# Disney really is the best



## HolidayLover

As someone who has owned and been part of many of the nations biggest timeshare developers... let me genuinely, honestly, say Disney is the best. 

Their sales process is fair, it BY FAR holds the best with secondary market value, and its long term desirability always seems to increase. 

If you can afford a Disney timeshare, go for it. They're expensive - but unlike other developers - with Disney you get what you paid for.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Yes, Disney is a great product.  I love my DVC.  

I do love the Marriott product and won't stay in DVC while in Orlando.  The units are not as nice as Marriott.  There are some exceptions to that general observation, of course.


----------



## bogey21

HolidayLover said:


> . They're expensive - but unlike other developers - with Disney you get what you paid for.



Depends on your priorities.  Mine was to have as little money at risk so many years ago I bought Weeks at 6 Independent HOA Controlled Resorts.  If I recall correctly, my total outlay was less than $8,000.  Cost and location were my parameters, not luxury.  When I divested after many years of use my loss was miniscule. 

George


----------



## rhonda

So your criteria for "best" hinges on the developer sales process and resale value?

Personally, I put fairly great weight on factors such as network locations, unit functionality, unit quality, trade savvy and resort amenities in my evaluation.  In my view, Disney is an "also ran" ... somewhere mid-pack, largely due to lackluster unit functionality/quality and its limited destinations.  That is how it plays out for my family and our use and enjoyment of timesharing.  Gladly, there are many flavors of timeshare to meet the many tastes of its consumers.  Glad you are content with your DVC decisions!


----------



## GregT

I am a little confused by this post -- I love my Disney, and the quality and system is terrific, but I also love my Marriotts (and my HGVC's and my Starwoods).  They are all great, and for different reasons.

Best,

Greg


----------



## dominidude

HolidayLover said:


> As someone who has owned and been part of many of the nations biggest timeshare developers... let me genuinely, honestly, say Disney is the best.
> 
> Their sales process is fair, it BY FAR holds the best with secondary market value, and its long term desirability always seems to increase.
> 
> If you can afford a Disney timeshare, go for it. They're expensive - but unlike other developers - with Disney you get what you paid for.


I wish this person would give more detail about the reason they feel that way. 
I have always thought DVC to be way over priced for what you get. 
On the other hand, vacation village in Orlando can be had for free (usually), they take you back and forth from the resort to Disney and their maintenance fees are lower than most. 
To each its own I guess.


----------



## SueDonJ

I agree, Disney timeshares are the best if what you want is a "Home-Away-From-Home" and a healthy dose of Disney theming while on location at Disney's theme parks.

But the best overall among all timeshare companies?  No, I don't agree with that.  DVC is more expensive to buy and own than many, has fewer locations than almost all, is not as quick as the other "big guys" with routine maintenance/refurb upgrades, and, strictly limits owner rentals and exchange opportunities.  Plus they can no longer claim that they don't differentiate usage options based on direct- or resale-purchase status.


----------



## vacationhopeful

Moderation is the key .. with any timeshare ownership.

I brought resale (before the demise of benefits to resale owners) AKV/DVC. A small under 100 points. At the resort I wanted. I book via bank a year and borrow the future year ... to use the current year ... at a great time of the year ... during the first 2 weeks of December. And I have used RCI exchanges into DVC also.


----------



## mj2vacation

We owned 1000 points with Disney at one point.  We made money on every contract when we sold.  

Our Grand Californian contracts sold for nearly double what we paid for them, not factoring any use of them and the developer points that we received when we purchased.  

Granted we received a cast discount on that purchase, but anyone who purchased Grand Cal, Beach Club, Grand Floridian are sitting pretty in regard to what they paid vs sale price. 

DVC is a fairly liquid product.  Very easy to sell.  All 9 contacts that we sold were full price offers and we had contracts within 48 hours for all.  

Marriott is our other favorite and even with us buying early on with an associate discount, we would lose money if we sold.  

Is DVC the best for everyone in every situation ?  Hell no.  But for the niche of a niche that it fits for, it's hard to beat.


----------



## Denise L

I love our DVC because I am a Disney fan and it is so convenient for us to stay on property at BCV.  The point requirements to stay at VGC are crazy high, but we feel like we are home and know the place so well.  Disney is easy to book, easy to cancel, doesn't charge crazy fees, easy to sell.

I think we just love timeshares in general.  Love our Vistana, Hyatt, and my sister's HGVC, too.  Love other people who rent out their timeshares so that we can spend time in places where we don't own.


----------



## frank808

GregT said:


> I am a little confused by this post -- I love my Disney, and the quality and system is terrific, but I also love my Marriotts (and my HGVC's and my Starwoods).  They are all great, and for different reasons.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg


I definitely agree.  DVC is not the only one we need.  We also need our HGVC and Marriott timeshares.  We divested our sheraton years ago as we were not using them anymore.  

Now am trying to slowly pare down our HGVC holdings as we are not using all those weeks anymore.  One rule to go by is that timesharing needs are always changing and evolving.

Though we still use HGVC as we are just finishing a weeks stay at grand islander and our second week at hokulani.  Then 5 nights at aulani before my son heads back to school.  Followed by our mko stays. We use all the different systems and they offer different experiences.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dean

HolidayLover said:


> As someone who has owned and been part of many of the nations biggest timeshare developers... let me genuinely, honestly, say Disney is the best.
> 
> Their sales process is fair, it BY FAR holds the best with secondary market value, and its long term desirability always seems to increase.
> 
> If you can afford a Disney timeshare, go for it. They're expensive - but unlike other developers - with Disney you get what you paid for.


It depends, side by side they're an also ran, IMO, but they give a great location for the parks.  For VB and HH compared to the Marriott's in the general area, they're not even close.  They're flexible, more so in some ways, less in others.  I've owned DVC for 23 years and Bluegreen plus Marriott almost as long, they are just different.  I enjoy them all in one way or another, Bluegreen is my best value and DVC my worst.  OTOH, it's dramatically unlikely that DVC will hold these prices.


----------



## mj2vacation

Dean said:


> It depends, side by side they're an also ran, IMO, but they give a great location for the parks.  For VB and HH compared to the Marriott's in the general area, they're not even close.  They're flexible, more so in some ways, less in others.  I've owned DVC for 23 years and Bluegreen plus Marriott almost as long, they are just different.  I enjoy them all in one way or another, Bluegreen is my best value and DVC my worst.  OTOH, it's dramatically unlikely that DVC will hold these prices.



We are regulars at Marriott Oceana Palms as well as DVC Vero.   With the room renovations Vero is much improved. We stayed in a newly renovated room in October 2016.  They are very different resorts, but I would not put one over the other for in room.  They are both awesome resorts.  We actually asked engineering for the color swatches at Oceana and painted part of our house to match.  Then they changed colors (won't be getting those swatches...)

We have been with DVC since 1999 and Marriott since 2004. We typically stay in Grand Floridan and Animal Kingdom.  The grand are the nicest rooms we have ever stayed in, and that includes 4 Seasons and Waldorf rooms.

Sure, Saratoga and Old Key west are not my choice, but then neither is Kauai Beach Club or Cypress Harbor.  We like Lakeshore and Lahaina  

KoOlina vs Aulani is definitely a win for DVC.  We love Ko'Olina, and renewed our vows on the beach there, but Aulani is a home run (although not for sales).


----------



## heathpack

Of all my timeshares, my DVC is the one that I paid the most for- a little more than my Hyatt.  But it's a no-lose proposition because it's appreciated in value by 50%.  It's really nice to have a super-liquid appreciating timeshare, it doesn't really matter to me that DVC isn't all the timeshare Ill ever need.  Right now I could sell and recoup all my costs- both initial purchase price & ten years of MF.  That's pretty good.

I certainly like my Hyatt, my Marriott and my Starwood too.  But really the DVC is the one I don't lose any sleep over.


----------



## alwysonvac

HolidayLover said:


> As someone who has owned and been part of many of the nations biggest timeshare developers... let me genuinely, honestly, say Disney is the best.
> 
> Their sales process is fair, *it BY FAR holds the best with secondary market value*, and its long term desirability always seems to increase.
> 
> *If you can afford a Disney timeshare, go for it.* They're expensive - but unlike other developers - with Disney you get what you paid for.



Ditto on what everyone else said.

Disney World is #1 in my book for a great family vacation destination.
As a DVC owner, I love the flexibility of their point systems. But I don't view DVC as the best.

It only makes sense to own DVC if you prefer to be onsite. As others pointed out, some of the offsite timeshare rooms are actually much larger and nicer overall.

The only reason DVC resale values are great is because of Disney's active ROFR. If Disney decides to cut back on ROFR (due to less demand) you will see a drop in resale values. DVC only has Orlando, Anaheim, Oahu, Hilton Head and Vero Beach. Having limited locations makes ROFR easier.


----------



## Lisa P

HolidayLover said:


> As someone who has owned and *been part of many of the nations biggest timeshare developers*...
> If you can afford a Disney timeshare, go for it.



As a newer poster here... Welcome to TUG.

Just curious, do you sell DVC now?  Which timeshare companies have you worked for?


