2020 Point Charts

[Dean]

Can just one person explain to me the logic why at nearly every time , both weekend and in the week, all studios and all 1 beds at SSR (which I have been studying) have gone up?
Everyone knows one beds go last.
Have they sat down with data guys who have worked out how to make the most number of people be short of points, and made adjustments based on that, in the hope people will buy more? Is it because the points per night for the most booked rooms are going to be so high at Riviera that they have to bring the others up to sell it? Sceptical speculation of course, but experienced owners are scratching their heads at this.
In some seasons in the week there is now just 4 points between one and two beds.
It’s disgusting that the condo association management co, supposedly running this for the members, is not prepared to say how many points there are and give a precise breakdown of how the points have shifted and disclose the data if necessary.
Is there no regulatory body someone can complain to ?
Like others have said, for me with this new management, the trust is going. This wasn’t even mentioned last week at the member’s meeting- this very important change which they knew about was deliberately kept quiet.

I wonder if they changed another section to preferred (? grandstand) and had to use up the points somewhere.

On a more general note, reasonable participation in a timeshare requires a certain amount of trust. If one doesn't have that and is always second guessing issues, it's time to get out IMO, esp in a timeshare where you have that option. It doesn't make sense for one to continue to have the level of distrust some obviously have, not get the answers they need and continue to own.

 

[bababear_50]

Thoughts please:
So where do you see this going forward?
Do you foresee the cost of studios increasing over the next 5 years?

Regards
Mel

 

[Orsino]

I wonder if they changed another section to preferred (? grandstand) and had to use up the points somewhere.

On a more general note, reasonable participation in a timeshare requires a certain amount of trust. If one doesn't have that and is always second guessing issues, it's time to get out IMO, esp in a timeshare where you have that option. It doesn't make sense for one to continue to have the level of distrust some obviously have, not get the answers they need and continue to own.

Aw come on. That’s no fun. It’s still a good deal; it is just way more fun to discuss/complain. Furthermore, I’m getting a better understanding of the little details.

Fact is, Disney underpriced early DVC and now they are clawing back some dough. Not good for owners, but still a good deal overall.

 

[Dean]

Thoughts please:
So where do you see this going forward?
Do you foresee the cost of studios increasing over the next 5 years?

Regards
Mel

Hard to know, we're not sure the underlying intent but I don't believe for a second it's aimed at revenue, if I did, my points would be on the market tomorrow. Regardless they'll likely sit back and see if the changes meet the change in demand desired and if not, they'll change it again. Now it's possible they wanted to change it more and the limitations of a single year prevented it so if that were to be the case, there will be another change next year.

Aw come on. That’s no fun. It’s still a good deal; it is just way more fun to discuss/complain. Furthermore, I’m getting a better understanding of the little details.

Fact is, Disney underpriced early DVC and now they are clawing back some dough. Not good for owners, but still a good deal overall.

Discussions are one thing as is a healthy level of skepticism but the clear distrust some here have and have had for some time isn't healthy for them or the system. I've seen this conversation come around before, This is what the third or fourth large reallocation. The names are different but the posts are roughly the same. I did a quick search and found just 2 threads on the 2010 & 2011 reallocation combo totaling almost 200 pages between them.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I'm getting more and more upset about this. We're talking about potentially 534000 more points. The increase per night is 1-2 points. Let's say roughly the average increase per night is 1,5 points and that 66% of lockoffs (it's probably more) are booked as studios, we're talking about 237000 nights affected by the change per year. If the average stay is 4 nights (I know, random number), we're talking about nearly 6000 owners affected negatively every year without any balance. Only at SSR. Add the other resorts and we're talking about tens of thousands of owners affected by the change not balanced by a decrease in other rooms.
I have sent an email to MS asking for a clarification.

I had posted about this yesterday over on the VWL Lovers thread after doing an analysis of the changes. The first glance at the changes seemed to show they had not decreased as much as they increased but after digging into the seasons, villas and weekends/weekdays it appears to be within tolerances IMO.

BUT then I noticed what the studio/1BR increase meant as the decreases were heavily or completely in the 2BR's. And nobody who spends anytime watching the booking trends doesn't know that studios book up fast - sometimes too fast leaving 1BR's sitting there for a long time. Also, and this is anecdotal, but when people are booking 2BR's I see many more indications of preference for the dedicated 2BR's. That's what we always do. So, with lock-offs going out as studios and 1BR's they've effectively added point requirements for booking those villas - points that they NEVER sold. Drusba has indicated that in declarations a lock-off is allocated the same number of points as dedicated but I'd feel comfortable in a guess that the majority of lock-offs at most of the resorts book as individual villas.

