2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Sandisw]

Just had another wonder and interested to see what others think.

We know they can do a maximum reallocation so that each room size is the exact same cost, with no variation. POS gives them that ability.

But, how would that be possible without crossing units in some way since units are not all made up of all the same room sizes?

Thoughts?

 

[walt34]

We know they can do a maximum reallocation so that each room size is the exact same cost, with no variation. POS gives them that ability.

You mean the same cost per night across all seasons and all weekdays for each room types separately but not the same cost between different room types, right?

 

[JackosinDIS]

Just had another wonder and interested to see what others think.

We know they can do a maximum reallocation so that each room size is the exact same cost, with no variation. POS gives them that ability.

But, how would that be possible without crossing units in some way since units are not all made up of all the same room sizes?

Thoughts?

I’m not sure if this is what you are saying, but Max Reallocation wouldn’t allow say a 1br and a 2 br to be the same cost… the charts have different max values for different room sizes.

For max reallocation within room types, I don’t think it would allow them to cross Units.

It allows them to reallocate across seasons for a room type within a Unit. So it would work fine.

 

[Genie+]

When we talk about units, is there maybe more than one meaning. Residential units are added in the declarations, but is that definitely the same thing as what the word unit implies for point reallocations?

Studio, 1BR, 2BR, GV, etc… those are different sized units within an association.

 

[JackosinDIS]

When we talk about units, is there maybe more than one meaning. Residential units are added in the declarations, but is that definitely the same thing as what the word unit implies for point reallocations?

Studio, 1BR, 2BR, GV, etc… those are different sized units within an association.

Yes, ‘Unit’ is capitalized, and defined as being the Units added in the declarations.

 

[Leight19]

Just had another wonder and interested to see what others think.

We know they can do a maximum reallocation so that each room size is the exact same cost, with no variation. POS gives them that ability.

But, how would that be possible without crossing units in some way since units are not all made up of all the same room sizes?

Thoughts?

So to clarify if they do not move points across room categories and only move them across seasons both the total resort and individual units would be point neutral (minus slight variability in rounding).

The issue only would come up if they try to move points across categories since units do not uniformly have same types of room and therefore points shift across unit types. Now they have clearly done it before with ssr and I believe they do it all the time with reclassification of rooms but both of these scenarios are not moves they are legally authorized to make imo as it changes our ownership as specifically represented on our deeds.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure if this is what you are saying, but Max Reallocation wouldn’t allow say a 1br and a 2 br to be the same cost… the charts have different max values for different room sizes.

For max reallocation within room types, I don’t think it would allow them to cross Units.

It allows them to reallocate across seasons for a room type within a Unit. So it would work fine.

Yes, but if they make all studios 20 points, then no matter what unit that studio is in it will be 20 points.

I don’t see how you can make all studios the same and still not potentially have a “until with more points”.

Because every unit is comprised of different room sizes.

Let’s say that a unit has 3 studios and 1 2 bedroom.

The studios would take 60 points and the 2 bedroom would need to take the rest. But what happens if what is left isnt enough to cover the max relocation figure for the 2 bedroom?

That’s why I lean that as long as the total points on the chart to reserve every unit for the year must be balanced but they can move around as long as the end game balances.

Because even to reallocate amongst just same size would create this issue given how different each unit is in its make up.

Personally, not convinced they can’t. But doesn’t mean my interpretation is correct!

ETA: plus, leap year and additional weekend days, when it’s normal and not a max reallocation chart adds points…which don’t have to be accounted for…which is why I don’t think % of ownership changes by use, only by sale.

 

[Leight19]

Yes, but if they make all studios 20 points, then no matter what unit that studio is in it will be 20 points.

I don’t see how you can make all studios the same and still not potentially have a “until with more points”.

Because every unit is comprised of different room sizes.

Let’s say that a unit has 3 studios and 1 2 bedroom.

The studios would take 60 points and the 2 bedroom would need to take the rest. But what happens if what is left isnt enough to cover the max relocation figure for the 2 bedroom?