----------



## Dean

mj2vacation said:


> We are regulars at Marriott Oceana Palms as well as DVC Vero.   With the room renovations Vero is much improved. We stayed in a newly renovated room in October 2016.  They are very different resorts, but I would not put one over the other for in room.  They are both awesome resorts.  We actually asked engineering for the color swatches at Oceana and painted part of our house to match.  Then they changed colors (won't be getting those swatches...)
> 
> We have been with DVC since 1999 and Marriott since 2004. We typically stay in Grand Floridan and Animal Kingdom.  The grand are the nicest rooms we have ever stayed in, and that includes 4 Seasons and Waldorf rooms.
> 
> Sure, Saratoga and Old Key west are not my choice, but then neither is Kauai Beach Club or Cypress Harbor.  We like Lakeshore and Lahaina
> 
> KoOlina vs Aulani is definitely a win for DVC.  We love Ko'Olina, and renewed our vows on the beach there, but Aulani is a home run (although not for sales).


All of these issues could change next round of refurbishment so I take a bigger picture approach.  I've stayed in all DVC resorts other than HI and CA and been on property/seen rooms at those.  I've been on most Marriott properties/seen rooms as well and stayed at many.  DVC does theming and they have location.  When it comes to refurbishment they've been less than second class though there are signs that may be changing.  When it comes to ongoing maintenance, they don't come up to that level and when it comes to on the fly issues, they're even lower than that.


----------



## cayman01

I think a person's opinion  depends on their amount of love/hate you have for Disney. My DW and DD are Disney addicts. They would live there if they could. It's is a truly magical experience for them when we stay at DVC. Me, not so much. I like the convenience to the parks, the rooms are fine as far as I am concerned, and the ability to rent your extra points to offset MF'S is a major plus.

 But it is extremely expensive in my mind. What you pay to get in and the actual cost of your stays. I wouldn't mind a small contract (100 points), but it will not ever be my go to TS. We stay at Bonnet Creek for less than half of what it would cost at any of the DVC resorts and the rooms are just as nice I think.


----------



## ljmiii

SueDonJ said:


> Plus they can no longer claim that they don't differentiate usage options based on direct- or resale-purchase status.


It is interesting to see the differing opinions on the topic. To me DVC is by far the 'best' of the timeshares I've purchased. I never have to worry about getting the reservation I want, the value has appreciated, and I can easily rent any points I don't need at a tidy profit. Plus the location is uniquely valuable (from BLT I walk to MK and from BCV I walk to EPCOT and HS) and while BCV needed a refurb BLT is nicer than the Orlando MVCI resorts in which I've stayed.

HGVC is second best - I never have to worry about getting a reservation at Hilton Hawaiian Village, the value has held steady, and getting reservations at other locations isn't a problem...so long as the location you want is Las Vegas, Orlando, or the Big Island. However, you can't rent out HGVC points and I'm currently a bit panicked that I won't be able to use my 2018 points other than to put them into RCI and hope for the best.

MVCI is third...mainly because reservations are so difficult. I love the resorts and many of the locations. Hate the process...even before DPs.

(Oh...and I quoted SueDonJ because *usage* is still the same for new DVC resale purchases - you just are considered as an 'owner' and not a 'member'. Practically speaking, what that means is that you don't get an Annual Pass discount and can't go to the 'member' lounges, parties, and cruises. But you can become a member for about $1,500. And yes, it also means that you can't throw your money away by using DVC points on things that you should never buy with DVC points instead of cash).


----------



## SueDonJ

cayman01 said:


> I think a person's opinion  depends on their amount of love/hate you have for Disney. My DW and DD are Disney addicts. They would live there if they could. It's is a truly magical experience for them when we stay at DVC. Me, not so much. I like the convenience to the parks, the rooms are fine as far as I am concerned, and the ability to rent your extra points to offset MF'S is a major plus.
> 
> But it is extremely expensive in my mind. What you pay to get in and the actual cost of your stays. I wouldn't mind a small contract (100 points), but it will not ever be my go to TS. We stay at Bonnet Creek for less than half of what it would cost at any of the DVC resorts and the rooms are just as nice I think.



I am a Disney freak, could do a two-week WDW vacation every year and never get tired of it, and love the feeling of being immersed in the experience despite knowing that it's specifically manufactured.  I have always said that a marriage of Disney's points system with Marriott's extensive portfolio would be a match made in timeshare heaven.  (The day Marriott introduced its points system and allowed existing Weeks to integrate with it, I was over the moon!)  If Don liked WDW even half as much I do then we would have bought there.

It's not dislike or indifference to Disney that makes me personally rate them lower than MVC.  But I think MVC sets a pretty high bar all things considered and DVC isn't far behind.


----------



## SueDonJ

ljmiii said:


> ... (Oh...and I quoted SueDonJ because *usage* is still the same for new DVC resale purchases - you just are considered as an 'owner' and not a 'member'. Practically speaking, what that means is that you don't get an Annual Pass discount and can't go to the 'member' lounges, parties, and cruises. But you can become a member for about $1,500. And yes, it also means that you can't throw your money away by using DVC points on things that you should never buy with DVC points instead of cash).



For years DVC touted itself as the only timeshare player among the big guys that didn't differentiate at all between direct and external-resale purchases.  No difference in membership status, no difference in usage, no difference in resale value.  Everything and everyone were equal, nobody was a second-class owner/member, all was perfect in DVC Membershipland.  DVC owners were justifiably correct when they'd criticize the other timeshare companies for withholding perks and usage options from resale owners.  Even when owners of those other companies pointed out that the things withheld wouldn't be a good economical use of ownership, such as with exchanging direct-purchase Marriotts to Reward (hotel) Points, DVC owners/members could counter with the fact that value or no value, DVC didn't do that.  Period.

When DVC announced there would be changes and they would start differentiating between direct- and resale-purchases, owners/members split into two groups: those who were saddened to see DVC join the others in what many call "sleazy timeshare practices," and those who took up the rallying cry that owners of other companies had been saying for years, i.e. "it doesn't matter because what they're withholding isn't an economical use of your points anyway."  If I owned DVC at the time I would have been in the first camp - DVC did used to be separate and distinct in not treating resale owners/members as second class citizens, and that's just simply not true any more.  It is sad.

The only reason it hasn't affected the resale value of DVC Points is because those have to be propped up by DVC in order to not impact the pricing of Disney hotel properties that share the same footprint as DVC timeshares.  If ROFR weren't exercised on a continuous basis then there would be bargains galore in the DVC properties, both in owner rentals and on a direct cash basis, and the hotel side would have to adjust to keep competitive with their captive audience.  (I'm not saying this to criticize DVC - I can only wish that there were a reason Marriott would have to continuously exercise ROFR!)


----------



## elaine

I have both direct and resale DVC points. I think the big deal about the resale distinction is silly. Who care if you can go to the Epcot lounge? Or go to a special event (which is likely booked up before you go online at 8am bc others got the jump at 6:48 am), or save $100 for an annual pass (used that 2X), or the DVC members cruise (went on that--great, but a regular DCL is still pretty awesome). I would buy resale DVC over and over and be fine to be a 2nd class citizen, as long as the booking windows are the same.
We would rather do onsite with 5 in a 1BR (summer) than a 3BR at HGVC (spring break) any day! HGVC is very nice--but DH felt like a shuttle bus driver for our teens. I agree, DVC is the bomb! My only complaint is that it is $$$ compared to other TS and RCI trades for those who know how to work the system.
oh, yeah, and selling--listed and got a great offer in less than 24 hours--where else can you unload a TS like that?


----------



## rickandcindy23

The decline of benefits in resale really did hurt DVC.  I was going to buy more points and add our son's name to get the AP's at a discount, and this is no longer possible.


----------



## Denise L

rickandcindy23 said:


> The decline of benefits in resale really did hurt DVC.  I was going to buy more points and add our son's name to get the AP's at a discount, and this is no longer possible.



When did they stop offering the AP discount to resale buyers?  I guess I haven't been paying attention.  I own both resale and direct purchases, and haven't bought an AP since 2014.


----------



## rhonda

Denise L said:


> When did they stop offering the AP discount to resale buyers?  I guess I haven't been paying attention.  I own both resale and direct purchases, and haven't bought an AP since 2014.


April 4, 2016


----------



## mj2vacation

rickandcindy23 said:


> The decline of benefits in resale really did hurt DVC.  I was going to buy more points and add our son's name to get the AP's at a discount, and this is no longer possible.




Buy a 25 point contract direct from disney.  For 25 points it's a cash purchase.  Then contact member admin and they can tell you how to retitle it. Since it is intra family they don't consider it a resale.  For added assurance, leave your name on the title and just add his. 

Other option is to purchase 50 direct in his name.


----------



## ljmiii

SueDonJ said:


> When DVC announced there would be changes and they would start differentiating between direct- and resale-purchases, owners/members split into two groups...
> 
> The only reason it hasn't affected the resale value of DVC Points...


I found myself in both groups. Sad that Disney felt the need to create the perception that resale buyers were '2nd class citizens' and happy they didn't actually make any changes to make that perception a reality. When I first purchased DVC the spread between direct and resale prices was quite small after incentives - DVC didn't have any BCV to sell me so I bought resale. But it could have easily gone the other way.

And sadly, it HAS dramatically affected the resale value of DVC. It's just that the slow and steady appreciation of my BCV points can't compare to the 'through the roof' increases in the price of buying DVC direct. Or the incredible increase in the cash price to stay at a DVC villa or WDW Deluxe resort.

