2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Brian Noble]

When they say Use Year, that does not mean that it is only applying to 1 room or room type. It is just the 24 hour period (or less if checking in/out that day) that any room is in use for.

That might be true.

But there are also other clauses in the entire paragraph that further limit what is possible. For example, in that snippet I posted above, the clause that starts "provided, however ..." adds a further limitation that the Home Resort Vacation Points within a single Residential Unit remain constant over the course of a year. What's more, the next paragraph defines the Maximum Reallocation values---the number of points that would exist in a single room-type if every night in the Base Year required the same number of points, with no seasonal or day-of-week differences. That defines the lockoff premium, and I don't think they can change it given those definitions. For example, at RIV, a Standard (now Resort) View studio averages 20 points per night, the Standard 1BR averages 40 ppn, and a Standard 2BR averages 54. That means the lockoff premium is, on average 6 points per night---it takes 60 to book the studio and 1BR separately, and 54 to book them as a 2BR unit.

I suppose if I wanted to argue the other side, I would argue that "points that exist in an RU' is not the same as "points required to reserve the rooms in an RU." But, that still doesn't get around the Maximum Reallocation values, which define the number of points to fully book any given room type in the Base Year.

 

[Brian Noble]

As an aside: I believe that the fact that the RIV POS gives Maximum Reallocation values by view means that they cannot reallocate across views without violating that paragraph. That doesn't mean they won't do it, and it doesn't mean anyone would challenge it. But I think that paragraph very plainly disallows it.

 

[pkrieger2287]

Getting scattered bits and pieces of information from the POLY condo meeting because I wasn't able to make it... But it appears they did confirm Theme Park View reallocation was the reasoning for the changes to the 2027 charts.

 

[TDK44]

When they say Use Year, that does not mean that it is only applying to 1 room or room type. It is just the 24 hour period (or less if checking in/out that day) that any room is in use for.

It is a unit of time, just like Calendar Day would be.

To determine if Use Day language means a single room or multiple specific rooms or the entire resort, it completely depends on what wording is around the usage of Use Day.

If I just say I made a reservation for Use Day of Dec 10th, it tells you nothing about what room I am in, just that I have some room booked for at least 4pm to 11am the next day

If context is unclear, I personally would even argue it is more likely to mean the period of time over the whole resort not just a single room

Use Day means a 24 hours period (or such lesser period as may be designated by DVCMC in the membership agreement from time to time) in a Vacation home subject to use reservation by Owners.

@Tatebeck but it does according to this snippet from the POS. "Use Day" is not "Calendar Day". It is not a unit of time alone. It's a specific term for 1 night in one Vacation Home.

If a Unit has 10 Vacation Homes in it, then there are 3,650 Use Days within that Unit for the year. So when they say when they lower points on 1 Use Day they have to balance it out by raising the same aggregate number of points on another Use Day within that Unit, that can be the same room type on a different calendar day, or a different room type on the same calendar day.

 

[Tatebeck]

That might be true.

But there are also other clauses in the entire paragraph that further limit what is possible. For example, in that snippet I posted above, the clause that starts "provided, however ..." adds a further limitation that the Home Resort Vacation Points within a single Residential Unit remain constant over the course of a year. What's more, the next paragraph defines the Maximum Reallocation values---the number of points that would exist in a single room-type if every night in the Base Year required the same number of points, with no seasonal or day-of-week differences. That defines the lockoff premium, and I don't think they can change it given those definitions. For example, at RIV, a Standard (now Resort) View studio averages 20 points per night, the Standard 1BR averages 40 ppn, and a Standard 2BR averages 54. That means the lockoff premium is, on average 6 points per night---it takes 60 to book the studio and 1BR separately, and 54 to book them as a 2BR unit.

I suppose if I wanted to argue the other side, I would argue that "points that exist in an RU' is not the same as "points required to reserve the rooms in an RU." But, that still doesn't get around the Maximum Reallocation values, which define the number of points to fully book any given room type in the Base Year.

I have responded to that wording already. Changing the point chart, even across units never actually changes your ownership of your unit or the number of points IN the unit. So IMO they can adjust across units.

