Riverea vs. L14 and 7 month booking

[carli_h]

I am just trying to think this all through, I was pretty solid that I wanted to buy SSR resale, but watched a Riviera walk through video today and it does look really awesome... so I was like hmmm...

Also let me add I genuinely LIKE SSR, and I would totally love to stay there. If I could try other resorts every once in a while that would be a bonus but I do not have my heart set on any one location. But I see how the 7 month booking is going to get super crowded and the resale buyers cannot reciprocate by booking out at the home resort of the people booking in. The blue card benefits mean nothing to me, I guess what I am wondering is the main advantage to purchasing direct being able to book anywhere, and is there any advantage to being a direct buyer at the 7 month window? Seems like no, this is just going to be harder for everyone regardless.

I had a very similar thought process in May. We had offered on a low $ SSR contract which was taken in ROFR. My DH was interested in Riviera before it was released as we’d ruled out CCV after a tour. I told him in no uncertain terms no way as I wasn’t keen on the location. Then the restrictions, points chart and dues were announced and it was an absolute no way.

BUT when the room walkthroughs were online, I loved the look. Started to second guess myself then watched the virtual tour and fell in love. We purchased in May and it may not have been the most sensible thing to do but we really loved everything of what we saw.

I liked the look of SRR renovation but Riviera looks like it’s in another league.

We have our first stay booked part standard studio part one bed in May/June. I had to call to get the studio at 10 months as some of our dates had already been taken. We only got the dates as it was our first welcome home visit and the took them from the cash inventory.

I do think it’s going to be very hard to book but would guess that they’ll be quite few points available on the rental market as the resale element grows.

I definitely have moved into the buy where you’d like to stay camp on DVC. There is no real hurry to make a decision as Riviera points will be around for some time and I highly doubt that the price pp will significantly increase or incentives change drastically in the short term. I would recommend you wait until it opens.

 

[bdphill22]

I would think that booking at the O14 will actually be easier as new resorts open with the resale restrictions.

As more resorts open up, people with points at the O14 have more places they can use their points, spreading them out wider and using less at O14.

As more contracts purchased directly from Disney at the new resorts get sold as resale, there’s more and more points that cannot be shifted back from the new resorts to the O14.

So the shift would only go in the new resort direction. Does this make sense?

 

[kboo]

It's not just resale restrictions that sway me against Riviera. The resort is also points heavy and the annual dues are really high. That got me to thinking; could the resorts that have a higher point requirements be putting increased pressure on the ones that don't @ the 7-month window? IOW - let's say it costs you 100 points for your typical stay at BLT, but 150 at RIV. If I'm a BLT owner the higher point requirement at RIV will dissuade me from staying there. If I'm a RIV owner though, staying at BLT would seem like a real bargain. Full disclosure; I am a BLT owner and LOVE planning 11 months out so it won't affect my stay at BLT. I do want to stay at BWV and BCV at some point though and it seems like RIV's point requirements will make booking these resorts at 7 months even more difficult.

I bought RIV direct and given what I paid for them, I have little interest in using them to stay somewhere else any time soon. I own BLT and VGF points as well, and each trip I think about switching at 7 months, and I don't. I would think that direct RIV buyers are likely not going to be looking elsewhere at 7 months until they've gotten "tired" of staying at their shiny new resort. So that probably won't be an issue yet. Also because, largely, people didn't pay a premium for points to use them to sleep around at resorts that cost less. Also - your comparison to BLT is pretty good - because I think RIV standard is about the same points cost as BLT lake view, which is what any non-BLT owner is really looking at at 7 months. So I am not sure a RIV owner would see a whole lot of point savings.

By your logic, VGF and VGC owners (the most expensive point charts in the system) should be looking at BLT and AKV reservations at 7 months to save their points as well, but I don't see that happening either.

I definitely have moved into the buy where you’d like to stay camp on DVC. There is no real hurry to make a decision as Riviera points will be around for some time and I highly doubt that the price pp will significantly increase or incentives change drastically in the short term. I would recommend you wait until it opens.

Agree. We're now close enough to opening that not much is going to change re: incentives, so you might as well wait and see. One issue, if you're really between SSR resale and RIV direct, is that the cost differential is HUGE. If you are not in a big hurry and you'd be happy staying at SSR, I would almost always lean toward getting more points at the same cost.*** Another resale home resort is AKV - higher dues but some would argue a "nicer" resort to be "stuck" at if booking at 7 months really becomes a problem.