That’s why I lean that as long as the total points on the chart to reserve every unit for the year must be balanced but they can move around as long as the end game balances.

Because even to reallocate amongst just same size would create this issue given how different each unit is in its make up.

Personally, not convinced they can’t. But doesn’t mean my interpretation is correct!

I’m confused by this comment so let me reiterate my position and see if you differ. I own points based on unit 78a declared with two 2br at kidani. I have an exact percent ownership deeded to me that is represented by points; if you divide my points by my fraction of ownership I should get the exact number of points declared for that unit and that total number should never change.

Since I’m not deeded points specifically but a deeded ownership of a unit represented by points they should not be able to add or remove points from a yearly total for my unit as doing so means I no longer have my correct percent ownership of the unit I am deeded. IMO it is legally identical to if they tried to move points across resorts as I have just as little ownership of every other unit at akv besides 78a as I do for the other resorts. Now I can book them with my points with specific agreed upon time windows and there’s some horse trading in system where my exact unit isn’t what I get but in terms of what I legally own I only own specific percentage of my unit.

 

[eticketplease]

I’m confused by this comment so let me reiterate my position and see if you differ. I own points based on unit 78a declared with two 2br at kidani. I have an exact percent ownership deeded to me that is represented by points; if you divide my points by my fraction of ownership I should get the exact number of points declared for that unit and that total number should never change.

Since I’m not deeded points specifically but a deeded ownership of a unit represented by points they should not be able to add or remove points from a yearly total for my unit as doing so means I no longer have my correct percent ownership of the unit I am deeded. IMO it is legally identical to if they tried to move points across resorts as I have just as little ownership of every other unit at akv besides 78a as I do for the other resorts. Now I can book them with my points with specific agreed upon time windows and there’s some horse trading in system where my exact unit isn’t what I get but in terms of what I legally own I only own specific percentage of my unit.

I can see where you are coming from.

Since your deed is owned at Kidani specifically and rooms only went down in Kidani with no increases to balance the total of 5,595,400 points at Kidani.

Jambo on the other hand had ups and downs to try and balance it's 1,803,844 points.

They are balancing the associations 7,399,244 points but are deeds do mention a certain percentage of a certain unit(s) represented by xx points so I am not sure what is right here.

 

[Sandisw]

So to clarify if they do not move points across room categories and only move them across seasons both the total resort and individual units would be point neutral (minus slight variability in rounding).

The issue only would come up if they try to move points across categories since units do not uniformly have same types of room and therefore points shift across unit types. Now they have clearly done it before with ssr and I believe they do it all the time with reclassification of rooms but both of these scenarios are not moves they are legally authorized to make imo as it changes our ownership as specifically represented on our deeds.

That is one way I see it…and the points across units I believe is possible simply because of the lock off premium which I think can be moved,,,

Example…let’s say the lock off premium is a range of 10 to 20 points, depending on view. …we don’t know how those points are distributed.

Is it to the studio or the 1 bedroom? Now, other than what I see in VGF, which seems to allow them to increase or decrease that without a balance…

Assuming they do have to say point neutral, then if they adjust lock off in one area, they can adjust in the other as long as it is neutral.

Now, something like BPK which has two units, each with 101 vacation homes that are all resort studios, it’s easier to balance

But, taking my example where a GV can be a unit by itself and a unit included with other rooms which I believe is how my unit is clustered at RIV…it muddies things for me.

So, I can definitely see they have a little more leeway when you consider a unit being balanced.

Someone said it…a little like borrowing and banking…but as long as it results in the number of points needed to reserve the units for the year maintains the 1:1 match, with minor calendar and rounding variables that may happen because it doesn’t divide clean.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m confused by this comment so let me reiterate my position and see if you differ. I own points based on unit 78a declared with two 2br at kidani. I have an exact percent ownership deeded to me that is represented by points; if you divide my points by my fraction of ownership I should get the exact number of points declared for that unit and that total number should never change.