What does that mean then? Empty rooms sitting around to be rented out as "breakage" and as we see in the budgets the resorts already max out at what comes back to each association and the rest goes to DVC pockets as income. And another consideration is that by increasing both of the smaller rooms like that - to skew more point requirements towards them - the owners who book them are also subsidizing those owners who book 2BR's.

Increasing the 1BR's - there's absolutely no way they can justify that for 90% of the resorts. And the other 10% it isn't really justifiable but they book quicker because of the very large point creep that has happened over the years so people will fit into the 1BR's vs spreading out in 2BR's.

On this I don't know if it could be considered legal if the assumptions I've listed are correct. And no, I don't think that Disney legal or Disney itself always get it right.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Hard to know, we're not sure the underlying intent but I don't believe for a second it's aimed at revenue, if I did, my points would be on the market tomorrow. Regardless they'll likely sit back and see if the changes meet the change in demand desired and if not, they'll change it again. Now it's possible they wanted to change it more and the limitations of a single year prevented it so if that were to be the case, there will be another change next year.

Discussions are one thing as is a healthy level of skepticism but the clear distrust some here have and have had for some time isn't healthy for them or the system. I've seen this conversation come around before, This is what the third or fourth large reallocation. The names are different but the posts are roughly the same. I did a quick search and found just 2 threads on the 2010 & 2011 reallocation combo totaling almost 200 pages between them.

It actually doesn't mean they were thinking about how to generate the revenue but it still looks like it will be a likely outcome. And even if they didn't consciously do that it also doesn't mean that they did it correctly. Corporations (or anyone) can miss some big things especially when they start looking at minutia.

The other reallocations hurt but they also looked as if they were trying to balance demand and the increases and decreases flowed across all villas. This has consequences that I think are significant enough that DVC ought to go back and take another look before we actually get into booking the 2020 year.

And do I think they will. It's never 100% but no. It's worthy of questioning though IMO.

 

[Dean]

It actually doesn't mean they were thinking about how to generate the revenue but it still looks like it will be a likely outcome. And even if they didn't consciously do that it also doesn't mean that they did it correctly. Corporations (or anyone) can miss some big things especially when they start looking at minutia.

The other reallocations hurt but they also looked as if they were trying to balance demand and the increases and decreases flowed across all villas. This has consequences that I think are significant enough that DVC ought to go back and take another look before we actually get into booking the 2020 year.

And do I think they will. It's never 100% but no. It's worthy of questioning though IMO.

It'll take some time for them and us to know where this will end up no matter the plan. Personally I think the reallocation that made weekends and weekdays almost the same had far more effect on the system than this will have. Asking for an explanation is very fair, it is a bit of a left turn with the increase in 1 BR. And it definitely makes you wonder what the plan is and the only thing I can think of that's reasonable is to direct people to larger units. If that's the case, besides a possible min LOS, the other issue they could approach to to be more hard line on occupancy like no more 5 in a 1 BR that has bedding for 4. In reviewing the POS for DVC 1993 I did find wording that supported the idea that it was the 2 & 3 BR only that came into play for points determination other than there is a chart that designates the maximum reallocation layout and the requirement for each unit type for a maximum cost for at least one night. Any time there is a reallocation there are variances and compromise. They start with a goal and set of premises then they have to make the points balance. It's never a perfect world. I think the decrease for 2 BR and increase for studios at Poly was a no brainer as is likely an increase of studios. This is a lot of work over an extended period of time, they wouldn't have done this lightly. My ultimate guess is they went in with 2 big thoughts, one to push people to larger units while decreasing room stuffing; the other to reallocate view types to align more with the members views of the given rooms. I think we'll get more info over time as tidbits come out from conversation and are posted. I doubt they're ever going to publish the occupancy and demand numbers.

 

[kboo]

Couple points:
1 BR may book last, but they still book, at most resorts or at most times

We are a family of 4 who are looking at likely bringing a grandparent along on a trip from time to time. Even in the studios and 1BR that sleep 5, we aren't going to put my dad (well, ok, maybe my dad) or my MIL in the living room with the girls. With 2BR decreasing slightly in cost, and 1BR going up, it isn't going to feel like such a big hump to go up to a 2BR more often. And if you need more points to do that, well there you go. We had enough to do 1BR at BLT but for 2BR, even every other year, we are going to need more points.

