Has anyone projected future dues for each resort thru the end of each contract?

[Massachusetts]

It would also be interesting to project our dues for the last 7-15 years of resort operation, assuming that capital reserves will wind down toward zero. Even if routine maintenance costs accelerate, that could put a lot of downward pressure on end-of-life due costs. We'll see....

That we shall! My bet is that Disney is still going to fund capital reserves through the life of the contract. It may not be fair but I don't see them cutting owners a break as 2042 approaches.

 

[CarolynFH]

That we shall! My bet is that Disney is still going to fund capital reserves through the life of the contract. It may not be fair but I don't see them cutting owners a break as 2042 approaches.

There may be laws against that - e.g. that DVC can’t collect dues to build up reserves to pay for a new roof that won’t be needed until five years after the condo association ceases to exist - but I’m not sure. Hopefully someone knowledgeable will respond - @Sandisw or @drusba, do you know?

 

[Cabius]

There may be laws against that - e.g. that DVC can’t collect dues to build up reserves to pay for a new roof that won’t be needed until five years after the condo association ceases to exist - but I’m not sure. Hopefully someone knowledgeable will respond - @Sandisw or @drusba, do you know?

Or, that once the association disappears that the dues have to be paid out to association members as a credit rather than handed over to Disney? But who knows...

 

[chalee94]

That we shall! My bet is that Disney is still going to fund capital reserves through the life of the contract. It may not be fair but I don't see them cutting owners a break as 2042 approaches.

Fair is one thing.

Legal is another.

Pretty sure that is not legal. But we'll see how it plays out...

https://www.disboards.com/threads/okw-extension-papers-lockout-mentioned.1828679/page-2

DVC92 said:

This was a complaint I initiated with the Florida Timeshare Bureau concerning the extension. Responding to the complaint, DVD agreed to provide a developer subsidy to all members who elect to not participate in the extension. The Executive Counsel for WDW, John McGowan stated:

"....we agree that members who elect not to extend should not be required to fund capital repairs after 2042. However, Section 721.13(3)(c)(3), F.S., provides that full funding of reserves can only be waived by a majority of the members. Consequently, as part of the OKW Extension, DVD, as developer, has already agreed with the association to provide a developer subsidy at the appropriate time (the association is obviously not yet funding capital reserves for capital replacements after 2042) to all members who elect not to participate in the OKW Extension. The purpose of the developer subsidy is to pay a portion of such member's capital reserve assessments in an amount sufficient to fully fund capital reserves and to relieve all such members of the obligations to fund capital replacements after 2042. Thus, DVD has committed to the association that neither.....nor any other members who elect not to extend will pay any reserve assessments for capital improvements made after 2042."

 

[Judique]

Bumping this back up as a 2042 owner since 2000, and in my retirement years, it's pretty interesting to me.

4 contracts - 2 of which are Vero and HH, but both are small. The other two are BWV and BCV - no worries! I've been watching these first two carefully with the possibility of selling in the back of my mind. Each time I've considered selling Vero, the points were/are still cheaper than buying more points elsewhere (not cheap) or renting points to replace them for a few years. Right now, it's cheaper to use them than to replace them. But I think their time in my account is coming to an end fairly soon. I may give it another year or two. Or not.

HH is a little more difficult as there's an attachment there. But chopping block could come.

Bottom line is my actual allotted budget for traveling/vacationing. It's fairly substantial and I don't see these increases overall as a challenge to it. But at the same time, just because I can afford to pay for something doesn't mean I'm going to keep wanting it at a certain price point - ie Vero, then HH, and on through all 4 contracts.

At expiry, I'll be 88. Disney has been a great addition to my family life, but all in all, not all my immediate family cares that much. Probably because they've had this for a good part of their lives. So, although every so often I get a little rush to increase my points, common sense prevails and I move on.

 

[Cfabar1]

2042 will be interesting.... I am not comfortable buying a 2042 resort as I'll be too young for that to be practical... Even the 2060ish resorts will put me in my 70s, I'd prefer to be around 85 when they expire, as I Just don't see using it too much after that point.

Nevertheless, I am curious about what 2042 has in store... I'd consider a SAP OKW contract with 2042 if I weren't convinced I wouldn't end up paying massive subsidies to Disney for them to build the post-2042 OKW accommodations.....

 

[CastAStone]

Each time I've considered selling Vero, the points were/are still cheaper than buying more points elsewhere (not cheap) or renting points to replace them for a few years. Right now, it's cheaper to use them than to replace them. But I think their time in my account is coming to an end fairly soon. I may give it another year or two. Or not.

My biggest concern with Vero is that, as the dues go up, and the price you can get for it goes down, you become one natural disaster away from an assessment and insurance premium increase that makes the contract unsellable, and maybe even impossible to dispose.

The odds of that are very small in any 1 year, but I don’t know, if I owned there, I would probably be trying to sell now while I was sure there was still value to it.

 

[Judique]

My biggest concern with Vero is that, as the dues go up, and the price you can get for it goes down, you become one natural disaster away from an assessment and insurance premium increase that makes the contract unsellable, and maybe even impossible to dispose.

The odds of that are very small in any 1 year, but I don’t know, if I owned there, I would probably be trying to sell now while I was sure there was still value to it.

Great point! I've actually had this on my mind as well, but sort of want to stick my head in the sand over the idea of a disaster, just like these people buying houses too close to the ocean.

 

[Coronator]

My biggest concern with Vero is that, as the dues go up, and the price you can get for it goes down, you become one natural disaster away from an assessment and insurance premium increase that makes the contract unsellable, and maybe even impossible to dispose.

The odds of that are very small in any 1 year, but I don’t know, if I owned there, I would probably be trying to sell now while I was sure there was still value to it.

I’m pretty sure if a disaster wiped out Vero (or any DVC property) the association can essentially dissolve itself if it doesn’t make financial sense to continue. I’m no expert on these things, but I think there are limits on what would be reasonable if a worst case scenario occurred.

 

[Judique]

I’m pretty sure if a disaster wiped out Vero (or any DVC property) the association can essentially dissolve itself if it doesn’t make financial sense to continue. I’m no expert on these things, but I think there are limits on what would be reasonable if a worst case scenario occurred.

Either way, it's not worth much, if anything which I think is @CastAStone 's point.

My tolerance for it's rising cost is a year or two.

I don't visit Vero anymore so these are essentially sleep around points. My contract has been free and clear since I bought it close to 20 years ago. Along with my other contracts, it's always been my intention to use my points until expiry. The one caveat to that is the dues increasing to a cost higher than what I could easily buy/rent them yearly for, which right now is hovering around $20. Doesn't make financial sense to keep them if they continue to increase, getting closer to that point, while meanwhile getting closer to not being sellable.