Since I’m not deeded points specifically but a deeded ownership of a unit represented by points they should not be able to add or remove points from a yearly total for my unit as doing so means I no longer have my correct percent ownership of the unit I am deeded. IMO it is legally identical to if they tried to move points across resorts as I have just as little ownership of every other unit at akv besides 78a as I do for the other resorts. Now I can book them with my points with specific agreed upon time windows and there’s some horse trading in system where my exact unit isn’t what I get but in terms of what I legally own I only own specific percentage of my unit.

They can’t for sale…but your unit will have more points during a leap year, since those points are not sold.

Your unit will have more points in a year where there are more Friday/Saturday nights then what they are allowed to sell because the point chart can never have less points than what was sold…

That is why they have to use minimum Friday/Saturday and not maximum.

% of ownership, IMO, only changes when they add more points to the unit and sell them.

Take my unit at RIv…it’s a grand villa and one or two 2 bedrooms, one the seems dedicated and one a lock off.

If they reduce the GV points, they can’t balance them in my unit with another GV…because my unit doesn’t have them…so those unit points now have to go to the 2 bedrooms to keep it balanced if they are stuck at that level.

So, if my units 2 bedrooms go up, then others would need to, wouldn’t they?

That’s why I’m not sure it’s that cut and dry. Now, if all units were the same room size, then yes, it would be easier.

Your unit is the same room size, but mine is not. There is no way to adjust the GV points and not impact the 2 bedrooms because they are declared in the same unit.

 

[Tatebeck]

Yes, but if they make all studios 20 points, then no matter what unit that studio is in it will be 20 points.

I don’t see how you can make all studios the same and still not potentially have a “until with more points”.

Because every unit is comprised of different room sizes.

Let’s say that a unit has 3 studios and 1 2 bedroom.

The studios would take 60 points and the 2 bedroom would need to take the rest. But what happens if what is left isnt enough to cover the max relocation figure for the 2 bedroom?

That’s why I lean that as long as the total points on the chart to reserve every unit for the year must be balanced but they can move around as long as the end game balances.

Because even to reallocate amongst just same size would create this issue given how different each unit is in its make up.

Personally, not convinced they can’t. But doesn’t mean my interpretation is correct!

ETA: plus, leap year and additional weekend days, when it’s normal and not a max reallocation chart adds points…which don’t have to be accounted for…which is why I don’t think % of ownership changes by use, only by sale.

That is one way I see it…and the points across units I believe is possible simply because of the lock off premium which I think can be moved,,,

Example…let’s say the lock off premium is a range of 10 to 20 points, depending on view. …we don’t know how those points are distributed.

Is it to the studio or the 1 bedroom? Now, other than what I see in VGF, which seems to allow them to increase or decrease that without a balance…

Assuming they do have to say point neutral, then if they adjust lock off in one area, they can adjust in the other as long as it is neutral.

Now, something like BPK which has two units, each with 101 vacation homes that are all resort studios, it’s easier to balance

But, taking my example where a GV can be a unit by itself and a unit included with other rooms which I believe is how my unit is clustered at RIV…it muddies things for me.

So, I can definitely see they have a little more leeway when you consider a unit being balanced.

Someone said it…a little like borrowing and banking…but as long as it results in the number of points needed to reserve the units for the year maintains the 1:1 match, with minor calendar and rounding variables that may happen because it doesn’t divide clean.

Yeah, this pretty closely matches what I have decided after all my digging and reading yesterday.

 

[Leight19]

That is one way I see it…and the points across units I believe is possible simply because of the lock off premium which I think can be moved,,,

Example…let’s say the lock off premium is a range of 10 to 20 points, depending on view. …we don’t know how those points are distributed.

Is it to the studio or the 1 bedroom? Now, other than what I see in VGF, which seems to allow them to increase or decrease that without a balance…

Assuming they do have to say point neutral, then if they adjust lock off in one area, they can adjust in the other as long as it is neutral.