When I later bought a BLT contract I was actually rather shocked when I found out what DVC wanted for those points - I can't imagine anyone buying DVC direct anymore (beyond the 25 point purchase needed to be considered a 'member').


----------



## Dean

cayman01 said:


> I think a person's opinion  depends on their amount of love/hate you have for Disney. My DW and DD are Disney addicts. They would live there if they could. It's is a truly magical experience for them when we stay at DVC. Me, not so much. I like the convenience to the parks, the rooms are fine as far as I am concerned, and the ability to rent your extra points to offset MF'S is a major plus.
> 
> But it is extremely expensive in my mind. What you pay to get in and the actual cost of your stays. I wouldn't mind a small contract (100 points), but it will not ever be my go to TS. We stay at Bonnet Creek for less than half of what it would cost at any of the DVC resorts and the rooms are just as nice I think.


Not in my case.  We enjoy Disney and prefer to stay on property because it's on property.  I am convinced my opinion is rooted in fact, not emotion and if anything, I feel I am possibly overly sympathetic to DVC.  Disney does theming well though there has been a clear decline in theming with their last couple of refurbishments, esp BCV.  DVC is definitely my first love when it comes to timeshares.  That said, there's no way to say they measure up in terms of maintenance or refurbishment compared to the other top systems, at least not with a straight face.  



rickandcindy23 said:


> The decline of benefits in resale really did hurt DVC.  I was going to buy more points and add our son's name to get the AP's at a discount, and this is no longer possible.


Maybe for some but likely not overall.  It'll cause a few to balk and some to buy retail that otherwise wouldn't, my guess is the overall direction has been it's led to significantly more retail sales.  As for the buy and get the perks issue, it still is possible.  Under the previous system (either before any restrictions or the last change), you'd have either had to buy the minimum new buyer amount (usually 50) or buy 25 then change after the fact paying the deed change.  You can still do either of those things.  It never made much sense to buy the 25 resale and then change the deed for 25 just points.


----------



## frank808

mj2vacation said:


> Buy a 25 point contract direct from disney.  For 25 points it's a cash purchase.  Then contact member admin and they can tell you how to retitle it. Since it is intra family they don't consider it a resale.  For added assurance, leave your name on the title and just add his.
> 
> Other option is to purchase 50 direct in his name.


You can add on a new 25 point contract direct, and just title it with added owner.  No need to call member services to re title the new contract after it closes.  

Now you have to decide if it is worth it to pay about $4000, for 25 points at okw, to add a person as an owner.  Are the benefits worth that to you?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dean

frank808 said:


> You can buy a new 25 point contract direct, and just title it with added owner.  No need to call member services to re title the new contract after it closes.
> 
> Now you have to decide if it is worth it to pay about $4000, for 25 points at okw, to add a person as an owner.  Are the benefits worth that to you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


While I've seen a couple of reports to them selling 25 pts to a new member (as this would be), normally they require it to be an add on so same title and US to do 25.  Otherwise it's the new member minimum, 25 at most, 50 at Copper Creek.  Member services won't retitle, you'd have to go through the formal ROFR process (though auto in this situation) and a closing or at least a new deed with recording plus recording of the waiver of ROFR.  So roughly $40 if you do a quit claim deed yourself.


----------



## frank808

ljmiii said:


> It is interesting to see the differing opinions on the topic. To me DVC is by far the 'best' of the timeshares I've purchased. I never have to worry about getting the reservation I want, the value has appreciated, and I can easily rent any points I don't need at a tidy profit. Plus the location is uniquely valuable (from BLT I walk to MK and from BCV I walk to EPCOT and HS) and while BCV needed a refurb BLT is nicer than the Orlando MVCI resorts in which I've stayed.
> 
> (Oh...and I quoted SueDonJ because *usage* is still the same for new DVC resale purchases - you just are considered as an 'owner' and not a 'member'. Practically speaking, what that means is that you don't get an Annual Pass discount and can't go to the 'member' lounges, parties, and cruises. But you can become a member for about $1,500. And yes, it also means that you can't throw your money away by using DVC points on things that you should never buy with DVC points instead of cash).



With regards to dvc being nicer than mvc.  Stay at marriott lakeshore reserve and your opinions will change.  No dvc even grand floridian has nicer rooms or facilities than there.  I am an owner at vgf and stay at lakeshore when we do not goto wdw parks.

How do you get to be a member for $1500?  The lowest amount of points you can buy direct is 25 and would run close to $4000.  What resort are you buying direct at $60 a point?  

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk


----------



## frank808

Dean said:


> While I've seen a couple of reports to them selling 25 pts to a new member (as this would be), normally they require it to be an add on so same title and US to do 25.  Otherwise it's the new member minimum, 25 at most, 50 at Copper Creek.  Member services won't retitle, you'd have to go through the formal ROFR process (though auto in this situation) and a closing or at least a new deed with recording plus recording of the waiver of ROFR.  So roughly $40 if you do a quit claim deed yourself.


 Sorry was referring to rickandcindy.  Since she was already a dvc member she could do a 25pt add on and title it with her son added on as an owner.  I am not saying for new members then the min would be as you said 50 points.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## ljmiii

frank808 said:


> With regards to dvc being nicer than mvc. Stay at marriott lakeshore reserve and your opinions will change. No dvc even grand floridian has nicer rooms or facilities than there. I am an owner and vgf and stay at lakeshore when we do not goto wdw parks.
> 
> How do you get to be a member for $1500? The lowest amount of points you can buy direct is 25 and would run close to $4000. What resort are you buying direct at $60 a point?


Fair enough...we've never tried lakeshore reserve as it seemed too far way from WDW. The Palms are fine, but Cyprus Harbor was something of a dump - by far the worst MVCI resort at which we've stayed.

Oh...and $1,500 is the spread between the cost of buying 25 points direct vs resale at most DVC resorts. So if someone wants the benefits of being a 'member' vs an 'owner' my advice is to buy a slightly smaller resale contract and then buy 25 points direct.


----------



## famy27

I own Wyndham and DVC. I bought Wyndham resale in 2008 and DVC in Oct 2015, so I am a DVC "member" and get all of the discounts and events. I can't use my points for the cruises and such, but I would never do that anyway. 

Going from Wyndham to DVC has been a shock to the system. I am so used to Wyndham nickel-and-diming us with transaction fees, housekeeping fees, guest certificates, etc. that I was completely shocked to find out the DVC charges me absolutely nothing. I changed one reservation four time, and I paid zero fees. I've done numerous stays of one or two nights. No fees. I rent out half of my points and cover all of my MFs for the year, so my stays are free. I could resell my points tomorrow for more than I paid two years ago. I agree that OKW needs a refresh (which it is getting), but I think the other resorts are in great shape (and I've stayed at almost all of them in the past few years). We absolutely loved Poly and would buy points there if I could find room in the budget. So, I guess what I'm saying, is that I find it hard to disagree with the OP.


----------



## frank808

ljmiii said:


> Fair enough...we've never tried lakeshore reserve as it seemed too far way from WDW. The Palms are fine, but Cyprus Harbor was something of a dump - by far the worst MVCI resort at which we've stayed.
> 
> Oh...and $1,500 is the spread between the cost of buying 25 points direct vs resale at most DVC resorts. So if someone wants the benefits of being a 'member' vs an 'owner' my advice is to buy a slightly smaller resale contract and then buy 25 points direct.


Ok that makes sense with regards to the $1500.  I was thinking there was a way to buy in direct for cheaper.

Have you stayed at grand vista? That is my second favorite mvc resort in orlando.  I would say room is superior to most dvc resorts in regards to size and furnishings. Only vgf would be nicer furnished than grand vista.  The only close mvc resorts to wdw would be royal, sabal and imperial palms.  They have nice size units, but there is a non resort feel staying there.  But rooms are good size and about the same size as okw.  Glad i haven't stayed at cypress harbor.  The pics of cypress harbour look very nice. What was wrong with the resort?  I am surprised that mvc would let it deteriorate so far as they are pretty aggressive with refurbishment schedules.  

I also have hgvc but have only stayed at tuscany.  From the outside i did not like it but the units are nicely furnished.  If going to seaworld you can't beat the hgvc across the street from seaworld.  Also since it is a seaworld preferred hotel there used to be express pass available from the concierge.

In orlando there are so many great choices for different budgets.  Unless you have to be in the disney bubble, there are a lot of great options nearby.  When we goto wdw parks we stay in the disney bubble.  When we do other things in orlando I like to stay at marriots or hgvc.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## rickandcindy23

I cannot believe anyone would call Marriott's Cypress Harbour a dump. It's my favorite and has that elite status with II, and it's deserved.


----------



## ljmiii

frank808 said:


> The pics of cypress harbour look very nice. What was wrong with the resort?


The room smelled musty, the dishwasher had issues, and we saw lots of rust and decay.  And it didn't help that the first villa they put us into already had a family in the room. But this was around seven years ago - I'm sure they've refurbed since.

We stayed at HGVC's Tuscany once and was very pleasantly surprised. As you say, the buildings aren't much to look at but the villas themselves are comfortable and spacious. And they had lots of activities for the kids. The only real downside was the parking...never enough by our building.


