2023 Point Charts Released

[drusba]

That may be true but I don’t read them that way so I want to investigate how both can be true at the same time.

One paragraph does say increase and decrease in a unit. The other just says increase or decrease in Use Day. It may be implied that it’s unit in the 2nd paragraph I am posting here, but it definitely is not clear because that word unit is omitted the second time.

Hence, why I want these specific paragraphs explained to me by someone other than DVC but from FL timeshare people as to what it means and what rights each one gives DVC. We know DVC believes unit points can be shifted, and before I contact them about this specific issue I want to back it up with some info that I can point to specifically of how paragraph 2 I am posting doesn’t override paragraph 1 I am posting because I can see DVCM trying to make that as the reason they could do what they did.

View attachment 629974

View attachment 629975

You should likely read my post at https://www.disboards.com/threads/f...the-point-charts.3811362/page-2#post-62278348. That maximum reallocation provision is one that actually supports the position that DVCM cannot move points from one room size category to another. Everyone is guaranteed to be able to reserve a treehouse for a night at 42 points even if there is a maximum reallocation of points which sets the points needed for every day of the 365-day year at the same amount.

Based on the info provided by Lorana, there are 60 treehouses with approximately 905,205 total Home Resort points assigned to all ownership interests. That would mean each treehouse has about 15,088 Home Resort points, or 30,176 for the the two treehouse unit. Do a maximum reallocation with that 15,088 per treehouse and you get, for a 365-day year, a nightly cost of between 41 and 42 vacation points. That is where that "42" guarantee in the Management Agreement comes from. As Lorana sets out, as a result of the DVCM increase in 2013, the total Home Resort points applicable to a treehouse are now 16,932. If you do a maximum reallocation with that many points, you would get a daily amount between 46 and 47 points and thus 47 would need to be the guaranteed amount for a day. Therefore, the Management Agreement is wrong (a lie) if the treehouse reallocation was actually permitted.

Also, the SSR's Exhibit A to the Master Cotenancy Agreement (which are other exhibits to the Declarations), sets out how total ownership interests for each vacation home, each unit, and the entire resort are initially determined, and then how total Home Resort points applicable to each vacation home for a base-year are derived from those calculations. Of particular interest is the last sentence of that Exhibit A, which declares that the total Home Resort points determined by the calculations can never exceed the total ownership interests applicable to the units.

 

[Orsino]

This is all fascinating discussion. I think for SSR-THV the lack of push back is because the reallocation was essentially fixing the treehouses being underpriced. That is, Disney left money on the table and reallocation 'makes sense' and is 'to the benefit of the owners.'
CASE ONE: DVC adds on to an existing property, but underprices the add-on.

A similar but different case is Polynesian where bungalows were/are overpriced. In this case reallocation across unit types will hurt people. However, the price of bungalows was known at the beginning of sales.
CASE TWO: DVC overprices some units from the start of sales.

What concerns me most is the potential for...
CASE THREE: DVC adds on to an existing property and intentionally overprices the add-on. Then reallocates.
This is essentially printing money. It is a way for DVC to raise the prices on existing properties.

In light of the possibility of CASE THREE, I think Lorana is correct in pointing out the 'harm' from SSR-THV. The potential for abuse is a type of harm. In other words, by not fussing about SSR-THV is the membership opening themselves up to the headache of CASE THREE when that eventually rolls around?

 

[Sandisw]

This is all fascinating discussion. I think for SSR-THV the lack of push back is because the reallocation was essentially fixing the treehouses being underpriced. That is, Disney left money on the table and reallocation 'makes sense' and is 'to the benefit of the owners.'
CASE ONE: DVC adds on to an existing property, but underprices the add-on.

A similar but different case is Polynesian where bungalows were/are overpriced. In this case reallocation across unit types will hurt people. However, the price of bungalows was known at the beginning of sales.
CASE TWO: DVC overprices some units from the start of sales.

What concerns me most is the potential for...
CASE THREE: DVC adds on to an existing property and intentionally overprices the add-on.
This is essentially printing money. It is a way for DVC to raise the prices on existing properties.

In light of the possibility of CASE THREE, I think Lorana is correct in pointing out the 'harm' from SSR-THV. The potential for abuse is a type of harm. In other words, by not fussing about SSR-THV is the membership opening themselves up to the headache of CASE THREE when that eventually rolls around?

DVD has the right to add on to any property and can set the price for whatever they want, including setting the new point structure for those rooms. So, Case 3 is allowed. What is at question is whether or not once those new units are declared and points with them, does DVC have the right to shift points for booking (not sale) across the entire resort to meet demand...essentially what happened with the THV. Since some units do include multiple villa types its possible shifts can be made between those...but for the THV, they are in units that only consist of THV. It will be the same with the new resort studios...those units will new units, and thus shifting points from that building to the other would be similar to what happened with the THV. It could be the reason we saw them price them the same as the current studios (except TPV) in the 2023 chart

Most believe they are not allowed, and I am now doing that same research myself because I do have questions...a lot of them...now that I have begun to gather info I am finding more documents that support the move to the treehouses should not have happened legally and that is what I concern myself with as an owner.