Most people bought smaller contracts to stay in studios and sometimes 1BR - now that points are higher for those room classes, there may be more demand for a small add on, EXCEPT:

Given the stock market's performance, this might not have been the best time to drive add on purchases?

 

[DVC92]

When we purchased into DVC, I thought each purchased point equated to a percentage of a 2 bedroom unit in my contract. Therefore, the total points in each property cannot change from one year to the next, only reallocated in any particular year for the various booking categories. Each DVC resort as a whole only has a finite number of points. Today, Member Satisfaction refused to tell me how many points VGF consisted of stating that the information was proprietary. Does anyone have an explanation for this? The number must exist for DVC to have been able to sell this product. What is their purpose for being so secretive? I may not like the particular changes, but I would like transparency to be confidant in its legitimacy.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

It does not appear that Disney is acting in good faith. They are within the letter of the rules, but interpreting them to the greatest detriment of the members. If this action was in good faith, they would have done this long before now.
If they are going to appoint all the Board Members, there is an implied fiduciary duty to the members. Self-dealing is not what they should be doing.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

When we purchased into DVC, I thought each purchased point equated to a percentage of a 2 bedroom unit in my contract. Therefore, the total points in each property cannot change from one year to the next, only reallocated in any particular year for the various booking categories. Each DVC resort as a whole only has a finite number of points. Today, Member Satisfaction refused to tell me how many points VGF consisted of stating that the information was proprietary. Does anyone have an explanation for this? The number must exist for DVC to have been able to sell this product. What is their purpose for being so secretive? I may not like the particular changes, but I would like transparency to be confidant in its legitimacy.

I don't believe proprietary is the appropriate response for that question. The points are part of each declaration which is public info . And, I'm out of town or I'd verify this but I believe it's actually part of the documents you receive at the time of purchase. Every buyer is entitled to know what they will own after purchase.

This is the number reported by DVCNews and I'd believe it to be correct: "of the resort's 2,520,800 points for the DVC inventory."
I found this under this article:https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...0-grand-floridian-villas-100-declared-for-dvc

I believe DVCNews has the numbers for most, if not all resorts somewhere on their website.

----------------------------

Yes - here is the link to the resort point totals. It breaks it down by UY with totals.
https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/news-22659/4071-use-year-distribution-charts-updated-february-2018

 

[DVC92]

I don't believe proprietary is the appropriate response for that question. The points are part of each declaration which is public info . And, I'm out of town or I'd verify this but I believe it's actually part of the documents you receive at the time of purchase. Every buyer is entitled to know what they will own after purchase.

This is the number reported by DVCNews and I'd believe it to be correct: "of the resort's 2,520,800 points for the DVC inventory."
I found this under this article:https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...0-grand-floridian-villas-100-declared-for-dvc

I believe DVCNews has the numbers for most, if not all resorts somewhere on their website.

----------------------------

Yes - here is the link to the resort point totals. It breaks it down by UY with totals.
https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/news-22659/4071-use-year-distribution-charts-updated-february-2018

Thanks for the link which stated that there are 94 2BR units, not 47 2BR, 47 Studios, and 47 1BR. My question then is how are the total points counted in any given year so that they equal 2,520,800. Can the studios and 1BRs be increased by 20% yearly, but when used to calculate total points, they are just counted as the point value for a 2BR regardless of what they total together? If so, they can be increased without a limit.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks for the link which stated that there are 94 2BR units, not 47 2BR, 47 Studios, and 47 1BR. My question then is how are the total points counted in any given year so that they equal 2,520,800. Can the studios and 1BRs be increased by 20% yearly, but when used to calculate total points, they are just counted as the point value for a 2BR regardless of what they total together? If so, they can be increased without a limit.

VGF does not have any dedicated studios or dedicated 1BR's. The 47 2BR lockoffs are what make up all possible studios and 1BR's there. My understanding has become that yes, both 2BR lockoffs and dedicated 2BR's all are declared for the same number of points. It appears that number is 23,420 for each 2BR. The 94 2BR's would have been 2,201,480 leaving 319,320 for the 6 GV's or 53,220/GV. Each Villa size has a stated point maximum that can be required per night - I don't recall a minimum being stated but there may have been. Other than adhering to the maximum they can allocate the points across all villas as is felt necessary. So even though the GV's were declared to represent 53,220 points those particular points are not restricted only for booking requirements for GV's.