----------



## Dean

frank808 said:


> Sorry was referring to rickandcindy.  Since she was already a dvc member she could do a 25pt add on and title it with her son added on as an owner.  I am not saying for new members then the min would be as you said 50 points.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


Frank, they won't title it differently in this situation OR they will require the new minimum purchase like any other new member.  They could add the 25 and then change it and end up with a qualified contract but it'd be a stand alone which they could either use in conjunction with their other membership with the added aggravation or use up their once a UY transfer.  Fortunately the transferred points should be viewable and usage online unlike most transfers.


----------



## Dean

frank808 said:


> With regards to dvc being nicer than mvc.  Stay at marriott lakeshore reserve and your opinions will change.  No dvc even grand floridian has nicer rooms or facilities than there.  I am an owner at vgf and stay at lakeshore when we do not goto wdw parks.
> 
> How do you get to be a member for $1500?  The lowest amount of points you can buy direct is 25 and would run close to $4000.  What resort are you buying direct at $60 a point?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk


There is a range of quality over the resorts of ALL systems.  No doubt DVC has less variability than any of the others.  For Marriott it runs the gamut from Harbour Pointe/Vail to Lakeshore/Crystal Shores.  No doubt all DVC resorts are better than the lowest end and no doubt the highest end Marriott's outpace DVC when you take the emotions out of it which includes the theming issues at VGF.  To me it's the meat of the order when one should compare.  Should you have an AC issue or need a blender, there's a big difference in how this is handled at DVC vs all other systems I play with.  Even compared to Bluegreen and Wyndham, DVC falls way behind in these areas.  OR just compare minor issues in villas/around the resort; DVC doesn't do well there either, they don't seem to have a plan and wait for the full refurbishment or things to be reported.  My experience is that a great resort has a plan for refurbishment, usually 5/10 where 5 is soft goods and 10 the entire villa, and an OK resort has a 6/12 or 7/14 schedule.  DVC has not met this standard even on the lower end though again, there are signs this might be changing or have changed and we haven't cycled through enough to see it completely.  

It was interesting to see a major change a few years ago where a large chunk of those who'd been wearing the rose colored glasses, lost them.  I believe it was the first round of reallocations in the last decade.  It was like you flipped a switch and it seemed about 20% went from being big supporters to barely able to stomach them at all.  On my end to go from being perceived as somewhat attacking them to apologist without any change in my stance was quite interesting.


----------



## dagger1

Dont Disney TS's revert to Disney after a period of years?  You only own for a certain period of time?


----------



## vacationhopeful

Yes, they are RTU timeshare ... not forever. But then again ... it is one way to say, nothing stays the same forever.


----------



## DeeCee

We own DVC for over 17 years. I've had the pleasure of staying in different Marriott's with a friend who owns MVC. We recently purchased an MVC legacy week in HH via direct resale with MVC. 

I can't say one is better than the other. I have to stick with advise given to us 18 years ago to buy where you want to stay the most. We've stayed in Disney's HH resort a few times and we liked it a lot, but....the reason for the MVC purchase is so we can always stay at a beach side property (Disney's is marsh side) and as long as we stick to the booking windows with MVC, we shouldn't have a problem getting it whenever we want. With DVC it was harder to book Disney's HH resort, due to it not being our home DVC resort and the booking window.

I do think the OP's post and the way we each feel about our timeshares is a very personal opinion. Whatever works best for each of us...DVC is my #1 as far as timeshare ownership goes because it's where we like to stay the most and being on property is way more important to us than staying off property. Buying almost 18 years ago means we paid a third of the cost of buying today. If we sell it now, we make good money, but we never looked at making money on the purchase of our timeshares. We went into it understanding that it's like buying a new car. As soon as it's driven off the lot it depreciates!

In our expereince DVC is an easy trade out, we've gone to the places we want with no problem and during high (holdiay) seasons. I haven't tried trading our Marriott yet, so I can't do a comparison.

All in all, if our timeshares get us where we want to go and we understand the costs involved in owning each, we got what we wanted and we're happy with both.


----------



## dagger1

vacationhopeful said:


> Yes, they are RTU timeshare ... not forever. But then again ... it is one way to say, nothing stays the same forever.


But if "Disney is the best" wouldn't I want my children (if they wanted)  to inherit and continue using Disney?


----------



## vacationhopeful

dagger1 said:


> But if "Disney is the best" wouldn't I want my children (if they wanted)  to inherit and continue using Disney?



I would bet, any ownership which gets near the termination time, will get an special price offer to renew at some discounted rate for the original owner ... just "Live Long and Prosper" enough to buy your ownership again.


----------



## dagger1

vacationhopeful said:


> I would bet, any ownership which gets near the termination time, will get an special price offer to renew at some discounted rate for the original owner ... just "Live Long and Prosper" enough to buy your ownership again.


Haha, yes, you're probably exactly right!  An offer to "renew" (read re-buy) at a "special" "today only" price!  Hmmm, where have I heard that before....  Thanks, I will avoid RT(N)U (Right to Not Use) TS's.


----------



## mj2vacation

dagger1 said:


> But if "Disney is the best" wouldn't I want my children (if they wanted)  to inherit and continue using Disney?


I am sure Mickey will be glad to sell the look aid again!

They already offered an extension at OKW.  The process was awful.  

Boardwalk was in queue to be next with a different process and that project was shelved in 2009.


----------



## Dean

vacationhopeful said:


> I would bet, any ownership which gets near the termination time, will get an special price offer to renew at some discounted rate for the original owner ... just "Live Long and Prosper" enough to buy your ownership again.


IMO that's overly optimistic.  First it may not happen and second, if it does, it'll likely approach or pass equivalent retail pricing.  



dagger1 said:


> Dont Disney TS's revert to Disney after a period of years?  You only own for a certain period of time?


I don't see the owned vs RTU as a big deal either way in general but it likely is an issue for the 2042 resorts.


----------



## dahntahn

We bought DVC when our kids were young, paying $24 K for 300 points, and went every year for a long time.  Now kids are grown and we go infrequently.  On years we skip I rent the points for enough that I get about $3000 after paying the maintenance fees.  That is a return of 12.5% on my money, and where can you get that these days?  Meantime we bought 4 Hyatt weeks during the crash years on EBay at huge discounts and are able to vacation in very nice resorts in locations we like, esp. Key West and Bonita Springs, Carmel and Sedona.  Love both Hyatt and Disney.  The kids had a blast when growing up and are Disneyphiles so we haven't sold and await our granddaughter being old enough to go in another year or two.  The Hyatts are versatile enough that we look forward to planning their use as a couple, with kids now grown, or with friends.


----------



## vacationhopeful

Dean said:


> IMO that's overly optimistic.  First it may not happen and second, if it does, it'll likely approach or pass equivalent retail pricing.
> 
> I don't see the owned vs RTU as a big deal either way in general but it likely is an issue for the 2042 resorts.



Corporate DVC is very smart at marketing .... and will look HARD at making an offer to extend an original OWNER or direct family member's DVC expiring ownership by RESELLING the points back to them. If the original family brought at $35 per point and the offer to extend is $XXX per point (where DVC has spent almost no DOLLARS on marketing or commissions send a new certificate and update the computer records) verse selling those points for say, $XXX per point ... DVC would do fine. And I am not saying that the exact terms of ownership would NOT be absolutely the same as the original certificate. DVC might require a additional full price purchase ALSO ... so a _123_ point contract might have to be upgraded to a _231_ point contract. And/or DVC might alter (increase the number of) points required to book resorts & unit sizes. 

I do NOT see DVC saying "Farewell, Good bye" to these very long term DVC families who owned their points for 15 or 20 or 25 plus years .... esp if prices drop on the resale market as the expiration dates approach the "Drop Dead" date.

Disney is NOT going to tear down all the DVC resorts ... could seriously remodel or alter the theme of resorts which could be due to outdated theme park, outdated design (handicap or maintenance issues), structural issues of a building, etc. The Animal Kingdom Park is a big land hog and very expensive to operate ... and part of the DVC resort theme... could be either expanded or just totally terminated. Or the Contemporary Resort (the oldest hotel?) with the monorail running thru it ... on that expensive real estate next to the Magic Kingdom. 

The Orlando park opened in 1971 .... designed in the 1960s. I was living 35 miles from NORTH of the parks for over a year when Disney dropped the rope. Things CHANGED drastically in Central Florida after October, 1971 ... not so much in 1971 or the following couple of years ... but the area drastically was altered within 5 years...new interstates, local roads, airports, schools, towns built. Orlando Airport is NOT MCO (was McCoy Air Force Base in 1971)... Orlando Airport today services mostly private planes. The larger airport for that area in 1970 was Daytona Beach International Airport ... still there with a commercial flight or two daily ... but TODAY most flights are due to Emory Riddle University which sits with direct access to the runways... a school which has expanded from its 1971 days...when I dated a Vietnam vet going to school there.

Almost 46 years for WDW Magic Kingdom Park ... less for the oldest DVC resort incantation... I am sure changes will happen ... if I really, really knew the future for the DVC resorts .. I could make a fortune. Meanwhile, I will just keep using my 90 DVC/AKV points.


