2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Sandisw]

Can someone remind us who are newer how they adjusted SSR? Both times? Is it that they made the treehouses less expensive?

They sold the treehouse as the same cost of the 2 bedroom…then, when it was reaching sold out status..or maybe right after?…it was raised.

Now, there was a demand issue for them so that is what they said necessitated it…but, since those were declared later; they had to be units not tied to any of the other units.

For the sections, they just reclassified two as preferred and left the rest standard.

None of this has ever been challenged beyond inquiring with them to explain. And, of course, you can guess what the answer was.

 

[Cfabar1]

They sold the treehouse as the same cost of the 2 bedroom…then, when it was reaching sold out status..or maybe right after?…it was raised.

Now, there was a demand issue for them so that is what they said necessitated it…but, since those were declared later; they had to be units not tied to any of the other units.

For the sections, they just reclassified two as preferred and left the rest standard.

None of this has ever been challenged beyond inquiring with them to explain. And, of course, you can guess what the answer was.

How did they adjust the points to offset the increase in treehouse costs? Did they lower something else?

And I guess when they add preferred they had to lower the standard offering points as well?

 

[Sandisw]

How did they adjust the points to offset the increase in treehouse costs? Did they lower something else?

And I guess when they add preferred they had to lower the standard offering points as well?

Yes, they simple reallocated the chart for the entire resort…so total points still balanced against what was sold, but if they are supposed to stay neutral at rhe unit level too, then this did not do that.

 

[Tatebeck]

After looking at everything closely, I don't think they are necessarily doing anything sketchy with the old Poly rooms and bungalows. I think it is just a tiny bit of year to year turbulence. They increased the older rooms slightly less than the newer rooms IMO, so I think it is a bit of turbulence in the year to year charts and maybe a little bit of an extra bump on the newer rooms from some possible reclassifications at the same time.

I looked back at a couple of older charts from '22 and '23 and the new chart doesn't look out of line with them for the older rooms. In fact some of the busier times are cheaper now than they were then, while the cheaper times are slightly more expensive in '27 than they were in these older charts

https://dvcsearch.com/wp-content/up...Villas-and-Bungalows-DVC-Point-Chart-2022.png
https://dvcsearch.com/wp-content/up...Villas-and-Bungalows-DVC-Point-Chart-2023.png

I think that is the best way to check if they are out of whack. check a few years back in a couple of different charts and see if they are substantially different.

I also discovered that there is 1 extra Friday and Saturday in 2026 than there will be in 2027. So if they kept the dates and point prices the exact same, the average night in 2026 would actually have been more expensive than in 2027.

The verbiage in the POS document says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation” does NOT say that the total point cost every year has to be exactly the same as the unit total, just that they cannot use the allocations to actually change the ownership interests. And that is what I think the 20% change limit is for. They can vary from year to year up to 20% for various reasons and the wording is saying that these variations are allowed, and are not changing the ownership interest totals just because they vary from year to year as long as they return to the average

There can and will be variability from year to year (or even over a few years) for many reasons, varying number of weekends, leap years, no partial points (point rounding), a once in a lifetime special holiday season, etc. As long as they end up going back and averaging out to be the total number of points in each unit per year, then I think they are still within their contract limits.

Now if they keep increasing these 100% declared units /never have any of them go back down, then we may have a problem.

 

[Add-On-Itis]

I also discovered that there is 1 extra Friday and Saturday in 2026 than there will be in 2027. So if they kept the dates and point prices the exact same, the average night in 2026 would actually have been more expensive than in 2027.

Then, shouldn't all resorts have the same adjustment?

 

[Tatebeck]

Then, shouldn't all resorts have the same adjustment?

