Riviera Pricing Released

[anomamatt]

Thank you for those charts @crvetter ! They are excellent.

I am still going to add-on (next week, so I can book an NYE trip pre-4/10), but I had been waffling between maximizing the developer credit at 175 points versus a smaller 50-60 point add-on. I'm going with the smaller one now!

 

[TexasChick123]

This is my biggest issue when the brokers do their "cheapest" resort to purchase, I've raised your exact issue in regards to Copper Creek's direct price and dues being high but it's cost relatively lower middle of the pack against the other resorts. These types of analysis, as you mentioned, completely neglect/ignore the point charts also and base it on solely the point cost and MF per point. I looked at the average nightly point cost per a room for 2019 and took the cost per point to own (as you suggested) to see where Riviera would fall.

Doing this type of analysis across all results, on an yearly average view, including Riviera (starting with this information for the average resale prices, https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blog/best-economical-dvc-resort-to-purchase-spring-2019/) and priced Riviera at 175 a point assuming some level of discount or renting of 1 year of points, I found the following (have the other sizes but the Studios are of the most interest probably). I think this information is useful if you are buying where you want to stay (limit down your choices) vs buying where you wouldn't mind to stay (buy the cheapest of the one you wouldn't mind staying at). Ignoring the Value Studios it is quite the spread between 130 a night at Saratoga to 280 a night at Riviera. Even with this in mind I'm still considering a small add-on (only after seeing it in person) at Riviera for F&W since BCV & BWV Preferred are similarly priced according to this chart, and if I have to sell do to finances I'll get rid of my other points first.

Studios
View attachment 391289

EDIT: A huge caveat to this chart is nightly room cost at the resort, using home resort points. Personally I have extended this to a matrix to look at the cost of using non-home resort points. However, you need to start considering if you have to up-size your room vs not needing to up-size if you had Home Resort privileges. For instance only wanting a studio but jumping up to a 1 bedroom (or more expensive views) to stay at the resort consistently, this would likely eat away savings.

This is very interesting. Thanks for putting in the work on it.

 

[zavandor]

This is my biggest issue when the brokers do their "cheapest" resort to purchase, I've raised your exact issue in regards to Copper Creek's direct price and dues being high but it's cost relatively lower middle of the pack against the other resorts. These types of analysis, as you mentioned, completely neglect/ignore the point charts also and base it on solely the point cost and MF per point. I looked at the average nightly point cost per a room for 2019 and took the cost per point to own (as you suggested) to see where Riviera would fall.

Doing this type of analysis across all results, on an yearly average view, including Riviera (starting with this information for the average resale prices, https://www.dvcresalemarket.com/blog/best-economical-dvc-resort-to-purchase-spring-2019/) and priced Riviera at 175 a point assuming some level of discount or renting of 1 year of points, I found the following (have the other sizes but the Studios are of the most interest probably). I think this information is useful if you are buying where you want to stay (limit down your choices) vs buying where you wouldn't mind to stay (buy the cheapest of the one you wouldn't mind staying at). Ignoring the Value Studios it is quite the spread between 130 a night at Saratoga to 280 a night at Riviera. Even with this in mind I'm still considering a small add-on (only after seeing it in person) at Riviera for F&W since BCV & BWV Preferred are similarly priced according to this chart, and if I have to sell do to finances I'll get rid of my other points first.

Studios
View attachment 391289

EDIT: A huge caveat to this chart is nightly room cost at the resort, using home resort points. Personally I have extended this to a matrix to look at the cost of using non-home resort points. However, you need to start considering if you have to up-size your room vs not needing to up-size if you had Home Resort privileges. For instance only wanting a studio but jumping up to a 1 bedroom (or more expensive views) to stay at the resort consistently, this would likely eat away savings.