*** For example, $20,000 purchase price gets you close to 200 points at SSR, while only getting you 106-110 points at RIV. That is a huge difference in what you can book and how easy it might be to book another resort. 106-110 RIV points, sure you can book across the whole system, but only in studios for any meaningful length of time. 200 points at 7 months gets you into 1br territory, where the bookings get a LOT easier at 7 mo. And then if you really, really want to stay at RIV once in a while, rent the points for that trip.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I will say that people are also skipping over the part about "DIS is super-informed and the average buyer is not and buys what they are told is selling." I'm confident that there are a lot of people buying Riviera who think they can get BWV Standard at 7 months, based on things I see elsewhere, like the complaints about not being able to get AKV Value as their "Welcome Home" booking for 10 days on 5 months' notice.

 

[Sandisw]

I would think that booking at the O14 will actually be easier as new resorts open with the resale restrictions.

As more resorts open up, people with points at the O14 have more places they can use their points, spreading them out wider and using less at O14.

As more contracts purchased directly from Disney at the new resorts get sold as resale, there’s more and more points that cannot be shifted back from the new resorts to the O14.

So the shift would only go in the new resort direction. Does this make sense?

But all resales now exclude the new resorts. The pool of owners who can trade to new resorts is now limited to direct buyers only and those grandfathered in.

But as grandfathered in owners sell, it will increase L14 resort owners onLy. So, unless the points bought direct is substantially more than resale points, you are going to have more and more points not eligible for new resorts, making it harder to book.

 

[jerseyduke]

I think they will refurbish them as well, but I think it would be too costly to do all at exactly the same time. Plus they would need a huge sales push to sell that many resorts all at once. Beach club currently gets the highest prices out of the 2042 resorts, so I could see them remodeling and reselling that first.

Agreed, they wont due them all at once, but I do not think cost is the big factor. IF...and that is a big IF their intent is to redo and resell all the 2042 resorts, or even a good subset of them, the wont redo them all, because they arent going to try to sell BCV, BWV, BRV and OKW all at the same time! If they redo them all then, 2 or 3 years down the road, after BCV sells out the 2nd time, they will have to try to resell BWV and rooms that were redone 2 or 3 years prior...

 

[SG131]

Agreed, they wont due them all at once, but I do not think cost is the big factor. IF...and that is a big IF their intent is to redo and resell all the 2042 resorts, or even a good subset of them, the wont redo them all, because they arent going to try to sell BCV, BWV, BRV and OKW all at the same time! If they redo them all then, 2 or 3 years down the road, after BCV sells out the 2nd time, they will have to try to resell BWV and rooms that were redone 2 or 3 years prior...

I don't think they would want the cost of multiple big rehabs to hit their budget all at once. I also don’t think they want to tie up a bunch of rooms at both BWV and BCV at the same time or have to worry about selling two resorts at the same time. I meant that when they were ready to turn the resorts over and resell they will rehab.

 

[ELMC]

I agree, direct doesn't give any benefit to booking O14 resorts. I'm just suggesting that the new restrictions are going to increase competition even more at the O14 than there was in the past when a new resort came online.

I don't think people will notice "more competition." It's already high.

I agree and disagree with both of you here. Competition has been on the rise since SSR put 14 million points into play for a location that, with all due respect, pales in comparison to the majority of the other DVC resorts. So while we might not be able to notice, or measure, the increase in competition, the point the OP is making is a valid one: this is a situation that will create more losers. It's simple math - keep a resource constant (7-month availability at L14 resorts) and increase the number of people competing for those resources and you will have the same number of winners but a greater number of losers.

 

[Jenniebee]

While this is true, there is a fundamental difference. In the past, new resort owners would increase competition for desired resorts at 7 months, but that would be partially offset by old resort owners wanting to book into the new resort. This time (well not specifically this time because almost all owners are either direct or grandfathered, but going forward) around, there will be much less old resort owners that can book into the new resort.

Yes this is exactly what I meant. The trading and swapping that goes on between home resorts will be completely unbalanced. With any new resale buyers having 14 choices to swap out and any direct buyers having 15, 16, eventually 17... and so on...

Even if I am convinced I will buy SSR ( I doubt I would buy DRR) I am starting to wonder about direct, just for the added booking options and a level playing field. This seems to be a serious benefit that far outweighs the typical blue card "perks".

