Rejected Offers Thread

[TheDailyMoo]

Not accounting for MF increases and both contracts being 150pts @ $95pp. AKV is $8175 more over the life of the contract. On a cost per year basis I can the see the benefit of owning AKV especially if you love the resort. I do think there is much more to love there than SSR, although Ive never been to SSR.

Yes this is true but for instance on an upcoming trip I'm saving 4 points a night over the same Standard SSR room...and I have another trip planned for a week in a Club Level...these two stays alone chip into that lifetime number. The latter...club level...not even being an option at SSR so there's an intangible value added there. It's definitely not cut and dry and it depends on if you're looking at it strictly from numbers or if you add in those other factors. To me it's worth it but yeah I can see how when looking to swap out at 7 months purely from a numbers standpoint SSR edges it out.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Finding that "right" contract is definitely worth the extra couple of dollars per point. Especially if it avoids an additional use year.

Yeah especially since it would have been my ::cringes:: 5th UY. This way I’ll still have a much more reasonable 4 UYs.

The existing UY I like least actually had far more options but I eventually want to try to consolidate down to 3 UYs.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Yes this is true but for instance on an upcoming trip I'm saving 4 points a night over the same Standard SSR room...and I have another trip planned for a week in a Club Level...these two stays alone chip into that lifetime number. The latter...club level...not even being an option at SSR so there's an intangible value added there. It's definitely not cut and dry and it depends on if you're looking at it strictly from numbers or if you add in those other factors. To me it's worth it but yeah I can see how when looking to swap out at 7 months purely from a numbers standpoint SSR edges it out.

According to @ehh charts…. VGF is the best long term SAP….

 

[ehh]

Check out @ehh posts in https://www.disboards.com/threads/t...ease-like-vb-hhi.3949917/page-2#post-65612217

While my analysis puts AKV somewhere in the mid-pack for Year 1, Year 5, and Year 10 costs, the "+" part of SAP+ can skew things heavily as personal resort rankings are personal, as is the weighting of them.

For example, RIV Direct is a clearly worse value than most resale resorts, but personally I'd still take it as SAP+ over a good chunk of the resale market because of the "+" part (and to avoid resale restrictions impacting usability of my purchase).

According to @ehh charts…. VGF is the best long term SAP….

I appreciate you linking to this analysis, but this probably demonstrates why I ought to post a fuller post/explanation (and a more legible chart, it's so bad lol).

In short for VGF: the uncertainty of the future is pretty high, and VGF is particularly sus since dues increases have always been unusually low in its history.

I'm of two minds about the VGF dues growth:

1. When someone/something shows you what they are, you should listen.
   • For example, I wouldn't discount that certain resorts have had higher rate of dues increases the last 10 years than others and just say they'll average out in the future. They've demonstrated a sustained pattern of dues increases, arbitrarily predicting that'll go away is naïve.
   • In this light, VGF's low dues growth should be believed to be durable.
2. If something's too good to be true, it probably is.
   • VGF's dues growth has been very low in its history. But it's not that old yet, so its dues history is shorter and a regression to the mean is more likely than a 'bad dues growth' resort regressing to the mean.
   • It's likely that my overall dues analysis is no better than guessing past somewhere between 10-20 years, and it's ridiculously likely that there are some things that will be wrong sooner than that...if I had to choose 'least probable', I'd pick VGF.

If I were to manually bias any of the numbers in my analysis, I'd probably skew VGF's future dues growth rate closer to WDW's average growth rate. (n.b., I guess I did manually bias CCV and RIV by declaring they had too little data to use their dues data)

But to demonstrate my point, VGF's highest 5yr CAGR in its existence is 3.64%. In the last 5 years of 5yr CAGRs (which would be inclusive of dues 9 years ago, at most), only the following resort-years have had lower 5yr CAGRs across all of DVC-older-than-VGF:

• BCV 2020 - 3.40%
• BRV 2024 - 3.46%
• BLT 2024 - 3.47%

And of those three, VGF's 5yr CAGR in the same year was no more than 0.01% higher than the lowest resort that year (3.47% in 2024).