Depends on other factors like where they are at (on an up or down turbulence), point rounding, etc. A resort building up a point rounding difference at a 0.1pt rate vs a 0.4pt rate would have adjustments 4 times less often (like a resort where the actual points cost average should be exactly 21.1 points for a room but they charge 21 avg vs a resort where the average should be 21.4 but they charge 21 avg)

BWV had a slight increase on some low point rooms in the cheap season last year already, so maybe they just did theirs earlier. And AKV may have a bit of something built into their modifications this year as well. I am sure balancing these charts is an absolute PITA, so they probably just do the ones that are needed the most, then earmark others for work the following year or two, etc.

 

[JackosinDIS]

After looking at everything closely, I don't think they are necessarily doing anything sketchy with the old Poly rooms and bungalows. I think it is just a tiny bit of year to year turbulence. They increased the older rooms slightly less than the newer rooms IMO, so I think it is a bit of turbulence in the year to year charts and maybe a little bit of an extra bump on the newer rooms from some possible reclassifications at the same time.

I looked back at a couple of older charts from '22 and '23 and the new chart doesn't look out of line with them for the older rooms. In fact some of the busier times are cheaper now than they were then, while the cheaper times are slightly more expensive in '27 than they were in these older charts

https://dvcsearch.com/wp-content/up...Villas-and-Bungalows-DVC-Point-Chart-2022.png
https://dvcsearch.com/wp-content/up...Villas-and-Bungalows-DVC-Point-Chart-2023.png

I think that is the best way to check if they are out of whack. check a few years back in a couple of different charts and see if they are substantially different.

I also discovered that there is 1 extra Friday and Saturday in 2026 than there will be in 2027. So if they kept the dates and point prices the exact same, the average night in 2026 would actually have been more expensive than in 2027.

The verbiage in the POS document says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing 100% of the Ownership Interests in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation” does NOT say that the total point cost every year has to be exactly the same as the unit total, just that they cannot use the allocations to actually change the ownership interests. And that is what I think the 20% change limit is for. They can vary from year to year up to 20% for various reasons and the wording is saying that these variations are allowed, and are not changing the ownership interest totals just because they vary from year to year as long as they return to the average

There can and will be variability from year to year (or even over a few years) for many reasons, varying number of weekends, leap years, no partial points (point rounding), a once in a lifetime special holiday season, etc. As long as they end up going back and averaging out to be the total number of points in each unit per year, then I think they are still within their contract limits.

Now if they keep increasing these 100% declared units /never have any of them go back down, then we may have a problem.

My view is that the total of points sold for a Unit cannot be increased or decreased at all. Otherwise the ownership % changes.

Members are deeded a fixed % of a Unit. If the total points allocated to a Unit goes up by even 1 point, then each member would own a smaller % than originally deeded, which can’t (or shouldn’t) happen in this system.

 

[zavandor]

This is true, but they’ve done it at Saratoga springs anyway.

Twice!

Yes, also at BLT and AKV.
But when they were called on it they rolled it back and never attempted again. I hoped they were done with those shenanigans.

 

[Tatebeck]

My view is that the total of points sold for a Unit cannot be increased or decreased at all. Otherwise the ownership % changes.

Members are deeded a fixed % of a Unit. If the total points allocated to a Unit goes up by even 1 point, then each member would own a smaller % than originally deeded, which can’t (or shouldn’t) happen in this system.

Right and slight allocations up and down on the chart over different years for various reasons wouldn't change the number of points sold.

It would just change the number of points used to 100% book the rooms each year. As long as that averages back out to the total number sold and stays under the max reallocation and the 20% variance limit, it should be within allowed rules

 

[JackosinDIS]

Right and slight allocations up and down on the chart over different years for various reasons wouldn't change the number of points sold.

It would just change the number of points used to 100% book the rooms each year. As long as that averages back out to the total number sold and stays under the max reallocation and the 20% variance limit, it should be within allowed rules

No. The 20% limit only applies to how much the points for a given use day can vary. The points allocated to a Unit must stay the same. They cannot change.

 

[Tatebeck]

No. The 20% limit only applies to how much the points for a given use day can vary. The points allocated to a Unit must stay the same. They cannot change.