Now, something like BPK which has two units, each with 101 vacation homes that are all resort studios, it’s easier to balance

But, taking my example where a GV can be a unit by itself and a unit included with other rooms which I believe is how my unit is clustered at RIV…it muddies things for me.

So, I can definitely see they have a little more leeway when you consider a unit being balanced.

Someone said it…a little like borrowing and banking…but as long as it results in the number of points needed to reserve the units for the year maintains the 1:1 match, with minor calendar and rounding variables that may happen because it doesn’t divide clean.

So one thing I agree with is they should be able to rebalance across one bedroom and studios for 2br lock offs. I think if they decided to shift the lock off premium to studios from 1br to balance demand without increasing lock off premium that is completely legal (I’d presume they can legally decrease if want as well just not increase). The issue though is many resorts also have dedicated studios so unless they maintain different point charts for these dedicated units they again violate rules imo by adjusting points across units.

 

[JackosinDIS]

They can’t for sale…but your unit will have more points during a leap year, since those points are not sold.

Your unit will have more points in a year where there are more Friday/Saturday nights then what they are allowed to sell because the point chart can never have less points than what was sold…

That is why they have to use minimum Friday/Saturday and not maximum.

% of ownership, IMO, only changes when they add more points to the unit and sell them.

Take my unit at RIv…it’s a grand villa and one or two 2 bedrooms, one the seems dedicated and one a lock off.

If they reduce the GV points, they can’t balance them in my unit with another GV…because my unit doesn’t have them…so those unit points now have to go to the 2 bedrooms to keep it balanced if they are stuck at that level.

So, if my units 2 bedrooms go up, then others would need to, wouldn’t they?

That’s why I’m not sure it’s that cut and dry. Now, if all units were the same room size, then yes, it would be easier.

Your unit is the same room size, but mine is not. There is no way to adjust the GV points and not impact the 2 bedrooms because they are declared in the same unit.

In this case they can still adjust the GV points across seasons… as they are permitted to do.

I totally accept that the points in each Unit can have slight variations year to year to account for more weekend days or leap years.

BUT in the case of Poly, they have just added a ton of points (1 per studio per night in September), which has diluted the ownership percentage of everyone who owns there.

 

[Leight19]

They can’t for sale…but your unit will have more points during a leap year, since those points are not sold.

Your unit will have more points in a year where there are more Friday/Saturday nights then what they are allowed to sell because the point chart can never have less points than what was sold…

That is why they have to use minimum Friday/Saturday and not maximum.

% of ownership, IMO, only changes when they add more points to the unit and sell them.

Take my unit at RIv…it’s a grand villa and one or two 2 bedrooms, one the seems dedicated and one a lock off.

If they reduce the GV points, they can’t balance them in my unit with another GV…because my unit doesn’t have them…so those unit points now have to go to the 2 bedrooms to keep it balanced if they are stuck at that level.

So, if my units 2 bedrooms go up, then others would need to, wouldn’t they?

That’s why I’m not sure it’s that cut and dry. Now, if all units were the same room size, then yes, it would be easier.

Your unit is the same room size, but mine is not. There is no way to adjust the GV points and not impact the 2 bedrooms because they are declared in the same unit.

To clarify they have clearly stated authority to have flexibility on total points from variation from calendar with idea there is some noise in system. That said those changes should “average” out and overall do not impact my ownership the same way shifting points do. On the 50 years those year to year changes will make resort sometimes more and sometimes less then average.

Now a good point is I don’t know if legally the points are declare and deeded by average or max or min. I believe that did come up when they got creative trying to create points around Easter and had to walk it back when people complained. I think the benefit they have in the scenario here is there’s not enough members who do the value at akv to create a similar uproar as previous changes but I fully suspect if they do get away with it now the future will be inflated point charts added to existing resorts with “rebalancing” when no one books them or complains the view is mischaracterized.

 

[Tatebeck]

I know I have already said this and quoted some of the documents, but as people are still posting about how they think certain reallocations are "changing" their ownership...