That's great info, thanks. If it doesn't take too much time, would you run a couple of scenarios for using SSR points to stay at other resort?
I think it would be interesting to see how it would rank to buy at SSR and staying at BLT lake view or BWV garden vs BLT standard and BWV standard.
For someone going outside fall frenzy (when certain categories are easy to book), will he really save money buying SSR if this means having to book a pricier category?
Thanks!

 

[Aussie RJ]

I’ve run the math on 1Beds. Based on current resale contracts on the market, 2020 points charts and 2019 MFs. I won’t bother sharing the file as my numbers are also based on specific weeks which I can travel (from Australia). A nightly cost buying a BWV resale in one bedroom came to $342.87. However if I substitute an SSR contract and use it in the same room (BWV preferred) the cost is only $266.96.
You can certainly see why they have restricted Riviera! The nightly cost there using preferred room direct purchase is around $466 per night (January).. I bet preferred rooms are available too.

 

[vint43]

It appears the studio room analysis uses current MF dues.

The Riveriera just launched and Disney has been very careful since Aulani not to mess up the MF. To really know, you would need to let this run out 4-5 years to let the MF normalize against preexisting resorts. Of course, by then, the cost per point will be different.

MF have not gone up equally across resorts. Especially when considering brand new resorts.

So - to me - this might be a “worse case” scenario for the Riveria in terms of its MF spread against the other resorts over time. The spread might stay the same but probably not.

Disney also has very little experience with what happens to contracts with only 10 years left. We are only 10-12 years from that for several resorts and all the Epcot resorts. Very likely many people buying points today might own those points in 10 years. So what is expensive for now might look cheap in 10 years when the older resorts start seeing what the “re-start” might look like and where resale went with contracts that have very short time spans vs direct.

What will people pay in resale to stay at the original 14 for 12 years vs. just the riviera for 40 years? No one knows that answer yet but that is what the resale buyer might face to get an Epcot resort in 10 years.

When Beach club and boardwalk expire the Riviera will still have more time remaining then they have today.

Sometimes it takes the long game to see the full financial picture play out.

 

[crvetter]

It appears the studio room analysis uses current MF dues.

The Riveriera just launched and Disney has been very careful since Aulani not to mess up the MF. To really know, you would need to let this run out 4-5 years to let the MF normalize against preexisting resorts. Of course, by then, the cost per point will be different.

MF have not gone up equally across resorts. Especially when considering brand new resorts.

So - to me - this might be a “worse case” scenario for the Riveria in terms of its MF spread against the other resorts over time. The spread might stay the same but probably not.

While this is true it requires a very large assumption. I personally would prefer to look at the worse case where the spread stays large. However, I agree in 2020 we are likely to see a 4-5% increase at the other resorts, due to the wage increase; however, DRR might see a small drop in its MF. It will be interesting to re-run the numbers for 2020 once those are released and the spread is somewhat stable. As of right now I used a 3% increase across the entire contract length, which I think historically it is somewhat a fair assumption. I'd have to run the numbers to see, but remember the analysis was across the entire contract not a single year. Though it did use a single years point chart. So if DVC does decide that they can take points from one Vacation Home Type and place it in another Vacation Home Type (like the original 2020 point charts) it would change things. Though if they do a Seasonal Adjustment only, it won't mess with this analysis because it is still on average across the year the same.

Disney also has very little experience with what happens to contracts with only 10 years left. We are only 10-12 years from that for several resorts and all the Epcot resorts. Very likely many people buying points today might own those points in 10 years. So what is expensive for now might look cheap in 10 years when the older resorts start seeing what the “re-start” might look like and where resale went with contracts that have very short time spans vs direct.

What will people pay in resale to stay at the original 14 for 12 years vs. just the riviera for 40 years? No one knows that answer yet but that is what the resale buyer might face to get an Epcot resort in 10 years.

The resale value shouldn't matter in this analysis because it is explicitly considering the usage of the contract until expiration.

When Beach club and boardwalk expire the Riviera will still have more time remaining then they have today.

