it’s too point hungry. That’s the main reason we purchased CCV instead of it.

 

[Bearval]

I live less than two hours away from Disney and am interested in Riviera for a weekend food and wine trip with my wife.

50 points will get me a preferred studio for a weekend in October.

And yes, it’s too point hungry. That’s the main reason we purchased CCV instead of it.

That may be a hard resale contract to get. Can you even buy just 50 points at RIV .

 

[Pyotr]

That may be a hard resale contract to get. Can you even buy just 50 points at RIV .

Yes. I can add on 50 points direct at Riviera.

 

[ELMC]

I live less than two hours away from Disney and am interested in Riviera for a weekend food and wine trip with my wife.

50 points will get me a preferred studio for a weekend in October.

And yes, it’s too point hungry. That’s the main reason we purchased CCV instead of it.

So that's $10,000 upfront and another $400 in dues each year for two nights. That's what I don't understand, and I'm asking genuinely and not trying to knock anyone who bought RIV. It's just that with the high point cost, the high point requirement, and the high dues, I don't really understand what the allure is. There's clearly a line of thinking that I just don't see. Compare that to the fact that I recently booked two weekend stays during Food and Wine at the Swan for $250 a night, taxes and resort fee included. I booked each of these stays only two weeks in advance. I've been able to do this multiple years in a row so I don't think one can say it's a small sample size. Compare that to DVC studios that have to be booked 10-11 months in advance and it would take 30 years of these stays to cost what a RIV contract would set me back in the form of purchase price and dues.

Again, my problem is not with DVC. My problem is with the cost structures. They just don't make sense to me. And maybe that's it. Maybe DVC has become something that you buy for the love of buying it, and not because it makes sense financially. If that's the case, that signals a huge paradigm shift: one that I am not on board with.

 

[Pyotr]

So that's $10,000 upfront and another $400 in dues each year for two nights. That's what I don't understand, and I'm asking genuinely and not trying to knock anyone who bought RIV. It's just that with the high point cost, the high point requirement, and the high dues, I don't really understand what the allure is. There's clearly a line of thinking that I just don't see. Compare that to the fact that I recently booked two weekend stays during Food and Wine at the Swan for $250 a night, taxes and resort fee included. I booked each of these stays only two weeks in advance. I've been able to do this multiple years in a row so I don't think one can say it's a small sample size. Compare that to DVC studios that have to be booked 10-11 months in advance and it would take 30 years of these stays to cost what a RIV contract would set me back in the form of purchase price and dues.

Again, my problem is not with DVC. My problem is with the cost structures. They just don't make sense to me. And maybe that's it. Maybe DVC has become something that you buy for the love of buying it, and not because it makes sense financially. If that's the case, that signals a huge paradigm shift: one that I am not on board with.

I didn’t say I was going to do it, I said I could. Just not at $188. $90 a point is reasonable to me. I am most likely to add on a resale contract at AKL. The point charts good and the resale price is reasonable.

 

[mustinjourney]

This is a valid point, but legally, they can go after that person for breach of contract and get even more money, keep the contract, and resell it for full price. Not to mention someone who goes this route could very well be banned from Disney for life.

that would be a losing proposition for disney.

Suing people costs money. it's not free.

And even if you win -- you can't force the person to pay you.

So now you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get them to pay you.

And if the person is already foreclosing on DVC -- they probably don't have the money to pay you.

So now Disney would have spent thousands of dollars and god knows how much time, and ends up with nothing at the end.

And disney wouldn't ban someone from the parks for letting a contract go. That's absurd.

 

[mustinjourney]

The person who defaulted at a minimum would be liable for the legal costs associated with the default the commission DVC paid to the agent who sold them the property, any and all fees that DVD incurred to market the property. They could even go after the difference of what they paid for the property and what the average resale price is when they defaulted .

where did you get your legal degree from and are you licensed to practice in Florida?

 

[crvetter]

that would be a losing proposition for disney.

Suing people costs money. it's not free.

And even if you win -- you can't force the person to pay you.

So now you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get them to pay you.

And if the person is already foreclosing on DVC -- they probably don't have the money to pay you.

So now Disney would have spent thousands of dollars and god knows how much time, and ends up with nothing at the end.

And disney wouldn't ban someone from the parks for letting a contract go. That's absurd.

Not directed at you, but at the general concept and comments in this thread to just default on the debt. Below is my information I found when researching the foreclosure process on DVC to consider buying through the auctions.

I mean "technically" speaking Disney does foreclose through the court on many contracts (not just using the trustee foreclose process). So wouldn't that foreclosure process legally speaking be a lawsuit, a judgement is filed against the individual (I've researched many to see if buying through the auctions was worthwhile, normally it isn't) before the auction, to which they can (and some do) satisfy to avoid the foreclosure.

Usually the foreclosures are for either the mortgage or dues. If for the mortgage DVC collects the back dues from the buyer. My understanding is that because Disney decided to auction the property the sale price satisfies the judgement if it sells significantly under the judgement amount and if sold above the defendant gets the remaining. Typically DVC is actually buying many of these contracts back if they sell less than the judgement amount, they only stop bidding if the price goes above the judgement (that is a broad generalization, sometimes the seem to be bidding to a given price per point).

What I do know is that judgements no longer go on your credit report (recent change do to a lawsuit/settlement, I thought). I also know that they don't report your mortgage while you are paying timely. What I don't know is does DVC report the foreclosure, as a creditor they maintain that right, and can chose to do so at any point in time within the allowable reporting window. So I suspect that DVC ends up reporting the foreclosures because that part costs them no money, and really is good faith in the credit system. I would think also since they actually do foreclosures they likely don't just offer to take the properties back through signing over the deed (unless I suppose you owe next to nothing on the property). Also the usage of the Trustee Foreclosure (which is cheaper, I thought anyways) even seems to suggest further they simply don't retake the contracts. If DVC offered to take the properties back without repercussions it could create an unstable system between the creditor and debtor where debtors could tend to default at higher rates (i.e. buy DVC for 1-2 trips then default thus getting 1-2 trips cheap).

 

[kboo]

I recall a discussion somewhere on these boards a couple of years ago when someone tried to have Disney take it back and they $ they were offering would not have covered the amount owed on it.