----------



## dagger1

Not to beat a dead horse, but why do people keep talking about "buying" DVC?  
They are paying an upfront rental fee to DVC to be allowed to pay their MF's for twenty to forty years, no...?  Then they, or their heirs, must pay another upfront rental fee, maybe, at Disney's discretion.
But there is zero ownership involved.


----------



## mj2vacation

dagger1 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but why do people keep talking about "buying" DVC?
> They are paying an upfront rental fee to DVC to be allowed to pay their MF's for twenty to forty years, no...?  Then they, or their heirs, must pay another upfront rental fee, maybe, at Disney's discretion.
> But there is zero ownership involved.



We can split hairs all day, but in reality, there is a deed involved.  You can search them all day long on the orange co website. 

I think we all get it, it doesn't work for you. You are entitled to your opinion. 

95% of the world thinks timeshare is a scam, yet here we are talking about how great it is. So clearly different opinions are not a bad thing.


----------



## rickandcindy23

My Disney OKW expires 2042.  That is the soonest date for expiration for any DVC resort.  I will be pretty old by then, and our daughter will be my age.  I think we will be okay with the expiration date of OKW.


----------



## silentg

We have an annual Season Pass, which we can go M-F to all 4 parks with blackout days. The good thing Disney did this year for Annual pass holders was a 20% discount on food and merchandise. This was good for us since we didn't need to buy a Tables in Wonderland card. We went to Hollywood Studios yesterday to see the Great Movie Ride, for the last time and we had dinner at the Brown Derby. We get Florida Resident prices on our annual pass since we live in Florida. People ask us why we have a timeshare at OL when we live in the area. I think it's like a membership to a club.we are able to use the facilities at OL for day trips and golf. IMHO OL is one of the best timeshares in Florida.
Silentg


----------



## dagger1

mj2vacation said:


> We can split hairs all day, but in reality, there is a deed involved.  You can search them all day long on the orange co website.
> 
> I think we all get it, it doesn't work for you. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 95% of the world thinks timeshare is a scam, yet here we are talking about how great it is. So clearly different opinions are not a bad thing.


Don't mean to split hairs and varied opinions are what make the world interesting.  I get that renting DVC works for you (until it doesn't when it expires). But my question was about the use of the words "buying" and "ownership", and how something that disappears after a period of time can be considered "best" (per the OP.) A deed that expires is a recorded rental agreement, no?


----------



## silentg

A timeshare RTU is a good option. We have two timeshare weeks that have expiration dates. As in our case, when these weeks expire we will be elderly and will be glad not to have them anymore. We had our first timeshare expire and we didn't renew. We enjoyed the time we had it and don't feel bad about it. There are so many different kinds of timeshares. Just as there are many places to visit.
Silentg


----------



## vacationhopeful

You can record many items .. liens against a property; a contract for services against a property; covenants & restrictions on a property you sold.

Mostly the residual value of a timeshare is very close to ZERO. Age of the resort, condition of the facilities, phase of life for the owners, style of the vacation offered ... like nudist colonies have lost ANY POSSIBLE appeal to me since I have seen more OLD PEOPLE bodies full of flab and scars.


----------



## mj2vacation

dagger1 said:


> A deed that expires is a recorded rental agreement, no?


Nope. Still a deed.


----------



## Braindead

vacationhopeful said:


> . like nudist colonies have lost ANY POSSIBLE appeal to me since I have seen more OLD PEOPLE bodies full of flab and scars.


I didn't know you had to go to a nudist colony to see that. Practically any resort any pool. Especially your snowbird weeks


----------



## vacationhopeful

Braindead said:


> I didn't know you had to go to a nudist colony to see that. Practically any resort any pool. Especially your snowbird weeks



Touche ....  but as a former lifeguard for 2 summers in my youth ... pool attire is not something I judge or really notice.... unless it involves 'cracks' ... frontal or rear view formats.

PS I almost got fired from my first lifeguard job .. I was cleaning the pool in a skimpy 2 piece suit a hour before opening. The BofD's wife stopped by to leave some snacks bar goodies AND objected to my Florida college bikini.  Reminder her ... pool was NOT opened and this was NOT my guard bathing suit.


----------



## Jason245

dagger1 said:


> Don't mean to split hairs and varied opinions are what make the world interesting.  I get that renting DVC works for you (until it doesn't when it expires). But my question was about the use of the words "buying" and "ownership", and how something that disappears after a period of time can be considered "best" (per the OP.) A deed that expires is a recorded rental agreement, no?


All timeshares are a simple financial arraignment.  To be honest having an end date is probably more appealing to some..because at least you know when obligations end and what period to amortize over..

And given that these are interval ownerships. . Everything is a very weak ownership.  Per say.

At end of day.. (not counting time value of money)

Take your buy in price divide by years you plan on using and add that to annual mf.  That is your cash rental price for that year. 

If you can get that same price without a commitment.. great don't buy. .if you cant..and fully intend to use.. then buy (and the savings is your roi)..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Dean

vacationhopeful said:


> Corporate DVC is very smart at marketing .... and will look HARD at making an offer to extend an original OWNER or direct family member's DVC expiring ownership by RESELLING the points back to them. If the original family brought at $35 per point and the offer to extend is $XXX per point (where DVC has spent almost no DOLLARS on marketing or commissions send a new certificate and update the computer records) verse selling those points for say, $XXX per point ... DVC would do fine. And I am not saying that the exact terms of ownership would NOT be absolutely the same as the original certificate. DVC might require a additional full price purchase ALSO ... so a _123_ point contract might have to be upgraded to a _231_ point contract. And/or DVC might alter (increase the number of) points required to book resorts & unit sizes.
> 
> I do NOT see DVC saying "Farewell, Good bye" to these very long term DVC families who owned their points for 15 or 20 or 25 plus years .... esp if prices drop on the resale market as the expiration dates approach the "Drop Dead" date.
> 
> Disney is NOT going to tear down all the DVC resorts ... could seriously remodel or alter the theme of resorts which could be due to outdated theme park, outdated design (handicap or maintenance issues), structural issues of a building, etc. The Animal Kingdom Park is a big land hog and very expensive to operate ... and part of the DVC resort theme... could be either expanded or just totally terminated. Or the Contemporary Resort (the oldest hotel?) with the monorail running thru it ... on that expensive real estate next to the Magic Kingdom.
> 
> The Orlando park opened in 1971 .... designed in the 1960s. I was living 35 miles from NORTH of the parks for over a year when Disney dropped the rope. Things CHANGED drastically in Central Florida after October, 1971 ... not so much in 1971 or the following couple of years ... but the area drastically was altered within 5 years...new interstates, local roads, airports, schools, towns built. Orlando Airport is NOT MCO (was McCoy Air Force Base in 1971)... Orlando Airport today services mostly private planes. The larger airport for that area in 1970 was Daytona Beach International Airport ... still there with a commercial flight or two daily ... but TODAY most flights are due to Emory Riddle University which sits with direct access to the runways... a school which has expanded from its 1971 days...when I dated a Vietnam vet going to school there.
> 
> Almost 46 years for WDW Magic Kingdom Park ... less for the oldest DVC resort incantation... I am sure changes will happen ... if I really, really knew the future for the DVC resorts .. I could make a fortune. Meanwhile, I will just keep using my 90 DVC/AKV points.


You give them more credit than I do but we'll see.  Certainly the OKW extension was a bust measured by participation.




mj2vacation said:


> Nope. Still a deed.


Technically a deed but more of a trust in function.


----------



## ljmiii

dagger1 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but why do people keep talking about "buying" DVC?...But there is zero ownership involved.


No timeshare purchase is 'ownership' in the sense you seem to mean. DVC owners have a known end date but all timeshare 'owners' are subject to the whims of the company that actually owns and/or manages the property.

MVCI is certainly not the worst of the timeshare bunch. But we saw with the introduction of MVCI's DP program - and more importantly how MVCI chose to implement it  - that Marriott had no problem overriding what the governing docs said about their customer's 'ownership', then changing the docs to meet their needs, then persuading the Florida legislature to change their timeshare laws to retroactively make everything they did nice and legal.

So yes, some properties are governed by docs that state the timeshares are RTUs with rights reverting to the original owner/developer, some are RTUs with rights distributed to the buyers, and some have no end date. But the 'ownership' of all of them differ only in degree not in kind.


----------



## dagger1

> ... So yes, some properties are governed by docs that state the timeshares are RTUs with rights reverting to the original owner/developer, some are RTUs with rights distributed to the buyers, and some have no end date. But the 'ownership' of all of them differ only in degree not in kind.



Thanks for the clarification.  I guess if I (and my family) like my Timeshare System/Developer enough to want to pass it down through inheritance, I will avoid RTU's.  I appreciate the info.


----------



## ajl189

How were you able to sell at a profit when you purchased at cast discount? That's a violation of contract terms. 



mj2vacation said:


> We owned 1000 points with Disney at one point.  We made money on every contract when we sold.
> 
> Our Grand Californian contracts sold for nearly double what we paid for them, not factoring any use of them and the developer points that we received when we purchased.
> 
> Granted we received a cast discount on that purchase, but anyone who purchased Grand Cal, Beach Club, Grand Floridian are sitting pretty in regard to what they paid vs sale price.
> 
> DVC is a fairly liquid product.  Very easy to sell.  All 9 contacts that we sold were full price offers and we had contracts within 48 hours for all.
> 
> Marriott is our other favorite and even with us buying early on with an associate discount, we would lose money if we sold.
> 
> Is DVC the best for everyone in every situation ?  Hell no.  But for the niche of a niche that it fits for, it's hard to beat.