 

[tjkraz]

Thanks for the link which stated that there are 94 2BR units, not 47 2BR, 47 Studios, and 47 1BR. My question then is how are the total points counted in any given year so that they equal 2,520,800. Can the studios and 1BRs be increased by 20% yearly, but when used to calculate total points, they are just counted as the point value for a 2BR regardless of what they total together? If so, they can be increased without a limit.

- Yes, the points charts for all resorts have always been calculated with lockoffs counted as Two Bedroom villas. Someone recently told me this is explicitly spelled out in the POS, but I have not taken the time to look-up the exact passage myself.

- The premium for Studio + 1B usage has always existed...at least back to the points charts circa 1999.

- It’s entirely possible that there is nothing in current timeshare law which would explicitly restrict how that lockoff premium is applied. It’s existence makes sense—two rooms booked separately incur two reservations and two check-ins. They probably average more vehicles in the parking lot. Housekeeping would be different on some level—at the very least they likely have to dispatch housekeepers on a different schedule as guests arrive & depart. No single huge reason but a lot of little ones.

 

[tjkraz]

It goes to offset dues but there is a cap. The cap has been reached every year for every resort as far as I know. This means that the extra breakage generated by this reallocation goes all into Disney's pockets.

Empty rooms sitting around to be rented out as "breakage" and as we see in the budgets the resorts already max out at what comes back to each association and the rest goes to DVC pockets as income.

The budgets may be CREDITED with the maximum breakage allowed, but personally I question exactly how much of that money is actually earned. The breakage period kicks in no more than 90 days before checkin when unreserved rooms can be released for cash bookings.

In 2019, BCV received a breakage credit of over $426,000. In order to receive that money, Disney would have had to sell something like BCV 400-500 room nights to cash guests...villas which were earmarked for points stays that remained unhooked at 90 days. Does anyone really believe that to be accurate?

If the theory is that DVC made these point changes to free up villas for cash reservations, those dollars would be at least 4th in line behind:

1) Cash reservations which offset member trades
2) Cash reservations stemming from Disney’s own point holdings
3) The initial breakage dollars earmarked for members

All of those (proverbial) buckets get filled from cash bookings before Disney would start pocketing extra dollars.

Additionally, we know that members are consistently booking Studio villas at most resorts / most seasons. Is there a really so much pent-up cash demand for DVC One and Two Bedroom villas that Disney views it as a growth market among non-members?

 

[Wakey]

Clearly, if the reallocation was being done to balance demand, two simple things would have been done. Points up generally October to December and down elsewhere (likely summer) and studios up with 1 beds down.
Just look at the SSR chart for 1 beds, it’s crazy with everything virtually up. Now at certain times only 4 points a night difference between 1 and 2 beds?
And I don’t like the view that if they do something odd which appears as though it may be for their own benefit, and if they obfuscate and people lose trust, it’s time to sell. I bought this, I enjoy my DVC, it’s mine, we shouldn’t roll over and let anyone do what they want without questioning. Why should we just sell?

 

[zavandor]

I enjoy my DVC, it’s mine, we shouldn’t roll over and let anyone do what they want without questioning. Why should we just sell?

Exactly. Also, let's remember that DVC some years ago tried to rip off members selling a resort with artificially low dues with the plan to increase them later. They were caught by the regulators, subsidies were forced, the management responsible were removed and DVC went back to business. It's not a religion we must have faith in or move on and find another religion: I can question the legitimacy of a choice, have it corrected if I'm right and still keep it for the future.
Everyone have to agree: this is a reallocation like no other. In 2019 SSR will be fully booked with 14.5 million points. In 2020 members will need 15 million points to fully book SSR. This never happened before.

The budgets may be CREDITED with the maximum breakage allowed, but personally I question exactly how much of that money is actually earned. The breakage period kicks in no more than 90 days before checkin when unreserved rooms can be released for cash bookings.

In 2019, BCV received a breakage credit of over $426,000. In order to receive that money, Disney would have had to sell something like BCV 400-500 room nights to cash guests...villas which were earmarked for points stays that remained unhooked at 90 days. Does anyone really believe that to be accurate?

Reading this it would seem that you believe Disney is willingly giving away money out of good heart. Since we both know it's not even remotely possible, there must be other explanations. I can see two possible ones.