 

[Lorana]

Uh oh, I've just thought of something that could be quite bad.

A question for someone who has better memory than me or historical point charts. When they reallocated points from 2BR to THV, did they lower the cost of only the 2BR or did they decrease the cost of lockoff units?
I think they lowered only the 2BR, because I remember thinking that the change didn't advantage me (I only book studios, so I think studios didn't go down). But I may very well be wrong.
But if they lowered the 2BR without lowering 1BR and studios, they have actually increased the lockoff premium! And that is evil. The main pushback against the 2020 charts was caused by the increase in the lockoff premium, but they might have done it before without us even noticing.
Has someone historical point charts to verify how they reallocated points?

DVCNews has historical charts and they show the changes made from the 2012 charts to 2013. www.dvcnews.com/resorts/saratoga-springs/points-chart-44135. It is a little more complex than just moving points to Treehouses from other rooms. The Treehouses went up year round. Studios, 1BRs and 2BRs remained the same as 2012 for Magic and Premier seasons; studios and 2BRs went down for Adventure and Dream season; 1BRs went down for Adventure season but remained the same for Dream season; and studios, 1BRs and 2BRs actually went up a little for Choice season. GVs stayed the same for Premier season but went down for all other seasons. The overall effect appears to be that total points for the year went down for GVs, studios, and 2BRs while 1BRs may have stayed close to the same, Treehouses went up significantly, and some seasonal shifts were also done for studios, 1BRs and 2BRs by increasing Choice season somewhat.

I think an additional challenge with SSR is that unlike other resorts, I believe it has NO dedicated studios or 1BRs. They are all lockoffs, and so all units that are not THVs are comprised of dedicated or lockoff 2BRs. And this is where the question around lockoff premiums come in.

However, @drubsa brings up the excellent point that the POS guarantees the point cost for each Villa type, and that should all seasons be evened out to one point cost per year, then the studios and 1BRs should equal those costs.

 

[grubens]

Late to the party, but count me in extremely disappointed category for 2023 points. The 2 BR Beach Club unit for which we planned to go over Thanksgiving week has now gone from 309 to 390 in three years. That is a 26.2% increase. This seems very wrong and disappointing to me.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Late to the party, but count me in extremely disappointed category for 2023 points. The 2 BR Beach Club unit for which we planned to go over Thanksgiving week has now gone from 309 to 390 in three years. That is a 26.2% increase. This seems very wrong and disappointing to me.

I totally understand your frustration but as long as the points for the 2br have been decreased during other seasons then DVC is all good to do it.

 

[DaveNan]

I don't see how Thanksgiving week gets to 390?
In 2020... for a S-S included Sa choice 44 , Su M,T choice 38, 38, 38, W, Th magic 48, 48, F magic 55 = 309

In 2023 for the same.. Sa (cat 5) 52, Su, M, T, cat 5 46, 46, 46 W, Th cat 6 48, 48, F cat 6 55 = 341

Up 10%, but not 26 or 390?

 

[CarolynFH]

Late to the party, but count me in extremely disappointed category for 2023 points. The 2 BR Beach Club unit for which we planned to go over Thanksgiving week has now gone from 309 to 390 in three years. That is a 26.2% increase. This seems very wrong and disappointing to me.

I don't see how Thanksgiving week gets to 390?
In 2020... for a S-S included Sa choice 44 , Su M,T choice 38, 38, 38, W, Th magic 48, 48, F magic 55 = 309

In 2023 for the same.. Sa (cat 5) 52, Su, M, T, cat 5 46, 46, 46 W, Th cat 6 48, 48, F cat 6 55 = 341

Up 10%, but not 26 or 390?

Yes, we originally bought with Thanksgiving week in a 2 BR as the plan, and I was always thrown off by the number of points required for a Week as shown on the points charts. Thanksgiving week is made up of two different seasons, so you have to add it up separately. The total shown for the Week is very misleading.

 

[drusba]

As to actual point changes for Thanksgiving week: (a) the points needed for Wed thru Fri that were previously in Magic Season in 2020 have remained exactly the same for those dates which are now in season 6; (b) the other Thanksgiving week dates were all in Choice season in 2020 and are now in season 5, with the Sun thru Tues daily cost going from 38 points to 46 points daily, a 21% increase, and the Sat going from 44 to 52, a 18% increase. Thus, the entire weekly change may only be closer to 10% but that is due to the lack of any change for those three Thanksgiving days. The rest of all of Oct and Nov has essentially risen 21% (weekdays) and 18% (weekends). In another vein, three nights of Thanksgiving week are unchanged while the other four have risen from 158 points to 190, a 20% increase.

As to whether that extensive of a change for all the Oct and Nov dates, other than the three Thanksgiving dates was called for is one subject to varying views. Many of those who usually went during that time may feel the increase is overly extensive, but that time period arguably needed a large adjustment because for many years the demand for Fall time made May through Aug demand look like the slowest of off-seasons. Seasonal increases, up to a maximum per calendar year of 20% per any given day are allowed as long as they are offset by an equal decrease in other seasons.

A real unknown is whether DVC is now done (at least for some years in the future) with the seasonal shifts of points to the fall season from other seasons or whether another change may be coming in 2024.