So said another way, VGF has essentially always had the slowest 5yr rate of dues growth in its entire existence, when compared to resorts older than VGF. This feels anomalous.

Anyway, not trying to pick on you @AstroBlasters. Just feel compelled to point out the flaws in my own analysis!

 

[CWTC]

Yeah especially since it would have been my ::cringes:: 5th UY. This way I’ll still have a much more reasonable 4 UYs.

I’m impressed you can keep these straight. One of the many reasons we bought VGC direct was to keep everything in the same UY because 2 UYs felt overwhelming.

 

[AstroBlasters]

While my analysis puts AKV somewhere in the mid-pack for Year 1, Year 5, and Year 10 costs, the "+" part of SAP+ can skew things heavily as personal resort rankings are personal, as is the weighting of them.

For example, RIV Direct is a clearly worse value than most resale resorts, but personally I'd still take it as SAP+ over a good chunk of the resale market because of the "+" part (and to avoid resale restrictions impacting usability of my purchase).


I appreciate you linking to this analysis, but this probably demonstrates why I ought to post a fuller post/explanation (and a more legible chart, it's so bad lol).

In short for VGF: the uncertainty of the future is pretty high, and VGF is particularly sus since dues increases have always been unusually low in its history.

I'm of two minds about the VGF dues growth:

1. When someone/something shows you what they are, you should listen.
   • For example, I wouldn't discount that certain resorts have had higher rate of dues increases the last 10 years than others and just say they'll average out in the future. They've demonstrated a sustained pattern of dues increases, arbitrarily predicting that'll go away is naïve.
   • In this light, VGF's low dues growth should be believed to be durable.
2. If something's too good to be true, it probably is.
   • VGF's dues growth has been very low in its history. But it's not that old yet, so its dues history is shorter and a regression to the mean is more likely than a 'bad dues growth' resort regressing to the mean.
   • It's likely that my overall dues analysis is no better than guessing past somewhere between 10-20 years, and it's ridiculously likely that there are some things that will be wrong sooner than that...if I had to choose 'least probable', I'd pick VGF.

If I were to manually bias any of the numbers in my analysis, I'd probably skew VGF's future dues growth rate closer to WDW's average growth rate. (n.b., I guess I did manually bias CCV and RIV by declaring they had too little data to use their dues data)

But to demonstrate my point, VGF's highest 5yr CAGR in its existence is 3.64%. In the last 5 years of 5yr CAGRs (which would be inclusive of dues 9 years ago, at most), only the following resort-years have had lower 5yr CAGRs across all of DVC-older-than-VGF:

• BCV 2020 - 3.40%
• BRV 2024 - 3.46%
• BLT 2024 - 3.47%

And of those three, VGF's 5yr CAGR in the same year was no more than 0.01% higher than the lowest resort that year (3.47% in 2024).

So said another way, VGF has essentially always had the slowest 5yr rate of dues growth in its entire existence, when compared to resorts older than VGF. This feels anomalous.

Anyway, not trying to pick on you @AstroBlasters. Just feel compelled to point out the flaws in my own analysis!

I don’t feel picked on at all. You made an analysis based on the available data.

My main thought is that it’s not always as simple as: (PPP/#Years of remaining like) + dues.

 

[atthebeachclub]

While my analysis puts AKV somewhere in the mid-pack for Year 1, Year 5, and Year 10 costs, the "+" part of SAP+ can skew things heavily as personal resort rankings are personal, as is the weighting of them.

For example, RIV Direct is a clearly worse value than most resale resorts, but personally I'd still take it as SAP+ over a good chunk of the resale market because of the "+" part (and to avoid resale restrictions impacting usability of my purchase).


I appreciate you linking to this analysis, but this probably demonstrates why I ought to post a fuller post/explanation (and a more legible chart, it's so bad lol).