1) unused points trickle down from the most desirable resorts to the less desirable. At BCV or VGF if members don't use their points, people from other resorts will take their place so they're 100% booked. The rooms that remain empty are most probably at Aulani, SSR, OKW, VB and HI. Those rooms are sold by Disney for cash, but it wouldn't be fair for the system to give breakage income to those resorts only, so the money are redistributed between resorts. They might have a way to calculate which points went into breakage at each resort, but it's more probable that the breakage income is so higher than the total cap that they just don't care and allocate it evenly and keep the change (the change here is a check with multiple zeros).

2) every time a lockoff is split and booked as a studio + 1BRm extra points are generated. Disney keep track of those into a pool they use to book rooms like they do with their own points. This generates breakage income also at resorts were rooms very rarely reach the breakage time.

I have no insight, but I most certainly think 1 is right (and I think it would be the right thing to do) and there are good chances 2 is right too.
Breakage income is probably a good business for Disney, someone had an idea how to increase it, good for them and their end of year bonus. But I cannot see why I should accept it and shut up.

 

[Dean]

When we purchased into DVC, I thought each purchased point equated to a percentage of a 2 bedroom unit in my contract. Therefore, the total points in each property cannot change from one year to the next, only reallocated in any particular year for the various booking categories. Each DVC resort as a whole only has a finite number of points. Today, Member Satisfaction refused to tell me how many points VGF consisted of stating that the information was proprietary. Does anyone have an explanation for this? The number must exist for DVC to have been able to sell this product. What is their purpose for being so secretive? I may not like the particular changes, but I would like transparency to be confidant in its legitimacy.

You technically own a % a "unit" which might be`a single 2 BR but is usually more than 1 villa grouped other than 3 BR or stand along units. Reading the POS, that represents a number of points but not a number of points to reserve a specific size units.

Thanks for the link which stated that there are 94 2BR units, not 47 2BR, 47 Studios, and 47 1BR. My question then is how are the total points counted in any given year so that they equal 2,520,800. Can the studios and 1BRs be increased by 20% yearly, but when used to calculate total points, they are just counted as the point value for a 2BR regardless of what they total together? If so, they can be increased without a limit.

My understanding is the same as Tim's, that lockouts are legally treated as the whole unit. The 20% per year change limit does apply to all options including the smaller portion of a lockoff plus there is a maximum reallocation chart and a requirement for at least one night for X number of points.

- Yes, the points charts for all resorts have always been calculated with lockoffs counted as Two Bedroom villas. Someone recently told me this is explicitly spelled out in the POS, but I have not taken the time to look-up the exact passage myself.

- The premium for Studio + 1B usage has always existed...at least back to the points charts circa 1999.

- It’s entirely possible that there is nothing in current timeshare law which would explicitly restrict how that lockoff premium is applied. It’s existence makes sense—two rooms booked separately incur two reservations and two check-ins. They probably average more vehicles in the parking lot. Housekeeping would be different on some level—at the very least they likely have to dispatch housekeepers on a different schedule as guests arrive & depart. No single huge reason but a lot of little ones.

Reading through an old POS last night for DVC when that was the only unit, the wording suggests it only counts the larger units by talking about only the 2 & 3 BR in a given place that was discussing the number of points and reallocation but I didn't bookmark the spot to pass along the specifics.

Why should we just sell?

It's not a question of wanting to sell. But for those that are so distrustful of the system, why would they want to own and beat their head against the wall. At least with DVC members that are dissatisfied have options to exit, not so with all timeshares. Certainly one should not just follow blindly but at some point second guessing every motive just gets old. Life's too short and the savings not enough to justify beating ones head against he wall at every turn.

 

[lehrsj]

Do I understand correctly that the point reallocation is based only on two bedroom and three bedroom Units? That a studio and a one bedroom is equal to a two bedrooms so only the points allocated to the two bedroom is used in the calculation to determine that the total number of points is the same year to year?

 

[Dean]

Do I understand correctly that the point reallocation is based only on two bedroom and three bedroom Units? That a studio and a one bedroom is equal to a two bedrooms so only the points allocated to the two bedroom is used in the calculation to determine that the total number of points is the same year to year?

That's my understanding for resorts that don't have smaller dedicated units. For those that do, it's different but the lockoff's are still counted as a 2 BR for accounting purposes. Again, my understanding and the POS does support that position though it doesn't spell it out, at least it didn't in the version I looked at.