2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Brian Noble]

They decide those things later…which allows them to reclassify rooms within the unit if they need to.

Okay, so then what does this sentence mean:

the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.

Because if it doesn't mean "the points I use when I use Home Vacation Points to book my Home Resort have to remain constant for a set of rooms for a full year in a given Unit" then I have no idea what else it could mean.

So, if Unit 1A has 200k points across 10 rooms abs Unit B has 500k across it, then the actual rooms within those units just have to total that.

Well, that's my point. There are Units in the RIV declarations that contain either all Standard view or all Preferred view rooms. All of the actual rooms in those Units are all in the same view. So if you make e.g. the Standard view more points and the Preferred view less across all seasons, then necessarily "the actual rooms within those units" won't come to the same total. They will be more (if they were all Standard view) or less (if they were all Preferred). The only way to make it work would be to narrow the difference in some seasons and widen it in others, which makes no sense.

Frankly, I think they violated the SSR POS when they e.g. reallocated between the Treehouses and the general resort at SSR, and I'm not the only one. For that matter, I also think they violated it when they created SSR Preferred.

Plus, there seems to be some evidence that DVC can reallocate for stays across units and homes as long as total is the same.

Read the multi site POS which seems to be clear in terms of that position.

I have read it, several times. But (a) I think that more liberal language might refer only to the DVC Vacation Points (which are the currency we use to exchange between our Home resorts and other DVC component sites; they are different from Home Resort Vacation Points) and (b) even if the multi-site POS doesn't forbid it, that language is still in the RIV POS, and I'm pretty sure that having the restriction there means they are bound by it, even if the more liberal language exists somewhere else.

To put it another way: If they followed the restrictions of the RIV POS, they'd also be following the (more permissive) rules in the multi-site POS. But, if they only followed the multi-site rules, they could be in violation of the RIV POS.

Either way, my opinion isn't really material. We'll see if DVC tries to reallocate across views at RIV. I will bet a pile of mickey bars they never do.

 

[Sandisw]

Okay, so then what does this sentence mean:

the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.

Because if it doesn't mean "the points I use when I use Home Vacation Points to book my Home Resort have to remain constant for a set of rooms for a full year in a given Unit" then I have no idea what else it could mean.


Well, that's my point. There are Units in the RIV declarations that contain either all Standard view or all Preferred view rooms. All of the actual rooms in those Units are all in the same view. So if you make e.g. the Standard view more points and the Preferred view less across all seasons, then necessarily "the actual rooms within those units" won't come to the same total. They will be more (if they were all Standard view) or less (if they were all Preferred). The only way to make it work would be to narrow the difference in some seasons and widen it in others, which makes no sense.

Frankly, I think they violated the SSR POS when they e.g. reallocated between the Treehouses and the general resort at SSR, and I'm not the only one. For that matter, I also think they violated it when they created SSR Preferred.


I have read it, several times. But (a) I think that more liberal language might refer only to the DVC Vacation Points (which are the currency we use to exchange between our Home resorts and other DVC component sites; they are different from Home Resort Vacation Points) and (b) even if the multi-site POS doesn't forbid it, that language is still in the RIV POS, and I'm pretty sure that having the restriction there means they are bound by it, even if the more liberal language exists somewhere else.

To put it another way: If they followed the restrictions of the RIV POS, they'd also be following the (more permissive) rules in the multi-site POS. But, if they only followed the multi-site rules, they could be in violation of the RIV POS.

Either way, my opinion isn't really material. We'll see if DVC tries to reallocate across views at RIV. I will bet a pile of mickey bars they never do.

I think the part you are missing is that the actual declarations didn’t differentiate whether they were preferred or standard view.

They simply give number of rooms, which units the are, and total points.

Some units do indeed seem to have multiple rooms that we know have different views including tower rooms and grand villas which have no views assigned to them.

So, yes, the total points in that unit must be the same, but they can classify the actual rooms within a unit anyway they want in order to as long as it balances in the end.

If the units were classified by views, then that information would be there. And it’s not.

They have some flexibility to adjust as long as they can get it to balance out.

Not saying it would be easy, or if they even would but as long as there are actual rooms of different sizes within the same unit, then there is flexibility to balance it.

Now, IIRC, when you look at PVB longhouses, those were declared with views attached to them, which limits movement there.

As I said, I have looked at a lot of things and what I am seeing is that they must keep units balanced for sale only but that as long as 1:1 doesn’t change in the point charts for use, it might be in line with things.

However, how it would fare in a court of law? No clue.

 

[Brian Noble]

I still think you are wrong, but I can't tell if that's because I am not making my point clearly enough for you to understand what I am saying, or I don't understand what you are saying. Because we cannot both be right. So instead, I am going to give up.

My mickeybar wager still stands, though.

 

[Girlstar30]

I hear you. The problem is that mid-February to early April is spring break season. Combined with the fact that it is probably one of the nicest periods of time weather-wise to visit FL, makes for a prolonged period of popular times to go.