Sometimes it takes the long game to see the full financial picture play out.

I highlighted this issue in my discussion saying that since the resorts have different termination dates so it is implicitly ignoring reinvestment risk, if and only if, the person wants to stay longer at DVC than the initial contract length of what they bought. So the impression I got from those buying DRR is that they were concerned about this reinvestment risk

 

[crvetter]

I’ve run the math on 1Beds. Based on current resale contracts on the market, 2020 points charts and 2019 MFs. I won’t bother sharing the file as my numbers are also based on specific weeks which I can travel (from Australia). A nightly cost buying a BWV resale in one bedroom came to $342.87. However if I substitute an SSR contract and use it in the same room (BWV preferred) the cost is only $266.96.
You can certainly see why they have restricted Riviera! The nightly cost there using preferred room direct purchase is around $466 per night (January).. I bet preferred rooms are available too.

I agree this is exactly what Disney is trying to stop; I was actually told as much. I personally think it had nothing really to do with destroying resale value so they could swoop in and grab the points. The issue is that some resorts are severely different values than other resorts. My view is they found those resorts to be straining the 7 month window (and likely hear complaints of that from direct buyers) because those that buy at those resorts are purchasing with little to no intention at staying at their home resorts. So by removing it: 1) creates a value add for home resort priority (resale and direct) and 2) increase the value proposition of a direct.

Really the resale values should likely be a bit higher for those resorts that are cheap because of their access to the 7 month window and their ability to reserve larger rooms for the same cost as a smaller room if they bought the other resort direct. This is actually a flaw in the market pricing of those resorts and is a very obvious case arbitrage opportunities, so DVC as the market maker decided to shut it down with the resale restrictions. I will say resale owners became very wise to this; thus the current situation is that now you have to upgrade even further in room sizes (no longer just views) if you want to go during in demand times. Eventually if DVC allowed this to run it's natural course it would have only kept going up the line. Leading more people to do what many are already doing for in demand resorts, simply buying there to always stay there (effectively shutting resale and direct owners out of the resort anyway, seen to be increasingly common at VGF and BCV and BWV some degree).

Now the question is will their fix stop this? No I don't think so at all. However, if they did some different changes where the # of DVC Reservation Points isn't always parity with the # of Home Reservation Points and that is set with the demand of trading into the resort at 7 months then that would have a much bigger control to stop the issue they desire to stop. Or even adopting different point charts for the DVC Reservation Component, which can be allowed at all current resorts, they simply haven't chosen to do so yet.

Also I fully predict if a resort (Riviera or future) performs poorly in the resale market (i.e. no one wants to stay there) then the restrictions stay in place forever (unless DVC needs a cash influx); thus, isolating the resort from the 7 month window. However if the resort performs exceedingly well on the resale market (i.e. people really want to stay there) then they remove the resale restrictions from that resort. They would need to do this because every resort has a turn over into resale and eventually even direct owners at other resorts will be shut out because no one can trade out. So they will remove it giving their direct buyers access to an in demand resort. Right or wrong I'm not meaning to debate that only saying what I could see them doing.

 

[skier_pete]

That's great info, thanks. If it doesn't take too much time, would you run a couple of scenarios for using SSR points to stay at other resort?
I think it would be interesting to see how it would rank to buy at SSR and staying at BLT lake view or BWV garden vs BLT standard and BWV standard.
For someone going outside fall frenzy (when certain categories are easy to book), will he really save money buying SSR if this means having to book a pricier category?
Thanks!

There IS an argument for this - plenty of people do it, in fact if your target is 1 bedrooms I'd say there's a very good argument for it....studios less so since they are hard to get into at 7-months at many locations, and impossible in the fall.

 

[crvetter]

That's great info, thanks. If it doesn't take too much time, would you run a couple of scenarios for using SSR points to stay at other resort?
I think it would be interesting to see how it would rank to buy at SSR and staying at BLT lake view or BWV garden vs BLT standard and BWV standard.
For someone going outside fall frenzy (when certain categories are easy to book), will he really save money buying SSR if this means having to book a pricier category?
Thanks!