As for 2042, I think they will just resell them or offer extensions. CR and Poly are 50 year old hotels and they are not being torn down, or drastically refurbed. It's just not cost effective. The 2042 resorts will get their normal refurbs every 14 years and then will just be resold most likely. All Disney probably has to do is refresh the rooms, retheme a restaurant, and then resell it.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I dislike the term extend, as I have said elsewhere. Extension would mean that the terms of BVT membership would remain the same, and they would run into the same land extension issues they did at OKW. They would also be stuck with BWV's point chart.

They might offer a new short term contract. But it would be a new association and a new join to bvT.

 

[sethschroeder]

BCV, BRV & BWV will be sold new we can assume. Unless something changes dramatically (not saying it can’t ), direct and grandfathered buyers of the remaining L14 (SSR, AKV, etc) should be able to book the “new” resorts as they come back on line/are resold, no?

I still think they offer "extensions" to existing owners at the "new" resorts and they would not be apart of the original 14 but 16 or 17 or whatever we are at then.

So while they will be DVC it will be a whole new contract setup with whatever new restrictions are in place.

Who knows though.

 

[Jenniebee]

Ahh OK - I see what you mean. I do not know enough about BVT, or the land extension issue, but that makes sense.

 

[sethschroeder]

I dislike the term extend, as I have said elsewhere. Extension would mean that the terms of BVT membership would remain the same, and they would run into the same land extension issues they did at OKW. They would also be stuck with BWV's point chart.

They might offer a new short term contract. But it would be a new association and a new join to bvT.

It's all marketing or how you perceive it. I have no doubt they call it an extension but it's really a new contract.

 

[ELMC]

I dislike the term extend, as I have said elsewhere. Extension would mean that the terms of BVT membership would remain the same, and they would run into the same land extension issues they did at OKW. They would also be stuck with BWV's point chart.

They might offer a new short term contract. But it would be a new association and a new join to bvT.

This is fascinating. I wonder what people would pay for a ten year DVC ownership at Boardwalk or Beach Club. Is there even a market for that? At what price point?

 

[Bing Showei]

Yes this is exactly what I meant. The trading and swapping that goes on between home resorts will be completely unbalanced. With any new resale buyers having 14 choices to swap out and any direct buyers having 15, 16, eventually 17... and so on...

Even if I am convinced I will buy SSR ( I doubt I would buy DRR) I am starting to wonder about direct, just for the added booking options and a level playing field. This seems to be a serious benefit that far outweighs the typical blue card "perks".

As for 2042, I think they will just resell them or offer extensions. CR and Poly are 50 year old hotels and they are not being torn down, or drastically refurbed. It's just not cost effective. The 2042 resorts will get their normal refurbs every 14 years and then will just be resold most likely. All Disney probably has to do is refresh the rooms, retheme a restaurant, and then resell it.

[CAVEAT: I want to make clear that my points below are based solely on the availability reflected at SSR and is in no way commentary on the numerous merits of the resort.]

I would argue that you are oversimplifying the projected effect of the restrictions and that this perspective parrots perfectly the misguided (or unscrupulous?) intentions of Disney in adopting the restrictions.

It was once believed that a new WDW resort would have a net zero effect on demand as the flow of exchanged points in and out would balance itself through the life of the product; as many people want to try the new resort, and as owners there want to explore other resorts.

The new restrictions cripples that natural balance. In theory, Riviera and all future timeshare resorts can potentially be siloed, or quarantined. If any new resort proves to be unpopular, its resale value would plummet and the resale buyers would not be able to use it as a cheap entry into the system and tax the larger exchange (how Disney frames the current SSR resale situation).

While on the surface, this sounds like a good idea to improve 7-month availability; no more resale owners buying in cheap to stay at our coveted BCVs and VGFs; if we look at SSR as a case study, it's clear these new restrictions will do nothing to help decrease the burden at 7 months and actually exasperate the challenges further.

Imagine that SSR opens today and the new restrictions were applied to direct sales, the resort would eventually sell out, as all WDW resorts do. Disney would have sold 14 million points into the system that could potentially exchange into other resorts. Given what we have observed with availability and offerings for SSR through RCI, more times than not, owners (direct and resale alike) change out at 7 months to stay elsewhere.

In a situation where only direct SSR owners can exchange into the network, two things would happen. One, SSR resale would not be as popular as it is today (20% resale ownership), and resale ownership would align more with the larger resale ownership percentage across the system (estimated average to be around 10%). So out of 14 million points, only 1.4 million points will be prevented from exchanging into the system. All the meanwhile, 12.6 million points continue to enjoy the benefit of trading out and the general pattern we see in today's SSR availability/exchange would remain.