In short for VGF: the uncertainty of the future is pretty high, and VGF is particularly sus since dues increases have always been unusually low in its history.

I'm of two minds about the VGF dues growth:

1. When someone/something shows you what they are, you should listen.
   • For example, I wouldn't discount that certain resorts have had higher rate of dues increases the last 10 years than others and just say they'll average out in the future. They've demonstrated a sustained pattern of dues increases, arbitrarily predicting that'll go away is naïve.
   • In this light, VGF's low dues growth should be believed to be durable.
2. If something's too good to be true, it probably is.
   • VGF's dues growth has been very low in its history. But it's not that old yet, so its dues history is shorter and a regression to the mean is more likely than a 'bad dues growth' resort regressing to the mean.
   • It's likely that my overall dues analysis is no better than guessing past somewhere between 10-20 years, and it's ridiculously likely that there are some things that will be wrong sooner than that...if I had to choose 'least probable', I'd pick VGF.

If I were to manually bias any of the numbers in my analysis, I'd probably skew VGF's future dues growth rate closer to WDW's average growth rate. (n.b., I guess I did manually bias CCV and RIV by declaring they had too little data to use their dues data)

But to demonstrate my point, VGF's highest 5yr CAGR in its existence is 3.64%. In the last 5 years of 5yr CAGRs (which would be inclusive of dues 9 years ago, at most), only the following resort-years have had lower 5yr CAGRs across all of DVC-older-than-VGF:

• BCV 2020 - 3.40%
• BRV 2024 - 3.46%
• BLT 2024 - 3.47%

And of those three, VGF's 5yr CAGR in the same year was no more than 0.01% higher than the lowest resort that year (3.47% in 2024).

So said another way, VGF has essentially always had the slowest 5yr rate of dues growth in its entire existence, when compared to resorts older than VGF. This feels anomalous.

Anyway, not trying to pick on you @AstroBlasters. Just feel compelled to point out the flaws in my own analysis!

Thank you for the explanation; I like to know more about the math behind the reasoning before buying in on any theory.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I’m impressed you can keep these straight. One of the many reasons we bought VGC direct was to keep everything in the same UY because 2 UYs felt overwhelming.

Haha, it’s not TOO bad, but I have almost missed a banking window once in the 18 months I’ve been a member.
I don’t mind having a separate UY for BCV because I don’t intend to ever combine them and it’s wedged between my other two direct UYs. I was just assigned Aulani in Aug without anybody asking me any questions. We would have been much better off with Oct, which is my VGF UY (that I later bought after really thinking about our travel patterns).

I think 2-3 is totally doable if you don’t plan to combine points and travel different places different seasons (and gives way more waitlist flexibility after MM dates are released), but 4 is too much and 5+ seems crazy.

My main thought is that it’s not always as simple as: (PPP/#Years of remaining like) + dues.

I completely agree with this, but the main area I feel is overlooked when comparing “costs” is the point charts of home resort. Obviously doesn’t matter for pure SAP, but staying at BWV is going to cost you far less in points than staying at RIV or PVB.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Haha, it’s not TOO bad, but I have almost missed a banking window once in the 18 months I’ve been a member.
I don’t mind having a separate UY for BCV because I don’t intend to ever combine them and it’s wedged between my other two direct UYs. I was just assigned Aulani in Aug without anybody asking me any questions. We would have been much better off with Oct, which is my VGF UY (that I later bought after really thinking about our travel patterns).

I think 2-3 is totally doable if you don’t plan to combine points and travel different places different seasons (and gives way more waitlist flexibility after MM dates are released), but 4 is too much and 5+ seems crazy.

I completely agree with this, but the main area I feel is overlooked when comparing “costs” is the point charts of home resort. Obviously doesn’t matter for pure SAP, but staying at BWV is going to cost you far less in points than staying at RIV or PVB.

Correct. The thoughts were purely within the scope of SAP/SAP+.