Just like when you borrow points, your ownership doesn't double for a year and then cease to exist the next. Ownership and number of points in a unit don't change (by definition earlier in the section). But we can move points around

The points are not the membership is my point

 

[Brian Noble]

Changing the point chart, even across units never actually changes your ownership of your unit or the number of points IN the unit. So IMO they can adjust across units.

Except that the Thing That Is Constant is Home Resort Vacation Points within that Unit. And, that's the currency that is used to book, not just to represent ownership.

But, your argument is basically an "exists" vs. "book" distinction, which still doesn't traverse the Maximum Reallocation limitation.

 

[Tatebeck]

@Tatebeck but it does according to this snipped from the POS. "Use Day" is not "Calendar Day". It is not a unit of time alone. It's a specific term for 1 night in one Vacation Home.

If a Unit has 10 Vacation Homes in it, then there are 3,650 Use Days within that Unit for the year. So when they say when they lower points on 1 Use Day they have to balance it out by raising the same aggregate number of points on another Use Day within that Unit, that can be the same room type on a different calendar day, or a different room type on the same calendar day.

I do not believe that is correct. Correct, is not calendar day, and I said that. I said it is a unit of time specifically,just like calendar Day would be a unit of time. It literally says "the 24 hour period" at the beginning of the definition, then goes on to explain what that period of time is. It 100% is a period of time

I think it would be correct to say I booked two separate rooms, a studio and 1 bedroom for the use day of Dec 10th. Because they both are during the exact same unit of time

 

[Tatebeck]

Except that the Thing That Is Constant is Home Resort Vacation Points within that Unit. And, that's the currency that is used to book, not just to represent ownership.

But, your argument is basically an "exists" vs. "book" distinction, which still doesn't traverse the Maximum Reallocation limitation.

I never said it would let them exceed the maximum reallocation point levels. That part is very clear that you cannot go above that level. Just that it would let them reallocate across units if they wished up until that limit. And it looks like they already have before.

 

[Brian Noble]

Sure, but if you reallocate across room types, that violates the MR values for the room size you increase. That is, unless for some reason those averages are more than the points that were actually sold---and I don't think they were based on the back-of-the-envelope math I've done before.

 

[Tatebeck]

Sure, but if you reallocate across room types, that violates the MR values for the room size you increase. That is, unless for some reason those averages are more than the points that were actually sold---and I don't think they were based on the back-of-the-envelope math I've done before.

If you increase a certain view by a bunch yes it could violate the max reallocation values. And any move to do that would obviously be too far. But I don't think that ANY move across units would trigger that, like the tiny increase in the old Poly rooms was.

Edit to add

Whether the average of the max reallocation values is the same as the current avg/the avg when the resort opened could be a clue to tell us if they intended to be able to move across units or not actually

If they made the avg max reallocation value higher than the actual avg of the point chart then that would lead me to believe that they did intend to be able to move across units

If it was the exact same across the board then that may limit them from moving across units as you say and then I would be more likely to believe that they weren't intending to move across units the entire time

 

[Brian Noble]

I think I already mentioned that upthread. The Poly changes add between 1/12 and 1/6th of a point to the MR values for the studios. That might still sneak in under the wire assuming they were already rounding up a little bit. But, the kind of rebalancing that e.g. would be useful between studios and 1BRs to help balance relative demand is almost certainly beyond that threshold.

 

[zavandor]

Except that the Thing That Is Constant is Home Resort Vacation Points within that Unit. And, that's the currency that is used to book, not just to represent ownership.

But, your argument is basically an "exists" vs. "book" distinction, which still doesn't traverse the Maximum Reallocation limitation.

Exists is used within the context of "such reallocation" and within that context must be interpreted

 

[Tatebeck]

I think I already mentioned that upthread. The Poly changes add between 1/12 and 1/6th of a point to the MR values for the studios. That might still sneak in under the wire assuming they were already rounding up a little bit. But, the kind of rebalancing that e.g. would be useful between studios and 1BRs to help balance relative demand is almost certainly beyond that threshold.