May and september would be ideal but waiting 8 months in between for vacation is just unacceptable

 

[Cfabar1]

I hear you. The problem is that mid-February to early April is spring break season. Combined with the fact that it is probably one of the nicest periods of time weather-wise to visit FL, makes for a prolonged period of popular times to go.

Yes, unfortunately the points at that time are likely too low...

and many of the times of year are too high...

 

[Tatebeck]

I think @Brian Noble is correct. Without altering the total points in units, they cannot simply move the point costs of the two views closer together if there are units that are currently 100% of each view type, even if they do change some of the view types.

@Sandisw I don't think this ends up working the way you are thinking. They are not able to increase resort/decrease preferred view, but they would maybe be able to lower resort/increase preferred view, which is the opposite of what you wanted.

I think you were saying that if you have a unit of all current resort views -> you can change a few of those rooms to preferred view, then raise the resort view point chart a little and reduce the preferred views a little? The math doesn't follow.


Let's run a simplified example and take a hypothetical unit with only 6 resort view rooms going from 4 resort view + 2 preferred view:

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

Total=72 points

And changing to anything including any higher points views will actually require you to lower the resort views to make up the difference. And when you have Resort View only, there is nothing to change any of the rooms to but a more expensive view.

8 RV

8 RV

8 RV

8 RV

16 PV

16 PV

Total=72 points

If you tried to increase any of the 100% 12 pt RV rooms to say 13 points, you run into a huge problem immediately. Even before converting any to one of the more expensive PV rooms, you already have too many total points in the unit. If you add any PV then the total gets even higher, even if a PV room is now slightly cheaper than it was before, if it is still more than is possible.

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

Total=78 points

Changing a couple rooms to 14 or 15 point PV rooms makes the total in the unit even higher now at 80 or 82 points.

And the opposite happens with any views that are all preferred view. Reclassifying a room in a unit of all current preferred views to a cheaper view would force you to increase the remaining preferred view rooms.

Without moving points across units they can only make the average view point differences between the two views more extreme, not less extreme if they have units made solely of one view type/point cost only. They can shift it a bit by making certain booking periods extremely cheap or expensive, but that can not change the average cost for a room in a unit.

They could possibly add more view types however. Some cheaper views, some new medium views in the middle, and some more expensive views on the top end. This could help with less "jumps" between view types, but would increase demand further for the even cheaper (and probably now fewer) of the cheapest (resort view) rooms

10

10

12

12

14

14

Total=72 Points

But then when you go to the PV units you would have a higher average for each room, so I think this may really require 4 or possibly more total view types over the whole resort

 

[Girlstar30]

Looking forward to another @Tatebeck and @Sandisw showdown

 

[Tatebeck]

Looking forward to another @Tatebeck and @Sandisw showdown

Not really a showdown, just confusing math lol.

I even confused myself, and went back and forth in my mind a couple times until I decided to type out an example and see what it actually did to the numbers

 

[Sandisw]

I think @Brian Noble is correct. Without altering the total points in units, they cannot simply move the point costs of the two views closer together if there are units that are currently 100% of each view type, even if they do change some of the view types.

@Sandisw I don't think this ends up working the way you are thinking. They are not able to increase resort/decrease preferred view, but they would maybe be able to lower resort/increase preferred view, which is the opposite of what you wanted.

I think you were saying that if you have a unit of all current resort views -> you can change a few of those rooms to preferred view, then raise the resort view point chart a little and reduce the preferred views a little? The math doesn't follow.


Let's run a simplified example and take a hypothetical unit with only 6 resort view rooms going from 4 resort view + 2 preferred view:

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

12pts RV

Total=72 points

And changing to anything including any higher points views will actually require you to lower the resort views to make up the difference. And when you have Resort View only, there is nothing to change any of the rooms to but a more expensive view.

8 RV

8 RV

8 RV

8 RV

16 PV

16 PV

Total=72 points

If you tried to increase any of the 100% 12 pt RV rooms to say 13 points, you run into a huge problem immediately. Even before converting any to one of the more expensive PV rooms, you already have too many total points in the unit. If you add any PV then the total gets even higher, even if a PV room is now slightly cheaper than it was before, if it is still more than is possible.

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

13 RV

Total=78 points

Changing a couple rooms to 14 or 15 point PV rooms makes the total in the unit even higher now at 80 or 82 points.

And the opposite happens with any views that are all preferred view. Reclassifying a room in a unit of all current preferred views to a cheaper view would force you to increase the remaining preferred view rooms.

Without moving points across units they can only make the average view point differences between the two views more extreme, not less extreme if they have units made solely of one view type/point cost only. They can shift it a bit by making certain booking periods extremely cheap or expensive, but that can not change the average cost for a room in a unit.