I do have this information, though it is somewhat harder to present simply on here because of the readability of the charts. I can think if there is a simple way to show this chart at some point this weekend. It's just kind of difficult as people have very differing views on what they can reasonably get with Home Resort Priority (studio, cheaper view) vs what they can get with trading in (1 bedroom, more expensive view, etc).

As @skier_pete just replied saying as I was writing this out sums it up nicely.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Great chart! The only thing this doesn't factor is the opportunity cost of the initial buy-in. I would love to see a version with a small 2-3% opportunity cost factored in.. it would move some of those results around materially.

I know people say "I would have used that money for vacations anyways" so opportunity cost doesn't count, but who has $20,30,50k+ sitting in cash just for vacations?

I understand you may not have put that money in the stock market, but at a minimum it could be in a savings account or risk-free treasury bond earning 2-3%.

I do understand that for many people that is how they buy (large upfront purchase) but there really are some of us who only used vacation funds that would have been blown in the next 12 months or so to buy into DVC.

My initial purchase was 10K and I had 7K in a vacation fund earning less than inflation and intended on spending it within the next 12 months anyway. My purchase went on a 0% interest card so I didn't even have to pull the $7K out right away. I took 7 months to pay back the card while adding disposable income to the monthly payments (as in, I spent less at Starbucks and carry out) to make up the difference.

To be fair, I will need more points. 10K doesn't buy a lot. However, they will be purchased because I've built back up the cash in my vacation fund to do the exact same thing all over again. I used banked and current for my trip in 2018 and current and borrowed for my 2019 trip. So, I will need points for a 2020 trip or have to take a year off. I may even do this a 3rd or 4th time if we decide to upsize our accommodations.

Since we bought APs and have airline miles for free flights, my 2019 trip will only "cost us" food. So, I'm diligently socking it away into the vacation fund and won't have to take much (if any) out this year.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

There IS an argument for this - plenty of people do it, in fact if your target is 1 bedrooms I'd say there's a very good argument for it....studios less so since they are hard to get into at 7-months at many locations, and impossible in the fall.

What about buying "sleep around" points for 2 bedrooms? How difficult is that?

We will be at a point where we need 3 studios soon (which I prefer) but may have to suck it up and get a 2 bedroom because studios are so hard to get!

 

[skier_pete]

What about buying "sleep around" points for 2 bedrooms? How difficult is that?

We will be at a point where we need 3 studios soon (which I prefer) but may have to suck it up and get a 2 bedroom because studios are so hard to get!

Have to tell you that a 2-bedroom is cheaper point wise than 3 studios - though of course won't sleep quite as many. 2-bedrooms are fairly easy to get also at 7 months, though not quite as easy as 1-bedrooms. If you haven't seen my charts: https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...-studios-1-bedrooms-june-2018-update.3689931/ but they don't include 2-bedrooms...yet. Soon.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Have to tell you that a 2-bedroom is cheaper point wise than 3 studios - though of course won't sleep quite as many. 2-bedrooms are fairly easy to get also at 7 months, though not quite as easy as 1-bedrooms. If you haven't seen my charts: https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...-studios-1-bedrooms-june-2018-update.3689931/ but they don't include 2-bedrooms...yet. Soon.

And when DVC makes those oh so very popular 1BR's even higher in point requirements and decrease the 2BR point requirements they'll probably become more difficult to get.

 

[ELMC]

I’ve run the math on 1Beds. Based on current resale contracts on the market, 2020 points charts and 2019 MFs. I won’t bother sharing the file as my numbers are also based on specific weeks which I can travel (from Australia). A nightly cost buying a BWV resale in one bedroom came to $342.87. However if I substitute an SSR contract and use it in the same room (BWV preferred) the cost is only $266.96.
You can certainly see why they have restricted Riviera! The nightly cost there using preferred room direct purchase is around $466 per night (January).. I bet preferred rooms are available too.

