2027 Points Charts Predictions

[BWV Dreamin]

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.

I think that it is paramount to purchase the GW now! Especially for September. May be a current loophole.

 

[JackosinDIS]

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!

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

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.

Having just purchased a GW , September at PIT last January,I am just amazed that these points chart have changed within 11 months of purchase.

Something I am wondering. If this reallocation of points for September at PIT/PVB could dramatically reduce the number of GW’s offered for sale?

 

[Sandisw]

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

I have landed that it can happen at all resorts but I do think it is also why they may have made the language clearer, especially in the multi site POS.

What I do know is that when DVc gets questioned and they blink, it means they are not as confident in their stance.

In the 2022 charts, after they went to 7 travel periods, and Easter could flop between three vs only two when it was five seasons, it added points.

People questioned it and they tried to say it was just a calendar variant which is allowed..but, in the end, almost 9 months later, they put out new charts, and made sure all the Easter dates are now in travel periods 6 and 7…so it could not happen again

IMO, it was a blink and that they knew the explanation it was just calendar fluctuations wouldn’t stand up if people took it further.

Do you plan on contacting them to get a detailed explanation?

 

[JackosinDIS]

Do you plan on contacting them to get a detailed explanation?

I do indeed.

I am going to see what information comes out of the meeting this week first (if any), and then write to ask them to explain how this fits with the POS.

 

[Tatebeck]

I get you.

I agree that it would be very complex where there are mixed Units with varying numbers of rooms - almost impossible to reallocate between room sizes and keep everything in balance without increasing the number of points in a Unit.

Could it be that this difficulty led to DVC changing the wording for the new resorts to allow a more flexible reallocation? There certainly seems to be a difference with RIV onwards.

The old POS documents definitely prohibit an increase or decrease of points allocated to a Unit. In my view they should stick to that.

The have definitely clarified the wording in the newer documents to explain that they think that they are able to allocate wherever they wish across each whole resort

I have looked. A lot. And there seems to be nothing that I could find in any documents, old or newer, that explicitly requires them to balance point charts between units (other than at maybe first opening/creation possibly if you are looking at the Base Year info in some of the docs) as well as the whole resort like you say. Can you point to anything? The language that was used earlier in this thread was murky, but certainly did not "definitely prohibit" them from changing the point chart without balancing each unit within the whole.

I personally think it was just a case of old "legalese" in the contracts confusing people and making it seem murky when reading certain sections without taking into account the whole of the section itself. The inclusion of maximum reallocation values and certain language that your ownership interest will never change, when taken with the confusing language seems to make it lean towards being allowed to reallocated the point chart across entire resorts IMO. And originally I thought the opposite

 

[Leight19]

The have definitely clarified the wording in the newer documents to explain that they think that they are able to allocate wherever they wish across each whole resort

I have looked. A lot. And there seems to be nothing that I could find in any documents, old or newer, that explicitly requires them to balance point charts between units (other than at maybe first opening/creation possibly if you are looking at the Base Year info in some of the docs) as well as the whole resort like you say. Can you point to anything? The language that was used earlier in this thread was murky, but certainly did not "definitely prohibit" them from changing the point chart without balancing each unit within the whole.

I personally think it was just a case of old "legalese" in the contracts confusing people and making it seem murky when reading certain sections without taking into account the whole of the section itself. The inclusion of maximum reallocation values and certain language that your ownership interest will never change, when taken with the confusing language seems to make it lean towards being allowed to reallocated the point chart across entire resorts IMO. And originally I thought the opposite

So my memory of original documents is that there isn’t language specifically restricting them; I only recall seeing statements that grant them ability to adjust points to increase or decrease a day as long balanced by another change on day elsewhere such that overall points don’t change.

That language as I recall doesn’t directly restrict moves across units but it doesn’t authorize them either. My understanding of contract law is when they enumerate authroites to balance points with specific language saying when they can exercise authority (e.g. seasonal demand or end of concierge) it is presumed those are the limits of when they can. To put another way if they were able to move points beyond just these scenarios there would be no need to call out specific scenarios in the contract. The language is presumed to have been included with purpose and as such indicates it is the limited scenario they can rebalance.