With some resorts that are all/mostly lockoffs they could probably still move most of the lockoff premium to the studios instead of the 1BR. But yeah at the other resorts with a lot more dedicated studios and 1BR they would have a lot less leeway

 

[TDK44]

I do not believe that is correct. Correct, is not calendar day, and I said that. I said it is a unit of time specifically,just like calendar Day would be a unit of time. It literally says "the 24 hour period" at the beginning of the definition, then goes on to explain what that period of time is. It 100% is a period of time

I think it would be correct to say I booked two separate rooms, a studio and 1 bedroom for the use day of Dec 10th. Because they both are during the exact same unit of time

According to their official definition, in your example, if you booked two separate rooms for December 10th, that would be TWO Use Days. Use Day is a unit of utilization, not *just* calendar time.

 

[Tatebeck]

According to their official definition, in your example, if you booked two separate rooms for December 10th, that would be TWO Use Days. Use Day is a unit of utilization, not *just* calendar time.

"The Home Resort Vacation Point values established by DVCMC pursuant to Paragraph 3.3 above will be based upon a 365 Use Day calendar year containing a minimum number of Fridays
and Saturdays distributed through high demand periods."

Only 365 use days per base year point chart. And you can book multiple rooms on 1 use day IMO the way I read it.

Either way I think we are arguing over semantics and it wouldn't change the outcome of the argument either way. How the other language is interpreted would be the key, not the definition of a use day

 

[Brian Noble]

With some resorts that are all/mostly lockoffs they could probably still move most of the lockoff premium to the studios instead of the 1BR.

That would traverse the Unit allocation restriction because every studio is paired with a 1BR in any lockoff-only resort's Residentail Units. But if the governing documents report MR values for studios, that's still a problem.

 

[Tatebeck]

That would traverse the Unit allocation restriction because every studio is paired with a 1BR in any lockoff-only resort's Residentail Units. But if the governing documents report MR values for studios, that's still a problem.

Yeah that's true it would still increase the avg studio cost towards the max reallocation value so they would still be just as stuck doing what they can up until the avg for the max reallocation has been met.

 

[TDK44]

"The Home Resort Vacation Point values established by DVCMC pursuant to Paragraph 3.3 above will be based upon a 365 Use Day calendar year containing a minimum number of Fridays
and Saturdays distributed through high demand periods."

Only 365 use days per base year point chart. And you can book multiple rooms on 1 use day IMO the way I read it.

Either way I think we are arguing over semantics and it wouldn't change the outcome of the argument either way. How the other language is interpreted would be the key, not the definition of a use day

It absolutely changes the outcome of where they need to reallocate points to balance out changes.

I think it's safe to say that DVC's lawyers understand the rules as they wrote them with specific intention, and if the likelihood of this move being "illegal" hinges on a bunch of people on a message board thinking they are reading the legalese properly, I'm leaning DVC's way here...

 

[Tatebeck]

likelihood of this move being "illegal" hinges on a bunch of people on a message board thinking they are reading the legalese properly, I'm leaning DVC's way here...

This is definitely the thing I am most confident about in this thread for sure

 

[Sandisw]

That might be true.

But there are also other clauses in the entire paragraph that further limit what is possible. For example, in that snippet I posted above, the clause that starts "provided, however ..." adds a further limitation that the Home Resort Vacation Points within a single Residential Unit remain constant over the course of a year. What's more, the next paragraph defines the Maximum Reallocation values---the number of points that would exist in a single room-type if every night in the Base Year required the same number of points, with no seasonal or day-of-week differences. That defines the lockoff premium, and I don't think they can change it given those definitions. For example, at RIV, a Standard (now Resort) View studio averages 20 points per night, the Standard 1BR averages 40 ppn, and a Standard 2BR averages 54. That means the lockoff premium is, on average 6 points per night---it takes 60 to book the studio and 1BR separately, and 54 to book them as a 2BR unit.

I suppose if I wanted to argue the other side, I would argue that "points that exist in an RU' is not the same as "points required to reserve the rooms in an RU." But, that still doesn't get around the Maximum Reallocation values, which define the number of points to fully book any given room type in the Base Year.

It’s the max reallaction chart that is why I lean there is flexibility because alll rooms of the same size can be constrained with rooms of other sizes.

So, when they decided on points assigned for each unit to sell, did it add based on that allocation on the base year or not?

Because to make all of one room size the same points, then wouldn’t it mean that it had to be that way from the start?

So, when it comes to units and resorts that are varied, there may indeed be a way to adjust across room types and still balance at the unit level, assuming that is what they must do.