----------



## mj2vacation

ajl189 said:


> How were you able to sell at a profit when you purchased at cast discount? That's a violation of contract terms.



It's not a violation of terms.  I just sent an email to legal when I still worked there.  They just try to prevent flipping.  

We purchased ours for personal use, but after a few years decided to invest the money into a business.  Can't complain. We used the heck out of ot!  

Still have 200 points.


----------



## blondietink

Our first timeshare purchase was 12 years ago at DVC and it was great when our kids were little and we went to WDW at least once a year.  We haven't been back to WDW in over 3 years and until they finish Star Wars land, we probably won't be back.  Instead we have been using our DVC at Aulani in Hawaii.  Yes, DVC has held it's value and the resorts are very nice, but the choices are limited  to mostly Florida/Orlando.  

We also own Vistana/Starwood. and find the resorts are just as nice, some better than DVC and the system is much more flexible and has more variety to pick from .... Mexico, Bahamas, Hawaii, California, Arizona, etc.  Now with the Vistana merge into the ILG group, it's even better and with Starwood merging into Marriott, more choices on the hotel side.  Both systems have their positives and negatives, but we are happy with our choices.


----------



## Lisa P

ljmiii said:


> No timeshare purchase is 'ownership' in the sense you seem to mean. DVC owners have a known end date but all timeshare 'owners' are subject to the whims of the company that actually owns and/or manages the property.


When people own a condo (full ownership), they are "subject to the whims" of the HOA.  Timeshare owners of a fixed-week of a condo in an HOA-managed resort, "subject to the whims" of the HOA in the same way.  Deeded timeshares are "owned" since they include a deed to real estate, however broadly divided.  One cannot dispute that these are "owners" in the traditional sense of ownership of real estate.

Vacation Clubs (like DVC) have always used language as a marketing ploy:  DVC distanced themselves from Right-To-Use "timeshare" by describing DVC as a "vacation club" and a "piece of the magic", to assign a different social acceptability to their RTU timeshare.  In the 1990s, some considered it deceptive for it's time, and all considered it _very_ effective marketing.  The DVC product offers RTU rights to a leasehold agreement, not to a deed, and so it is not "ownership" in real estate.  This has always been a point of contention for some.  Whatever DVC calls itself, it is a RTU timeshare and subject to timeshare laws, so its purchases must be recorded with the county.  That does not make it "ownership" in the real estate sense.

In recent years, DVC chose to distinguished rights to the leasehold-only vs. rights within the Club.  Again, they used language as a marketing ploy.  This time, they used the terms "owners" vs. "members" in order to assign a "members-only" exclusivity to developer purchasers.  Again, their selection of words ("owner" when there is no real estate ownership) is a point of contention as it appears deceptive.

After all, with DVC (or any RTU vacation club) there are no deed owners, no real estate owners outside of the developer, only lessees.  Mostly very happy lessees but lessees, nonetheless.


----------



## dagger1

Lisa P said:


> When people own a condo (full ownership), they are "subject to the whims" of the HOA.  Timeshare owners of a fixed-week of a condo in an HOA-managed resort, "subject to the whims" of the HOA in the same way.  Deeded timeshares are "owned" since they include a deed to real estate, however broadly divided.  One cannot dispute that these are "owners" in the traditional sense of ownership of real estate.
> 
> Vacation Clubs (like DVC) have always used language as a marketing ploy:  DVC distanced themselves from Right-To-Use "timeshare" by describing DVC as a "vacation club" and a "piece of the magic", to assign a different social acceptability to their RTU timeshare.  In the 1990s, some considered it deceptive for it's time, and all considered it _very_ effective marketing.  The DVC product offers RTU rights to a leasehold agreement, not to a deed, and so it is not "ownership" in real estate.  This has always been a point of contention for some.  Whatever DVC calls itself, it is a RTU timeshare and subject to timeshare laws, so its purchases must be recorded with the county.  That does not make it "ownership" in the real estate sense.
> 
> In recent years, DVC chose to distinguished rights to the leasehold-only vs. rights within the Club.  Again, they used language as a marketing ploy.  This time, they used the terms "owners" vs. "members" in order to assign a "members-only" exclusivity to developer purchasers.  Again, their selection of words ("owner" when there is no real estate ownership) is a point of contention as it appears deceptive.
> 
> After all, with DVC (or any RTU vacation club) there are no deed owners, no real estate owners outside of the developer, only lessees.  Mostly very happy lessees but lessees, nonetheless.


Thank you!   Very informative!


----------



## chalee94

Lisa P said:


> After all, with DVC (or any RTU vacation club) there are no deed owners, no real estate owners outside of the developer, only lessees.  Mostly very happy lessees but lessees, nonetheless.



Well, "lessees" who actually do *own* an asset that in many cases they can sell for more than they paid for it.  I don't have a traditional real estate deed but I do have something that is still worth thousands of dollars that I can convey to another "owner."  For most of us simpletons, that is what "ownership" means.

While some are eager to pass a decrepit old building on to their heirs (with the increasing likelihood of major repairs and renovation), having an end date seems like a workable tradeoff for other people who want to limit some of the risk.

It's only a "marketing ploy" because so many of the deeded real estate timeshares have such a bad reputation for owners who want to get out and find it's a lot more difficult than they expected. Generally, you find out within the first hour of research about DVC that it's more like a lease arrangement with a specified end date, so it's amusing that you consider it to be misleading.

I have one DVC contract that should expire around the time that I do, which works fine for me - and if I decide to sell it, it would be under contract by the end of that day.  I also have one deeded timeshare that might be challenging to unload if I decide to get rid of it (but fortunately, it only cost a dollar - and it cost that because I bought a liability more than an asset, deeded or not).  But I understand what I bought in each case and each one has worked great so far for its intended purpose.


----------



## dagger1

chalee94 said:


> Well, "lessees" who actually do *own* an asset that in many cases they can sell for more than they paid for it.  I don't have a traditional real estate deed but I do have something that is still worth thousands of dollars that I can convey to another "owner."  For most of us simpletons, that is what "ownership" means.
> 
> While some are eager to pass a decrepit old building on to their heirs (with the increasing likelihood of major repairs and renovation), having an end date seems like a workable tradeoff for other people who want to limit some of the risk.
> 
> It's only a "marketing ploy" because so many of the deeded real estate timeshares have such a bad reputation for owners who want to get out and find it's a lot more difficult than they expected. Generally, you find out within the first hour of research about DVC that it's more like a lease arrangement with a specified end date, so it's amusing that you consider it to be misleading.
> 
> I have one DVC contract that should expire around the time that I do, which works fine for me - and if I decide to sell it, it would be under contract by the end of that day.  I also have one deeded timeshare that might be challenging to unload if I decide to get rid of it (but fortunately, it only cost a dollar - and it cost that because I bought a liability more than an asset, deeded or not).  But I understand what I bought in each case and each one has worked great so far for its intended purpose.


All timeshares "expire" at the owner's death, heirs do not have to accept them.  I plan on leaving, specified in my will, any timeshares my children don't want (possibly one or all Wyndham CWA contracts) to the Timeshare Developer/Manager/HOA.  However TS's that my children do want, such as Hyatt fixed ski/floating summer weeks and Marriott Ko'Olina I can and will leave to them.   Per selling a "Vacation Club"  near it's expiration date, it's hard to understand why anybody would buy it.


----------



## Dean

dagger1 said:


> All timeshares "expire" at the owner's death, heirs do not have to accept them.  I plan on leaving, specified in my will, any timeshares my children don't want (possibly one or all Wyndham CWA contracts) to the Timeshare Developer/Manager/HOA.  However TS's that my children do want, such as Hyatt fixed ski/floating summer weeks and Marriott Ko'Olina I can and will leave to them.   Per selling a "Vacation Club"  near it's expiration date, it's hard to understand why anybody would buy it.


That is an ineffective method of risk control in this situation since they don't have to accept it and most wouldn't unless it had real value anyway.  The estate wouldn't be able to close until this issue were truly settled.


----------



## dagger1

Dean said:


> That is an ineffective method of risk control in this situation since they don't have to accept it and most wouldn't unless it had real value anyway.  The estate wouldn't be able to close until this issue were truly settled.


Thanks for the tip.  But am I correct that heirs do not have to accept TS's either if in the estate at death?


----------



## Dean

dagger1 said:


> Thanks for the tip.  But am I correct that heirs do not have to accept TS's either if in the estate at death?


I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding.  Just the estate cannot be settled and proceeds dispersed until this is taken care of.  What I've been told is the courts can remove it and often will after 1-1.5 yrs if petitioned to do so.  There are ways to get this done if it has not value and has been non performing (fees not being paid).  I don't think they're normally going after assets but they could.  This is something to discuss with your executor and leave clear directions on.


----------



## chalee94

dagger1 said:


> Per selling a "Vacation Club"  near it's expiration date, it's hard to understand why anybody would buy it.



As some of the more knowledgeable TUG members like to say, "the value of a timeshare is in its use."

