2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Leight19]

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?

Correct they are effectively reducing the lockoff premium so can understand why some are happy with the change but legally are creating points from what I can tell. This is why they shouldn’t be able to move points across unit types because it’s basically impossible to do it without changing points as whole (not even getting into the unit declarations and percent ownership).

 

[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.

Not sure if it makes up the difference or not, but I think you had the # for the resort/standard and savannah view dedicated rooms switched? I think there are 24 savannah and 14 resort dedicated. That would have more of change in favor of the decrease from your original math

 

[Sandisw]

Correct they are effectively reducing the lockoff premium so can understand why some are happy with the change but legally are creating points from what I can tell. This is why they shouldn’t be able to move points across unit types because it’s basically impossible to do it without changing points as whole (not even getting into the unit declarations and percent ownership).

They are allowed to increase or decrease the lock off premium though without changing the 2 bedroom to match.

I found that VGF POS even exempts movement with the lock off premium to be offset with the opposite action.

Check AKV POS for sure. And remember, that details out what happens if the extra points for CL they stopped that.

They are allowed to redistribute it. Since there are only 5 2 bedrooms in CL, raising those isn’t going to noticed as easily in the charts because it amounts to so few points overall.

 

[Tatebeck]

Log in to DVC and you will see Kidani’s point chart shows Value and Club level rooms.

Last time I checked I can not reserve one of those accommodation types if I select Kidani.

Moved it over here in the appropriate thread

LOL How have I never noticed that they have links to both charts but they merge them together so it actually links them to the same chart!


So IDK if they could really make them cost different amounts at the separate resorts. I guess they could and then actually post separate charts?

 

[eticketplease]

Moved it over here in the appropriate thread

LOL I never noticed that they have links to both charts but they merge them together so it actually links them to the same chart!

View attachment 1029626

Yes that is why I said they are the same. They just list Jambo and Kidani separately online as that is where deeds were bought and where you can book.

So adjustments affect Kidani savanna going down as well as Jambo

 

[CastAStone]

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.

It was reallocated after sellout I’m 99% sure.

The treehouses are a good analog to Poly because SSR was, for a short time, completely sold out between the original resort and the treehouse addition, and then they moved points from one to the other (although in that case the new units got more points added from the old ones).

The difference with SSR is that the preponderance of owners there were happy with both sets of changes. Whether they were allowed or not, they are precedent for any changes Disney wants to make now.

 

[Cyberc1978]

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

.

The numbers are wrong.

For Jambo there are:
10 values, 8 dedicated
5 club, 0 dedicated
34 resort view, 14 dedicated.
33 savanna view, 24 dedicated

For Kidani there are

108 savanna, 0 dedicated
60 resort view, 0 dedicated


I uses the information from here
https://*******.com/dvc-information/resort-information/dvc-room-inventory/

 

[Leight19]

The numbers are wrong.

For Jambo there are:
10 values, 8 dedicated
5 club, 0 dedicated
34 resort view, 14 dedicated.
33 savanna view, 24 dedicated

For Kidani there are

108 savanna, 0 dedicated
60 resort view, 0 dedicated


I uses the information from here
https://*******.com/dvc-information/resort-information/dvc-room-inventory/

Sorry had typo, I’ll have to run numbers but my guess would be this change balances the points. Sorry for confusion (I still don’t like the change though lol).

 

[Sandisw]

Just some langague from AKV POS that helps with how they just add points to the CL rooms and that if those rooms no longer have services, those points go back somewhere else.

Meaning, the extra points move to the CL rooms come from other units......its cut/paste to share just the points information.

 

[Leight19]

Just some langague from AKV POS that helps with how they just add points to the CL rooms and that if those rooms no longer have services, those points go back somewhere else.

Meaning, the extra points move to the CL rooms come from other units......its cut/paste to share just the points information.

View attachment 1029703

View attachment 1029704

To clarify though from my read this is not blanket authority to move points across units. It’s a very specific authority granted to allow them to move points from concierge to other units if the board votes to end the concierge. It does not give them any authority to move points from other units to here. It also doesn’t give them authority to move points from concierge to other units except the sole scenario of ending concierge via a board vote.

In fact, the language here is the strongest argument they legally can’t make the recent change; the presence of this language would only be necessary if they legally couldn’t move points across units. A description of specific scenario where they can move points across units implies they legally can’t move points without this language. If they were allowed to rebalance across units they would not need language enumerating that authority in this specific scenario.

 

[Tatebeck]

To clarify though from my read this is not blanket authority to move points across units. It’s a very specific authority granted to allow them to move points from concierge to other units if the board votes to end the concierge. It does not give them any authority to move points from other units to here. It also doesn’t give them authority to move points from concierge to other units except the sole scenario of ending concierge via a board vote.

In fact, the language here is the strongest argument they legally can’t make the recent change; the presence of this language would only be necessary if they legally couldn’t move points across units. A description of specific scenario where they can move points across units implies they legally can’t move points without this language. If they were allowed to rebalance across units they would not need language enumerating that authority in this specific scenario.