The balancing they do specifically does NOT alter your ownership, and they put this clearly in the documents. Your ownership % of a unit, and your point total for a contract simply CANNOT change, regardless of what you do or what DVC does with the point charts

The only time they say that the point charts have to 100% balance is during the Base Year, when they first make the point chart. After that they can increase/decrease the various parts of the point chart as they wish up to 20% per year, as long as there is a corresponding decrease/increase somewhere else so that the total average points for the entire point chart stays the same. So over time the entire resort has to still balance out to 100% of the Base Year chart they created.

I think they must have made that new Base Year PVB+PIT chart prior to declaring any of the rooms, and that is why they have to increase some other rooms point costs if they lower the view category (and also the point cost) of some rooms.

IMO after looking at the Docs, they aren't even picking and choosing individual units to "increase" or "decrease" or "pull points from" or "move points into." They are just adjusting the Use Day for the different room size categories/views up and down and making sure the chart still balances close enough to the Base Year (with the yearly smaller fluctuations). Which is what the documents specifically say that they have to do

 

[Leight19]

In this case they can still adjust the GV points across seasons… as they are permitted to do.

I totally accept that the points in each Unit can have slight variations year to year to account for more weekend days or leap years.

BUT in the case of Poly, they have just added a ton of points (1 per studio per night in September), which has diluted the ownership percentage of everyone who owns there.

This is something I want to read up on more. My memory with the Easter point creation was they didn’t walk the changes back until too late from booking perspective so had to find place to drop points to remove points they created. I recall they did it by lowering cost of September as I speicially booked room at poly that year thinking points would never be that low again. I’m wondering if this change here is them incrementally adding those points back into system, slowly boiling the frog.

 

[Sandisw]

In this case they can still adjust the GV points across seasons… as they are permitted to do.

I totally accept that the points in each Unit can have slight variations year to year to account for more weekend days or leap years.

BUT in the case of Poly, they have just added a ton of points (1 per studio per night in September), which has diluted the ownership percentage of everyone who owns there.

And I agree that the PVB original units are worth someone asking for a more detailed explanation.

But, my point about the GV is that the points that are initially assigned to a single unit…when it’s mixed do not have to stay that way..,

It’s not about seasons at all. If my unit has a GV and 2 bedrooms for let’s say 300 points per Use Day, or 109,500 for the year.

The initial chart might have used 150 for the GV, and 75 for each 2 bedroom.

If the thought is the unit has to stay balanced with the total, then nothing prevents my unit from having its GV at 130 and the 2 bedrooms at 85 each.:.it’s still 300 per night for that unit.

So, in this case, they have balanced a unit, but moved points between room sizes because they are the same unit

Obviously for consistency sake, the charts use a set number for all 2 bedrooms and GV in the travel period, but this illustrates that when units are mixed, it’s not as simple IMO,,,

And why I lean that they have flexibility when setting charts for booking to adjust for situations like this.

I mentioned early but the dedicated makes a difference too because dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms don’t hafe a lock off premium. So they have no cushion to add to help that balance.

If it was like BPK, all resort studios, or the bungalows which are a unit with just one room size, then you won’t run into the situation like above.

It’s the resorts that have mixed units, plus the max allocation chart that have me leaning to movement for booking across more than seasons or travel periods and across room types since they can exist in the same unit is allowed.

I dont know if my interpretation is right or wrong, but there is enough evidence for me right now, to say that as long as the total at the resort balances, even with slight variations across room sizes, then I think it should be permissible.

I hope someone at PVB asks next week for explanation!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Does anyone see any effect on purchasing “ Guaranteed Weeks” with the new PVB points chart? Other than it will now cost more ( 114 pts. GW was the cheapest that could be bought).

 

[JackosinDIS]

Does anyone see any effect on purchasing “ Guaranteed Weeks” with the new PVB points chart? Other than it will now cost more ( 114 pts. GW was the cheapest that could be bought).

I believe they based the GW points on the 2023 points chart. They may update it at some point, especially for the September fixed weeks as these are now 111 points per week rather than 104. Until that update, it should still be 114 point for a fixed week.