They could possibly add more view types however. Some cheaper views, some new medium views in the middle, and some more expensive views on the top end. This could help with less "jumps" between view types, but would increase demand further for the even cheaper (and probably now fewer) of the cheapest (resort view) rooms

10

10

12

12

14

14

Total=72 Points

But then when you go to the PV units you would have a higher average for each room, so I think this may really require 4 or possibly more total view types over the whole resort

It can work depending on what the actual rooms are within a unit and whether those rooms are classified as different views bow.

Some units at RIV do indeed have multiple room types/view in them. They aren’t only resort view rooms or preferred view rooms since some units do have GV and tower rooms as well.

If every unit as RiV was declared as resort view rooms only, then it would be different.

I admitted I don’t know the exact declaration for all units within RIV and what floors and rooms are included so it might be difficult because of it.

But, as long as there are different rooms within the unit, and they can keep the unit totals the same, then they can change it if they can get the numbers to work.

Like I said, BPK has the same language but also has 101 rooms within one unit, with all three views. Nothing prevents them from adjusting those views as along as the total stays the same.

It’s the same with RIV…or any of the resorts..when they don’t declare by views, nothing prevents them from reclassifying rooms within a unit to a different view as long as they can keep the resort balanced.

There is a difference between it being easy to accomplish and legally not allowed.

From my cursory look, some of the units encompass rooms that fit both resort and preferred view rooms in them.

 

[Tatebeck]

It can work depending on what the actual rooms are within a unit.

Some units at RIV do indeed have multiple room types on them. They aren’t only resort view rooms or preferred view rooms since some units do have GV and tower rooms as well.

I admitted I don’t know the exact declaration for all units within RIV and what floors and rooms are included so it might be difficult because of it.

But, as long as there are different rooms within the unit, and they can keep the unit totals the same, then they can change it if they can get the numbers to work.

Like I said, BPK has the same language but also has 101 rooms within one unit, with all three views. Nothing prevents them from adjusting those views as along as the total stays the same.

It’s the same with RIV…when they don’t declare by views, nothing prevents them from reclassifying rooms within a unit to a different view as long as they can keep the resort balanced.

There is a difference between it being easy to accomplish and legally not allowed.

Right, if there are varied views/points costs across rooms in a unit it is comparatively easy to adjust the costs of the different views in that unit.

But as soon as you have a unit with 100% the same points cost at either the lowest or highest view category then you run into a problem.

So it really just depends if there truly are any units with 100% identical costing rooms at RIV. I wouldn't think that they would be silly enough to declare in that way but have read on here a couple times now there that there might be some like that.

 

[Sandisw]

Right, if there are varied views/points costs across rooms in a unit it is comparatively easy to adjust the costs of the different views in that unit.

But as soon as you have a unit with 100% the same points cost at either the lowest or highest view category then you run into a problem.

So it really just depends if there truly are any units with 100% identical costing rooms at RIV. I wouldn't think that they would be silly enough to declare in that way but have read on here a couple times now there that there might be some like that.

Definitely appears to me there are which is why I think it technically could happen.

It would really require a deep dive into each and compare to what we know about views having stayed there to know how many units are just PV or RV vs a mix

 

[Tatebeck]

Definitely appears to me there are which is why I think it technically could happen.

It would really require a deep dive into each and compare to what we know about views having stayed there to know how many units are just PV or RV vs a mix

Wait so you definitely think that there are some units that are currently 100% RV and/or 100%PV?

Then IMO (as my example showed) they are pretty stuck and can't move the point costs closer together, only further apart.

Unless you are saying that you think they can still move points across the units and as long as the total for all the units together remains the same? Even though the documents say that each unit's total points themselves can't change?

the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.

 

[Sandisw]

Wait so you definitely think that there are some units that are currently 100% RV and/or 100%PV?

Then IMO (as my example showed) they are pretty stuck and can't move the point costs closer together, only further apart.

Unless you are saying that you think they can still move points across the units and as long as the total for all the units together remains the same? Even though the documents say that each unit's total points themselves can't change?

the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.

I am not sure if there are or not…that’s my point. I just know some are mixed for sure and that give some level of flexibility since there are so many different room types in each unit.

Since they don’t declare rooms as specific views, nothing prevents them from changing things around later as long as it can balance.

As I said, BPK is a good example that it’s technically possible since the rooms themselves are not classified by ciews first and then points determined.

Points are determined and then they decide how many to put where and view types. There is flexibility to do it.

Again, how easy or hard that would be? I don’t know…the question was can they shift between views and the answer is that they can, as long as it balances the way it needs to balance in the unit.

ETA: And yes, I think there may be ability by DVc to adjust points across the resort at the room level when it comes to point charts for use vs for sale. Just not 100% as the law isn’t clear on that point…well, I can’t find it.

 

[Tatebeck]

the question was can they shift between views and the answer is that they can, as long as it balances the way it needs to balance in the unit.

Agree

 

[Sandisw]

Agree

To add, I don’t think even DVC has a document that states how many rooms at RIV are RV and PV.

I know people have guessed based on stays, but not sure anyting has ever been published by DVC for owners that states a specific number.