If you want to be onsite at WDW, there's only one game in town and they won't sell you the land underneath, regardless (unless you pony up several million to buy in at the Golden Oak development.) DVC is a niche product that has an appeal to those with a bit of a Disney obsession. Even if it doesn't fit the constraints for your definition of "real estate", it does have a financial value as an asset that has endured - making words like "buy" and "owner" completely appropriate. It will eventually hit a value of zero, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who is semi-conscious.

(But sure - it's kinda like how it's hard to understand why a poster who claims to have no interest in beating a dead horse keeps doing so in a forum for a timeshare system that they claim to have no interest in - "mild obsession" would again seem to be the most accurate answer...)


----------



## mj2vacation

Golden Oak was deannexed from RCID before development


----------



## dagger1

chalee94 said:


> As some of the more knowledgeable TUG members like to say, "the value of a timeshare is in its use."
> 
> If you want to be onsite at WDW, there's only one game in town and they won't sell you the land underneath, regardless (unless you pony up several million to buy in at the Golden Oak development.) DVC is a niche product that has an appeal to those with a bit of a Disney obsession. Even if it doesn't fit the constraints for your definition of "real estate", it does have a financial value as an asset that has endured - making words like "buy" and "owner" completely appropriate. It will eventually hit a value of zero, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who is semi-conscious.
> 
> (But sure - it's kinda like how it's hard to understand why a poster who claims to have no interest in beating a dead horse keeps doing so in a forum for a timeshare system that they claim to have no interest in - "mild obsession" would again seem to be the most accurate answer...)[/QUOTE
> 
> Haha, no Mickey obsession, although we will be there in December.  But obviously a nerve has been struck, so enjoy....


----------



## brianfox

My wife and I chose Marriott weeks resale over DVC point resale mainly because Marriott was not an RTU timeshare.  Well, that and the unreasonably high price of DVC points.

No matter how we sliced it, we couldn't see the "Deed extension" as anything other than a looming Special Assessment of 3x-5x MF that we knew about years in advance. I am basing that off what OKW owners paid for their extension.  

Clearly the resale value of DVC points will diminish in value as the deed expiration draws nearer.  And the resale value will jump back again when owner extends the deed.  OKW resales are evidence of this.  But it doesn't change the fact that the owner had a big assessment that a Marriott weeks owner would not have.

Am I missing something?  I mean, clearly people are buying despite this.  I guess it's Disney Magic.


----------



## Dean

chalee94 said:


> As some of the more knowledgeable TUG members like to say, "the value of a timeshare is in its use."
> 
> If you want to be onsite at WDW, there's only one game in town and they won't sell you the land underneath, regardless (unless you pony up several million to buy in at the Golden Oak development.) DVC is a niche product that has an appeal to those with a bit of a Disney obsession. Even if it doesn't fit the constraints for your definition of "real estate", it does have a financial value as an asset that has endured - making words like "buy" and "owner" completely appropriate. It will eventually hit a value of zero, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who is semi-conscious.
> 
> (But sure - it's kinda like how it's hard to understand why a poster who claims to have no interest in beating a dead horse keeps doing so in a forum for a timeshare system that they claim to have no interest in - "mild obsession" would again seem to be the most accurate answer...)


Charles, the issue with timeshares is you don't generally get more than you pay for but you often get a lot less.  But understanding the system(s) helps you figure that out.  Threads like this help more than just the posters, they helps others who read but don't post and often, who read later.


----------



## rhonda

brianfox said:


> Am I missing something?  I mean, clearly people are buying despite this.  I guess it's Disney Magic.


Location, location, location.

Our purchase was driven largely to be w/in walking distance of the Dolphin/Swan Conference centers.  The conference expected you to take advantage of 'on-campus housing' (discounted hotel rates at the Dolphin, Swan, Yacht Club and Beach Club) and had zero-tolerance for self-parking.  So, *walking distance was our limit and DVC was the only timeshare that fit that criteria*.  After nearly two decades of attending the conference, it has ended (technically: 'moved on to new locations' but no need to go into that ...).  Now we get to use our points for other stuff ... like, um, vacation purposes.  In this mode, *location is still valuable as it means never driving when visiting WDW*.  We quite enjoy the Magical Express service: go direct from plane to bus to resort.  We are happy to use Disney's transportation between parks, hotels, shopping, and dining.  We've also appreciated some of the new properties added to the club since our purchase -- especially the Grand Cal and Aulani.  And DVC gave me my "holy grail" of timesharing: The Manhattan Club over Thanksgiving for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.  Yippie.  Loved that.

For what it is worth, I'll either be 91 or long gone when my DVC expires.  Neither the contract expiration nor diminished value in its last decade worry me.


----------



## chalee94

brianfox said:


> My wife and I chose Marriott weeks resale over DVC point resale mainly because Marriott was not an RTU timeshare.  Well, that and the unreasonably high price of DVC points.



For offsite stays in Orlando, Marriott is a great choice.  I've stayed at most of the Marriotts in Orlando as well as Vegas, Newport Coast, St Kitts and Williamsburg (and several at Hilton Head).  It's a great system and a great choice.



> No matter how we sliced it, we couldn't see the "Deed extension" as anything other than a looming Special Assessment of 3x-5x MF that we knew about years in advance. I am basing that off what OKW owners paid for their extension.



I don't really expect other DVC resorts to do an extension.  I would count on the years on the contract (and as Dean will tell you, maybe not even the last year or so of that) rather than hoping for an extension.



> Clearly the resale value of DVC points will diminish in value as the deed expiration draws nearer.  And the resale value will jump back again when owner extends the deed. But it doesn't change the fact that the owner had a big assessment that a Marriott weeks owner would not have.



The value of a DVC contract will hit zero at some point. But demand for onsite rooms at WDW keeps prices up for the time being.

Resale value for extended OKW contracts have yet to "jump back."  There is a small premium of half or less of the $15 per pt that extenders might have paid for the additional years.  Presumably, eventually there will be more of a gap.

As the Marriott resorts age, I suspect your calculations about special assessments will be a bit off.  Sabal Palms is only 30 years old and how does it compare to newer resorts like Lakeshore Reserve? A major assessment in the next 20 years doesn't seem impossible.  How much did the Vistana owners pay a few years ago to bring that resort back up to standard (seems like it was at least 1x-2x MFs)?



> Am I missing something?  I mean, clearly people are buying despite this.  I guess it's Disney Magic.



If you want to be onsite at WDW, it's the best deal going.  For timeshares onsite, it's the only deal going.  (RCI trades seem to have gotten pretty limited, but might still work if you want SSR.)

IMO, posters on this website get much too prissy about RTUs vs perpetual.  Most DVC owners and those considering DVC ownership are looking at what gets them the best deal for staying onsite at WDW every year or so.  If you don't care about staying onsite at all, Marriott is a much better choice.  But if someone really wants to stay onsite at WDW, owning MVC won't do them any good.


----------



## ljmiii

chalee94 said:


> I don't really expect other DVC resorts to do an extension. I would count on the years on the contract (and as Dean will tell you, maybe not even the last year or so of that) rather than hoping for an extension.


"Count on"...no. "Expect"...yes. This is (to say the least) an issue that is oft discussed in more Disney-centric forums. And I've read from reasonably reliable sources that at least as of last year neither WDW nor DVC knows what it will do about another extension.

That said...we do know a few things. The rollout for the OKW extension was something of a disaster. There are five resorts (six if you count OKW) that expire in 2042 so DVC is unlikely to demolish and reconstruct all of them at the same time. It is unlikely that most current owners would want (or be able to afford) a full 50 year extension of their lease at then current direct prices. And simply letting the contracts simultaneously expire for somewhere between a third and a half of DVC's customers would be a logistical and PR nightmare. DVC can only move so much inventory at at time....[re]selling that many timeshares all at once in the face of bad publicity just isn't going to happen.

So I expect that existing 2042 owners (and/or their heirs) will at some point be offered a 15-20 year extension. And perhaps one or two of the 2042 resorts will be blown up and replaced with larger resorts as part of a 'DVC 50th Anniversary' celebration. But I don't count on it in my planning.


----------



## Dean

ljmiii said:


> "Count on"...no. "Expect"...yes. This is (to say the least) an issue that is oft discussed in more Disney-centric forums. And I've read from reasonably reliable sources that at least as of last year neither WDW nor DVC knows what it will do about another extension.
> 
> That said...we do know a few things. The rollout for the OKW extension was something of a disaster. There are five resorts (six if you count OKW) that expire in 2042 so DVC is unlikely to demolish and reconstruct all of them at the same time. It is unlikely that most current owners would want (or be able to afford) a full 50 year extension of their lease at then current direct prices. And simply letting the contracts simultaneously expire for somewhere between a third and a half of DVC's customers would be a logistical and PR nightmare. DVC can only move so much inventory at at time....[re]selling that many timeshares all at once in the face of bad publicity just isn't going to happen.
> 
> So I expect that existing 2042 owners (and/or their heirs) will at some point be offered a 15-20 year extension. And perhaps one or two of the 2042 resorts will be blown up and replaced with larger resorts as part of a 'DVC 50th Anniversary' celebration. But I don't count on it in my planning.