This resale-restricted direct SSR points would continue to burden the exchange by virtue of 12.6 million owners rightfully exercising the flexibility they were sold by Disney.

But while this is happening at SSR (or any new “less-popular” resort), resorts like Riviera (any “more-popular” resort) will bear the same resale-restrictions. These resorts will experience a different effect. Those owners will more likely behave like the average owner: book mostly at home, occasionally trade out to check out other resorts. If they are current owners addding on, they will likely only stay there. However, when 10% decide to sell, those resale owners will only be able to book at their home resort. So now 10% of the ownership are locked in at home and essentially decrease what becomes available to the system to book at 7 months.

7-month availability will not improve, but may make 11-month more challenging for owners at popular resorts. As these “more popular” resorts continue to be built, the entire system will offer nothing to better the booking challenges facing those who want to exchange int the network today, with the added benefit that their ownership interest has been devalued.

With the latest increase to 100 point minimums we saw Disney sell 75 point SSR, and OKW contracts knowing full well that people were simply looking to buy the lowest priced entry into the system and secure the ability to trade into future resorts. The restrictions encourage the exact behavior that Disney bemoans as causing the membership issues: buying cheap points to stay elsewhere, just as you had suggested you plan to do above.

Disney has no interest in addressing the 7-month issue. They just want to move product. They just want a bigger piece of the pie.

The sad part is that in using the restrictions and changing the product to get that bigger piece of the pie, Disney is changing the recipe of the product, and in so doing, owners, especially direct owners are stuck with a warm piece of **** pie.

 

[Brianstl]

I dislike the term extend, as I have said elsewhere. Extension would mean that the terms of BVT membership would remain the same, and they would run into the same land extension issues they did at OKW. They would also be stuck with BWV's point chart.

They might offer a new short term contract. But it would be a new association and a new join to bvT.

There is no need to change the point chart at BCV and BWV. Their extra point value is already more than adjusted into their direct point cost. A week stay at Beach Club in a studio during adventure season will cost you $24,075 for 22 years of use at the current direct price according to the point chart. That same week at Rivera in a deluxe studio preferred view for 50 years of use will cost you $25,192.

 

[Jenniebee]

Thank you Bing - Awesome post - this is just the kind of detail I was curious about with regard to the new restrictions.

just as you had suggested you plan to do above.

If I can only every stay at SSR I would be perfectly fine with it. To be able to swap out at other resorts is a bonus. What I am looking for is a timeshare on Disney property. Anything over that is gravy.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

There is no need to change the point chart at BCV and BWV. Their extra point value is already more than adjusted into their direct point cost. A week stay at Beach Club in a studio during adventure season will cost you $24,075 for 22 years of use at the current direct price according to the point chart. That same week at Rivera in a deluxe studio preferred view for 50 years of use will cost you $25,192.

But there is need to change the terms of its membership in BVT, as right now, you can buy resale points and access that same point chart. Change to those terms can only come with a full termination in 2042.

 

[kboo]

7-month availability will not improve, but may make 11-month more challenging for owners at popular resorts. As these “more popular” resorts continue to be built, the entire system will offer nothing to better the booking challenges facing those who want to exchange int the network today, with the added benefit that their ownership interest has been devalued.

So, maybe some longtime owners of OKW (aka "The Disney Vacation Club") can shed some light - back when booking was by phone, wasn't there a lottery system for high demand weeks like Christmas? That was a time when there was only 1 resort for all owners. Why wouldn't DVC2 be willing to move to a system like that? (Or keep the online 11mo how-fast-is-your-internet rush, and then work the waitlist?) Not commenting whether that would be a good or bad development; just wondering...

 

[JasonDDN]

But there is need to change the terms of its membership in BVT, as right now, you can buy resale points and access that same point chart. Change to those terms can only come with a full termination in 2042.

I have been thinking about this for a while now and I agree. Once the contracts have been satisfied in 2042 for BWV/BCV and others, they will restart new contracts all over again but with new terms with BVT. You won't see any "extensions" like with OKW which was simple a money grab at the time IMO. I believe you will see a "reimagining" of the point charts with the new contracts. We will not have 9 pt a night for a studio standard view. I think the point chart at DRR is the glimpse into the future and where they are going. Reflections will confirm that theory. We talk about DVC 2.0...Think BWV 2.0...Since this will be a new contract, you will be allowed to change the amount of points you want just like if you are buying in for the first time. Current, DVC owners will have their FROR to the new contracts with incentives. This is the simplest process that could happen and makes the most sense to me.