I agree this is exactly what Disney is trying to stop; I was actually told as much. I personally think it had nothing really to do with destroying resale value so they could swoop in and grab the points. The issue is that some resorts are severely different values than other resorts. My view is they found those resorts to be straining the 7 month window (and likely hear complaints of that from direct buyers) because those that buy at those resorts are purchasing with little to no intention at staying at their home resorts. So by removing it: 1) creates a value add for home resort priority (resale and direct) and 2) increase the value proposition of a direct.

Really the resale values should likely be a bit higher for those resorts that are cheap because of their access to the 7 month window and their ability to reserve larger rooms for the same cost as a smaller room if they bought the other resort direct. This is actually a flaw in the market pricing of those resorts and is a very obvious case arbitrage opportunities, so DVC as the market maker decided to shut it down with the resale restrictions. I will say resale owners became very wise to this; thus the current situation is that now you have to upgrade even further in room sizes (no longer just views) if you want to go during in demand times. Eventually if DVC allowed this to run it's natural course it would have only kept going up the line. Leading more people to do what many are already doing for in demand resorts, simply buying there to always stay there (effectively shutting resale and direct owners out of the resort anyway, seen to be increasingly common at VGF and BCV and BWV some degree).

Now the question is will their fix stop this? No I don't think so at all. However, if they did some different changes where the # of DVC Reservation Points isn't always parity with the # of Home Reservation Points and that is set with the demand of trading into the resort at 7 months then that would have a much bigger control to stop the issue they desire to stop. Or even adopting different point charts for the DVC Reservation Component, which can be allowed at all current resorts, they simply haven't chosen to do so yet.

Also I fully predict if a resort (Riviera or future) performs poorly in the resale market (i.e. no one wants to stay there) then the restrictions stay in place forever (unless DVC needs a cash influx); thus, isolating the resort from the 7 month window. However if the resort performs exceedingly well on the resale market (i.e. people really want to stay there) then they remove the resale restrictions from that resort. They would need to do this because every resort has a turn over into resale and eventually even direct owners at other resorts will be shut out because no one can trade out. So they will remove it giving their direct buyers access to an in demand resort. Right or wrong I'm not meaning to debate that only saying what I could see them doing.

This is an important post. We tend to get caught up on here and ascribe the worst possible motivations to the moves Disney is making with regards to structural changes to the DVC program. Sure, some moves are profit oriented, but there is merit to what is said in the first paragraph here. Think about it, there are a lot of us who talk about how nice the higher end resorts are and how great it feels to stay at them using our SSR resale points. And that's great for us. But how is that fair for the direct owners of those resorts? This all seems to be a smoothing out process to try to eliminate some of these extreme uses (note I say uses and not abuses...because it's currently allowable) of the system. I am one of those min-maxers who tries to extract maximum value for the minimum possible outlay. I bought SSR resale and I have used those points to stay at VGF, VGC, BLT, etc. And let me tell you, it feels great. But it also feels a little strange that I'm staying there for a fraction of the cost as someone who owns there. I know, these disparities exist everywhere, two good examples would be variances in hotel room prices and prices of flights. But when you're on a plane you have no idea what the person next to you paid for their ticket, or that she may have paid $200 more or less than you did. With DVC (generally speaking) it is completely transparent. We all know the costs of the different resorts, maintenance fees, etc. and we know that people are trading from one resort into another.

The real flaw in this system is that they should have implemented it a long time ago. While technically all "Deluxes", it is reasonably fair to say that there are tiers even within the DVC system. Buying OKW points to stay at VGF is considered a huge win, but you don't hear much about people using their BLT direct points to stay at HHI. So the real question is, was it better for Disney to implement this fix too late than not at all?

