My name is Bob and I founded dvcforless.com along with two other DVC owners.
Our site aggregates listings from all the major brokers onto one easy-to-use website.
Current Features:
Browse contract listings from across the web (all major brokers on one website)
Filter/sort search results to match your desired contract
Save your search and set up notification preferences
Receive email notifications whenever your search returns a new “hit”
Create and manage favorite listings.
Create an account so that you can return to the site with all your settings saved.
Mobile-friendly design.
See how many days you can vacation using the points on a given contract.
See historical annual dues for each contract.
Compare how each listing matches up to historical average resale prices for a similar contract.
Today we launched a major new beta feature called the “DealScore”. It takes a lot of the grunt and guesswork out of hunting for DVC resale deals. Setup an alert for 5 star deals and you’ll get notified when they hit the market. The algorithm is pretty sophisticated already but we’d love to tune it further based on user feedback. Next week we’ll be releasing an updated version that gives a detailed DealScore report.
I just figured that those following this forum are probably the type of deal seekers that may appreciate it, or have some constructive criticism. Again, this is still in beta and your feedback is welcome.
Pretty sure, yes. I had it set up to alert me about Boardwalk, and it worked. I was alerted, followed the lead, emailed, called, and was the first one to call about it…so I was the winner! Yay!
I didn’t realise there were these aggregators (which is stupid of me, of course there are!) so this is really useful site! Interestingly, it identified a contract I have been considering in a few seconds of filtering vs the time I had spent trawling, so it works well in that respect.
My feedback would be it doesn’t seem to take into account things like double points - a contract with normal points, but a slightly lower price point, is rated higher than a contract with double points?
It is probably because the contract I’m looking at with the double points is stripped for 2023 - but given it’s a June UY you’d potentially struggle to use any '23 points anyway, so that’s fine.
So it just seems to me that the stripped / double weighting is wrong in the star system, but it’s a good tool!
Thank you for the feedback! You’re hitting on the most important aspect of rating a deal, which is how well the listing is priced when lifetime remaining points are considered. We do take into account the number of points banked or stripped. In fact every single point is used in that calculation.
Could you share with me the listing in question? There are cases where what you described can happen, and that most often would occur if you were comparing Old Key West listings. Because OKW has two different deed expiration years, the remaining lifetime value of a 2042 contract is significantly less than a 2057 contract. Which rightfully, leads to higher demand and pricepoint for 2057 deeds. If the “Stripped” 2057 listing is priced well enough it can and should outrank a 2042 “double point” contract even if they are priced very closely on a $/pt basis. If that is the case with the listing you reviewed, our challenge then is how to properly describe that in the UI. Coming very soon, our next phase of the feature is to share a “Detail Report”. Which does the job of detailing why the listing received the score it did. Here is a preview image of the report. I’d love to know your thoughts Ricardomax.
You hit on another important consideration, which is “how should we define stripped contract?” If there are only a few months left before the use-year, at what point should it no longer be labeled as “Stripped”. We’ve debated that, and I’m wondering if maybe we only use that label if there more than 4 months left on the use-year? BTW just because a listing is stripped, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t achieve a 5 star rating. It just needs to be priced well enough to overcome that deficiency.