Right. They can change the points for any date up to 20% from year to year. And IMO this does NOT explicitly change the number of points allocated to a unit if it returns to an average cost of exactly 100% of the unit over time.

Think of it like their version of banking/borrowing. If you borrow 100% of a 100pt contract, that contract does not become a 200pt contract. It has to return to the average later. Similarly, they can change the chart up to 20% for a use day without it materially changing the units/contracts immediately. They would possibly be in breach only if it never returns to the average. 2027 charts look very similar to the 2022/2023 charts to me so that may be returning to around average.

If for some reason EVERY member decided to bank or borrow their points at the same time for example, DVC has to have a way to adjust the charts to reflect demand for a certain day/week/year/season, etc.

I can all but guarantee you that every single resort has not had each one of their point charts 100% perfect down to the exact whole point correct in each unit every single year. That is nearly impossible to do.

 

[Sandisw]

My view is that the total of points sold for a Unit cannot be increased or decreased at all. Otherwise the ownership % changes.

Members are deeded a fixed % of a Unit. If the total points allocated to a Unit goes up by even 1 point, then each member would own a smaller % than originally deeded, which can’t (or shouldn’t) happen in this system.

Did you analze though the number of weekend vs weekday days, etc for the original longhouses/bungalows? Because something might look like it stayed the same for a night, but if there are less days in that specific areas, it may have gone down but it won't reflect in the chart if you are just looking at the up/down in isolation.

For example, if there are 5 Fridays in one season in 2026, and then in that same season, there are 4 Fridays in 2027, it will look like it no change, but in reality, it would be because there were less nights at the higher level?

I know there is a margin of error allowed because things don't always divide in whole numbers....and, as someone mentioned you have to go back to previous years as well in terms of what the total number of points were declared against the least number of Friday/Saturdays in the higher seasons?

Since I don't own PVB, it wouldn't be a resort I would analyze to that degree, but I do know its not as simple as just looking at 2026 vs. 2027....because there are variables, in the calendar, that allows for that. For example, the point charts will have more points during a leap year but don't impact the % of ownership, since those are not sold to begin with.

They don't have to reduce the charts to account for the extra points created in Leap Years....they also don't have to reduce points that occur when there are more Fridays/Saturdays during a season year to year....so, yes, total points need to stay constant, but calendar variability is allowed...

 

[Leight19]

Increased Value and Club costs, and decreased some savannah view rooms? interesting!

Still don't know how Poly will get away with ONLY increases??

Looking at the tool Paul linked I don’t think they actually did reduce anything. The value and concierge are almost all lock offs so rooms are declared as 2br. Looking at the 2br charts it indicates the value and conceirege all went up significantly and the 2br went down almost nothing. I don’t see how poly or this are legal as they seemed to have just created points in both cases. Reposting pic below

 

[Tatebeck]

Looking at the tool Paul linked I don’t think they actually did reduce anything. The value and concierge are almost all lock offs so rooms are declared as 2br. Looking at the 2br charts it indicates the value and conceirege all went up significantly and the 2br went down almost nothing. I don’t see how poly or this are legal as they seemed to have just created points in both cases. Reposting pic below

View attachment 1029605

Huh? Look at the SV (Savannah View). There are decreases (-1 and -2 pts) to costs almost all the way down the line for the studios and 1BRs. A lot of the regular rooms are NOT lockoffs, so they moved those points from the lockoff AND dedicated SV studios and 1BRs to the value/club studios/1BR lockoffs

 

[JackosinDIS]

Right. They can change the points for any date up to 20% from year to year. And IMO this does NOT explicitly change the number of points allocated to a unit if it returns to an average cost of exactly 100% of the unit over time.

Think of it like their version of banking/borrowing. If you borrow 100% of a 100pt contract, that contract does not become a 200pt contract. It has to return to the average later. Similarly, they can change the chart up to 20% for a use day without it materially changing the units/contracts immediately. They would possibly be in breach only if it never returns to the average. 2027 charts look very similar to the 2022/2023 charts to me so that may be returning to around average.