Going forward, I am very cognizant of the fact that Disney is a company out to make money. But when it comes to changes like this, maybe it's better if I don't automatically assume the worst intentions in everything they do.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Have to tell you that a 2-bedroom is cheaper point wise than 3 studios - though of course won't sleep quite as many. 2-bedrooms are fairly easy to get also at 7 months, though not quite as easy as 1-bedrooms. If you haven't seen my charts: https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...-studios-1-bedrooms-june-2018-update.3689931/ but they don't include 2-bedrooms...yet. Soon.

Yes, I say "suck it up" because we prefer to all have our own rooms and don't care about having a kitchen or laundry. We are "fine with hotel room style accommodations" people but DVC has come out cheaper than moderates, so...

Thanks! Can't wait for the 2 bedroom info!

 

[4luv2cdisney]

And when DVC makes those oh so very popular 1BR's even higher in point requirements and decrease the 2BR point requirements they'll probably become more difficult to get.

Ugh! I'm sure you're right!

 

[Madame]

This is an important post. We tend to get caught up on here and ascribe the worst possible motivations to the moves Disney is making with regards to structural changes to the DVC program. Sure, some moves are profit oriented, but there is merit to what is said in the first paragraph here. Think about it, there are a lot of us who talk about how nice the higher end resorts are and how great it feels to stay at them using our SSR resale points. And that's great for us. But how is that fair for the direct owners of those resorts? This all seems to be a smoothing out process to try to eliminate some of these extreme uses (note I say uses and not abuses...because it's currently allowable) of the system. I am one of those min-maxers who tries to extract maximum value for the minimum possible outlay. I bought SSR resale and I have used those points to stay at VGF, VGC, BLT, etc. And let me tell you, it feels great. But it also feels a little strange that I'm staying there for a fraction of the cost as someone who owns there. I know, these disparities exist everywhere, two good examples would be variances in hotel room prices and prices of flights. But when you're on a plane you have no idea what the person next to you paid for their ticket, or that she may have paid $200 more or less than you did. With DVC (generally speaking) it is completely transparent. We all know the costs of the different resorts, maintenance fees, etc. and we know that people are trading from one resort into another.

The real flaw in this system is that they should have implemented it a long time ago. While technically all "Deluxes", it is reasonably fair to say that there are tiers even within the DVC system. Buying OKW points to stay at VGF is considered a huge win, but you don't hear much about people using their BLT direct points to stay at HHI. So the real question is, was it better for Disney to implement this fix too late than not at all?

Going forward, I am very cognizant of the fact that Disney is a company out to make money. But when it comes to changes like this, maybe it's better if I don't automatically assume the worst intentions in everything they do.

Then DVD & DVCMC need to be two completely separate entities. I don’t care what DVD does, but when DVCMC is manipulating point charts etc so DVD can make more profit? Just no.

 

[crvetter]

Then DVD & DVCMC need to be two completely separate entities. I don’t care what DVD does, but when DVCMC is manipulating point charts etc so DVD can make more profit? Just no.

I don't think the post you replied to was at all addressing the manipulation of point charts in anyway. They were more highlighting that DVD has built resorts that were very tiered in nature while deciding to classify them all as one tier. Since the joining of the resorts to DVC is done by DVD (at their sole approval) DVCMC has 0 say in this matter, so being a different company, which legally it already is just the same people work for it, won't change what DVD did in this regard at all. This tiering of resorts has led to people being upset (likely direct purchasers) that they can't access other resorts at 7 months. The reason I say likely direct purchasers is because the resale purchasers are falling into two camps 1) buy with the intention of using that other places so buy the cheapest points or 2) buy with the intention of using the points during the home reservation period because they are aware of the strain at 7 months. Regardless of peoples feelings the fact that DVD decided to create underwhelming resorts led to this problem (people buying with little intention of staying at the home resort unless it is the utter last choice) many could disagree on this point but if all resorts were the same tier then the resale prices would be similar (when adjusting for length of contract).