I'd give it 50/50 as to it happening and less than 10% that it'll be reasonable for the membership to actually do so.  I haven't seen any good rumors that it'll actually happen, just lots of speculation that they assume it would sometimes from reasonable people.  The % of points involved is far less than 1/3


----------



## littlestar

brianfox said:


> No matter how we sliced it, we couldn't see the "Deed extension" as anything other than a looming Special Assessment of 3x-5x MF that we knew about years in advance. I am basing that off what OKW owners paid for their extension.
> 
> Clearly the resale value of DVC points will diminish in value as the deed expiration draws nearer.  And the resale value will jump back again when owner extends the deed.  OKW resales are evidence of this.  But it doesn't change the fact that the owner had a big assessment that a Marriott weeks owner would not have.
> 
> Am I missing something?  I mean, clearly people are buying despite this.  I guess it's Disney Magic.


 
There is risk with Marriott, too.  There have been Marriott's that got special assessments.  And there have been former Marriott's that lost their resort affiliation with Marriott. (We own both DVC and Marriott).


----------



## mj2vacation

littlestar said:


> There is risk with Marriott, too.  There have been Marriott's that got special assessments.  And there have been former Marriott's that lost their resort affiliation with Marriott. (We own both DVC and Marriott).



Marriott has so far only moved away from resorts that it acquired, not built.  Swallowtail, Spicebush, and parts of the Vail resort.

It could happen, see the RItz Clubs in Jupiter and Aspen. My sense is that was owner driven not MVC driven.

As to DVC extensions, Boardwalk was close to happening. It was a different model to OKW.  OKW was a cluster from nearly all aspects, but it was much more successful than you would think.


----------



## Lisa P

Just wondering... 

Some timeshare resorts have separate floors or buildings on campus with varied usage and ownership.  Whole ownership units, nightly rental space, timeshare condos.  Is there any reason that a timeshare developer/manager could not acquire sufficient points or floating weeks to re-designate the usage of some units or buildings?  Could they start selling them as whole ownership condos or renovate them to better suit rental demand at the time?  Or gut and renovate one building at a time to a "new resort" for new sales?


----------



## Dean

Lisa P said:


> Just wondering...
> 
> Some timeshare resorts have separate floors or buildings on campus with varied usage and ownership.  Whole ownership units, nightly rental space, timeshare condos.  Is there any reason that a timeshare developer/manager could not acquire sufficient points or floating weeks to re-designate the usage of some units or buildings?  Could they start selling them as whole ownership condos or renovate them to better suit rental demand at the time?  Or gut and renovate one building at a time to a "new resort" for new sales?


It would depend on the circumstances and set up of the club/timeshare.  For DVC they will own them in their entirety except for OKW unless they are extended.  For OKW it's an interesting discussion.  Since OKW is likely to finish the 2042 conversion with DVD owning roughly half, they will obviously need a plan.  They would reduce the size and use the rest for other things like college programs much like they did THV prior, they would resell, they could rent, pretty much anything.  Any options not included in the POS as an immediate option would be an easy change that they've have control over.


----------



## Dean

mj2vacation said:


> Marriott has so far only moved away from resorts that it acquired, not built.  Swallowtail, Spicebush, and parts of the Vail resort.
> 
> It could happen, see the RItz Clubs in Jupiter and Aspen. My sense is that was owner driven not MVC driven.
> 
> As to DVC extensions, Boardwalk was close to happening. It was a different model to OKW.  OKW was a cluster from nearly all aspects, but it was much more successful than you would think.


That's true, add Loon, Longboat, Saturday villas and the Caribbean resort to the list.  However, they did threaten BeachPlace over a battler with the BOD related to refurbishements I understand and Aruba Surf Club has had some Rocky times as well.  And Vail all components were at risk.  Eventually we will see them move from something they built, Maybe Sunset Pointe.


----------



## chalee94

mj2vacation said:


> As to DVC extensions, Boardwalk was close to happening. It was a different model to OKW.  OKW was a cluster from nearly all aspects, but it was much more successful than you would think.



What was the planned model for BWV, hypothetically speaking?

I would have expected Disney to want to start over with BWV in particular to raise the point costs (especially for the standard view villas)...


----------



## Lisa P

ljmiii said:


> ...simply letting the contracts simultaneously expire for somewhere between a third and a half of DVC's customers would be a logistical and PR nightmare. DVC can only move so much inventory at at time....[re]selling that many timeshares all at once in the face of bad publicity just isn't going to happen.





Dean said:


> For OKW it's an interesting discussion.  Since OKW is likely to finish the 2042 conversion with DVD owning roughly half, they will obviously need a plan.


This is what makes me wonder... so they could initiate a cheap buy back (ROFR) of points 5-15 years ahead, or whenever prices start falling as expiration nears.  Contracts recouped earlier could feed projects to re-purpose or redesign/renovate resorts or sections of resorts.  This could spread out their new sales over a longer period.

There are longer term (minimum rental = 1 month; maximum rental = 5 months per year) vacation properties in some places.  Restrictions prevent primary residency, occupancy for less than 6 months.  Considering how many snowbirds pull their expensive RVs into Disney's campground for weeks, I would think monthly rentals of OKW condos would be very popular.   I can only imagine what a monthly rental would cost.  Could DVC do this?


----------



## Dean

There are some challenges to what DVD could do with the portion it owns but the reality is they really have almost total control including the ability to make changes in the POS that would benefit them for this type of goal.  I'm not sure there's a cheap buy back potential until it nears the end.  They only take points ROFR which means there would have to be a buyer on the hook.  And knowing their profit on points into the future is roughly 50% on new construction, what would be cheap to us would not be to DVD.  In todays dollars NOW we'd be talking down in the $10-20 a point, less as the end nears, to make it a viable concept.  They really will have some challenges because technically the entire resort will be in the club if they don't alter the POS and if they go too far in that area, they'd need the membership to vote on it, which they clearly don't want to happen.  Otherwise, and with the current rules, DVD will have to reserve just like the rest of us to rent or use for other things.  I can't imagine they'd be able to sell it as a new venture for a price they'd consider reasonable.  I suppose they could go through and raze the buildings a couple at a time and build a new resort to resell but they'd still have to let the membership reserve until 2057.  I don't see they'll be able to rent for cash sufficient to make it viable either.  It should be interesting and there should be some fun threads.


----------



## chriskre

I love my DVC like most who own do.
If you value staying on site it's a no brainer, but if you want bigger units to just relax and do a pool/resort day 
or week, then there are certainly many Orlando options that are much better.  
If you aren't doing the parks then most of the big names are great alternatives.

I use half my points and rent the other half, bank and borrow to get what I want for a splurge here and there.
As an owner the rentals help it pay for itself so the hit of purchasing direct has never bothered me much.
If I have to sell, I know I won't have a problem.  That's just a plus.


----------



## tgropp

Marriott MF's are increasing at an alarming rate compared to Disney
Points purchased from Disney are now worth at least 30% more than what I paid for them
Marriott points purchased are 75% less than originally purchased.
Dare to guess what in my opinion the better product is?


----------



## frank808

tgropp said:


> Marriott MF's are increasing at an alarming rate compared to Disney
> Points purchased from Disney are now worth at least 30% more than what I paid for them
> Marriott points purchased are 75% less than originally purchased.
> Dare to guess what in my opinion the better product is?


Secret to mvc is not buy their points.  Buy resale legacy weeks.  You cannot buy weeks direct anymore, only via resale.  MVC points was rolled out about 7 years ago to make use of all those bronze and silver weeks that were worthless and getting expensive to pay maintenance fees on.  

They create a "trust" with points and turn those worthless weeks into $$$!  Then MVC can sell points at a little over $10 originally.  

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk


----------



## heathpack

Last Sunday, I decided to rent my VGC points.  I've been very busy, so I went with a broker.  Filled out my paperwork and less than 24 hours later, the points were rented for $5.61 per point over my MF.

Sweet


----------



## SusanU

rhonda said:


> April 4, 2016





famy27 said:


> I own Wyndham and DVC. I bought Wyndham resale in 2008 and DVC in Oct 2015, so I am a DVC "member" and get all of the discounts and events. I can't use my points for the cruises and such, but I would never do that anyway.
> 
> Going from Wyndham to DVC has been a shock to the system. I am so used to Wyndham nickel-and-diming us with transaction fees, housekeeping fees, guest certificates, etc. that I was completely shocked to find out the DVC charges me absolutely nothing. I changed one reservation four time, and I paid zero fees. I've done numerous stays of one or two nights. No fees. I rent out half of my points and cover all of my MFs for the year, so my stays are free. I could resell my points tomorrow for more than I paid two years ago. I agree that OKW needs a refresh (which it is getting), but I think the other resorts are in great shape (and I've stayed at almost all of them in the past few years). We absolutely loved Poly and would buy points there if I could find room in the budget. So, I guess what I'm saying, is that I find it hard to disagree with the OP.



And don't forget no more pressure every day of your vacation to attend a "lying" Owners Update!!!


----------



## famy27

SusanU said:


> And don't forget no more pressure every day of your vacation to attend a "lying" Owners Update!!!



So true! I've done one DVC presentation and it was so low-key and no pressure. And nobody makes me go to the "parking pass desk" to be sweet talked and/or harassed into attending a presentation. All with fun lies that it's informational, or a survey, or a social event. Shut up, Wyndham.


----------