If for some reason EVERY member decided to bank or borrow their points at the same time for example, DVC has to have a way to adjust the charts to reflect demand for a certain day/week/year/season, etc.

I can all but guarantee you that every single resort has not had each one of their point charts 100% perfect down to the exact whole point correct in each unit every single year. That is nearly impossible to do.

Right. I understand what you are saying now.

Think of it this way though, quite simply, they have taken a whole load of points out of PIT and allocated them across all units at the original PVB. That increases the allocation on those Units and there is no way they can average out across future years.

 

[Tatebeck]

Right. I understand what you are saying now.

Think of it this way though, quite simply, they have taken a whole load of points out of PIT and allocated them across all units at the original PVB. That increases the allocation on those Units and there is no way they can average out across future years.

I haven't seen any 100% concrete proof that they have actually done that. It looked like (IMO) they increased the old rooms less than the newer PIT rooms. And again the 2027 point charts are very similar to the 2022/2023 point charts (before PIT even existed). So 2 things can be true at once. All the rooms went up in the early season in 2027 a tiny bit due to yearly turbulence AND the PIT rooms went up a tiny bit more due to some reallocation.

Then the question becomes do they have to balance points over each unit over time or just across the entire resort? That is where most of the questions arise since they have done things in the past (like at the SSR treehouses) that makes me think that DVC just thinks they have to balance across the entire resort, when a lot of members read the contracts and feel that they have to balance out each unit itself over time

 

[Leight19]

Huh? Look at the SV (Savannah View). There are decreases (-1 and -2 pts) to costs almost all the way down the line for the studios and 1BRs. A lot of the regular rooms are NOT lockoffs, so they moved those points from the lockoff AND dedicated SV studios and 1BRs to the value/club studios/1BR lockoffs

My point was the 2br lock off did not go down for most seasons so the total resort points could only have been distributed to the dedicated rooms. So to clarify, here are the numbers I’m seeing from an online inventory site for studios.

Concierge: 5 lock off
Standard: 93 lockoff, 24 dedicated
Savanah: 142 lockoff , 14 dedicated
Value: 10 lockoff, 3 dedicated

Looking a specific time frame I did the math on total points of resort for a week in September. 1 week for concierge would be 670 pts in 2026 (5x134) and 740 pts in 2027 (5x148) for total increase of 70 points. You can do same for the increase on value (+91) and decrease in Savanah (-98) and get significant delta on total points saved (+63). That means for this season 40% of points increased were not actually offset anywhere. I didn’t do full math but fully expect similar finding across.

 

[Tatebeck]

My point was the 2br lock off did not go down for most seasons so the total resort points could only have been distributed to the dedicated rooms. So to clarify, here are the numbers I’m seeing from an online inventory site for studios.

Concierge: 5 lock off
Standard: 93 lockoff, 24 dedicated
Savanah: 142 lockoff , 14 dedicated
Value: 10 lockoff, 3 dedicated

Looking a specific time frame I did the math on total points of resort for a week in September. 1 week for concierge would be 670 pts in 2026 (5x134) and 740 pts in 2027 (5x148) for total increase of 70 points. You can do same for the increase on value (+91) and decrease in Savanah (-98) and get significant delta on total points saved (+63). That means for this season 40% of points increased were not actually offset anywhere. I didn’t do full math but fully expect similar finding across.

Did you include all of the KIDANI rooms that decreased too?

 

[Leight19]

Did you include all of the KIDANI rooms that decreased too?

View attachment 1029610

I did not as they are all lock offs and the 2br did not decrease so the total points of resort would not change from the studio and 1br changing.

 

[Tatebeck]

I did not as they are all lock offs and the 2br did not decrease so the total points of resort would not change from the studio and 1br changing.

They did reduce some of the 2BRs though. But if they are ALL lockoffs there then it looks like they are just reducing the lockoff premium mostly?