I think the poster was meaning to suggest that what DVD has done is created a way in which they themselves can control the tiering of the resorts exogenous to the DVC Reservation Component without directly upsetting the system that existed at the time everyone signed their contracts. Right or wrong wasn't the intention of this post.

 

[DougEMG]

This is an important post. We tend to get caught up on here and ascribe the worst possible motivations to the moves Disney is making with regards to structural changes to the DVC program. Sure, some moves are profit oriented, but there is merit to what is said in the first paragraph here. Think about it, there are a lot of us who talk about how nice the higher end resorts are and how great it feels to stay at them using our SSR resale points. And that's great for us. But how is that fair for the direct owners of those resorts? This all seems to be a smoothing out process to try to eliminate some of these extreme uses (note I say uses and not abuses...because it's currently allowable) of the system. I am one of those min-maxers who tries to extract maximum value for the minimum possible outlay. I bought SSR resale and I have used those points to stay at VGF, VGC, BLT, etc. And let me tell you, it feels great. But it also feels a little strange that I'm staying there for a fraction of the cost as someone who owns there. I know, these disparities exist everywhere, two good examples would be variances in hotel room prices and prices of flights. But when you're on a plane you have no idea what the person next to you paid for their ticket, or that she may have paid $200 more or less than you did. With DVC (generally speaking) it is completely transparent. We all know the costs of the different resorts, maintenance fees, etc. and we know that people are trading from one resort into another.

The real flaw in this system is that they should have implemented it a long time ago. While technically all "Deluxes", it is reasonably fair to say that there are tiers even within the DVC system. Buying OKW points to stay at VGF is considered a huge win, but you don't hear much about people using their BLT direct points to stay at HHI. So the real question is, was it better for Disney to implement this fix too late than not at all?

Going forward, I am very cognizant of the fact that Disney is a company out to make money. But when it comes to changes like this, maybe it's better if I don't automatically assume the worst intentions in everything they do.

Sorry, but I disagree. Given the number of changes that Disney has been making with DVC I think the safest thing is to assume the worst and that they are trying to ring every nickel and dime out of us. With any long term investment you really want stability. Here we are 20+ years into the program and Disney is trying to make some major rule changes. They are even trying to change what rules they are allowed and not allowed to change. So no, I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

One thing that the resale market does reasonably well is set the value of resorts. All information on resorts and how the system works is out there. SSR is priced where it is because buyers already are factoring in the ability to sleep around with SSR points. So to me, it is perfectly fair the way the system works. I bought BWV and BLT to only stay at those resorts and to book at 11 months out. I bought SSR to book at 7 months and to try and book at other resorts. If I couldn't book outside of SSR, then the price I would be willing to pay for SSR would be less.

 

[skier_pete]

This is an important post. We tend to get caught up on here and ascribe the worst possible motivations to the moves Disney is making with regards to structural changes to the DVC program. Sure, some moves are profit oriented, but there is merit to what is said in the first paragraph here. Think about it, there are a lot of us who talk about how nice the higher end resorts are and how great it feels to stay at them using our SSR resale points. And that's great for us. But how is that fair for the direct owners of those resorts?

I'm sorry I think it is completely 100% fair. Every owner at every resort has the 11 month to 7 month priority window into which he/she can book that resort without having those of us with "lesser" resorts poaching their rooms. If you are buying at VGF or Poly or Riviera, you are paying for that home resort priority. If you don't use it, well that's not a fault of the system. And until recently all owners were treated the same. Until these new rules. I would argue that NOW things are not fair.

If the system is "broken" its that they built this gigantic resort that most owners don't want to stay at(14 million points at SSR - more than VGC, VGF, BWV, BCV, AND WLV-BR COMBINED) . DISNEY broke the system to begin with - and now they are punishing members to "fix" the problem. And it's not going to fix the problem.