Or more simply they were just clarifying what would happen if the club closes since it is the only location that has access to a club level option and nothing like that was given any info in any of the other association POS documents or Multi-Site POS up to that point

 

[Tatebeck]

After looking deeply (probably too deeply ) into the situation and wording, I think that the older documents were poorly written in this area but that they did actually intend to be able to reallocate across units/views/everything all along up to a certain point where they would be at the maximum reallocated values as long as the entire resort balanced in the end.

 

[Sandisw]

After looking deeply (probably too deeply ) into the situation and wording, I think that the older documents were poorly written in this area but that they did actually intend to be able to reallocate across units/views/everything all along up to a certain point where they would be at the maximum reallocated values as long as the entire resort balanced in the end.

And to add, I haven’t found anything on the FL timeshare that talks about unit balancing in relation to charts for booking vs sale.

So, they can’t sell more points than assigned to a unit, but to meet demand, they just might have some flexibility as long as the resort balances out, with slight variability for calendar and making it even.

Plus, you hade the lock offs situation that can play a role in that variability that can be a rounding error

 

[Sandisw]

To clarify though from my read this is not blanket authority to move points across units. It’s a very specific authority granted to allow them to move points from concierge to other units if the board votes to end the concierge. It does not give them any authority to move points from other units to here. It also doesn’t give them authority to move points from concierge to other units except the sole scenario of ending concierge via a board vote.

In fact, the language here is the strongest argument they legally can’t make the recent change; the presence of this language would only be necessary if they legally couldn’t move points across units. A description of specific scenario where they can move points across units implies they legally can’t move points without this language. If they were allowed to rebalance across units they would not need language enumerating that authority in this specific scenario.

Except it just says that the CL rooms will always be more than the other rooms.

It doesn’t say that the difference can’t change…and I think that is key.

So, when they decided how many points to move from the regular rooms originally into the CL, it didn’t mean they can’t change and move more later on.

Basically, the extra points in CL don’t belong to those rooms…because they couldn’t declare them into the unit since if the lounge closed, they go back.

If they were declared into the CL, then when that is gone and moved, the other units would now have more than they should.

One reason they can have rounding errors where you might have a few extra points here and there is to make it even, especially since units can be comprised of different room sizes.

 

[Leight19]

Except it just says that the CL rooms will always be more than the other rooms.

It doesn’t say that the difference can’t change…and I think that is key.

So, when they decided how many points to move from the regular rooms originally into the CL, it didn’t mean they can’t change and move more later on.

Basically, the extra points in CL don’t belong to those rooms…because they couldn’t declare them into the unit since if the lounge closed, they go back.

If they were declared into the CL, then when that is gone and moved, the other units would now have more than they should.

One reason they can have rounding errors where you might have a few extra points here and there is to make it even, especially since units can be comprised of different room sizes.

I think you agree with me it doesn’t say they have the authority to balance demand across units. The difference is I think you believe that ambiguity is an allowance to make the change as nothing explicitly restricts them. My understanding is when a contract has specific language enumerating the authority they have to rebalance point charts with specific clauses described (seasonal demand, end of concierge) that’s the limit of authority granted. It does not implicitly allow similar undesecribed changes and in fact the lack of explicit authority granted to make the other changes after explicitly describing authority to make similar changes is evidence they do not have the authority.

That said, id still like your take on how this works for changes that directly impact the percent ownership I have of a specific deeded unit. Arguing to the extreme would you agree they couldn’t intentionally sell new units with inflated point charts with plan to sell more points and later rebalance across units? I would think this limitation would obviously not be allowed but cannot think of any justification for why it wouldn’t be if they are able to just later rebalance across units as you describe here

 

[Tatebeck]

I think you agree with me it doesn’t say they have the authority to balance demand across units. The difference is I think you believe that ambiguity is an allowance to make the change as nothing explicitly restricts them. My understanding is when a contract has specific language enumerating the authority they have to rebalance point charts with specific clauses described (seasonal demand, end of concierge) that’s the limit of authority granted. It does not implicitly allow similar undesecribed changes and in fact the lack of explicit authority granted to make the other changes after explicitly describing authority to make similar changes is evidence they do not have the authority.

That said, id still like your take on how this works for changes that directly impact the percent ownership I have of a specific deeded unit. Arguing to the extreme would you agree they couldn’t intentionally sell new units with inflated point charts with plan to sell more points and later rebalance across units? I would think this limitation would obviously not be allowed but cannot think of any justification for why it wouldn’t be if they are able to just later rebalance across units as you describe here

Well depending on the documents, some are a bit confusing/debatable depending on wording and some say explicitly that they can. I think it is more likely that they were ambiguous with their original wording and then clarified rather than they wrote different documents that 100% contradicted each other

And there is nothing that directly impacts your direct ownership point number or percentage ownership of a unit. They say in no uncertain terms, even in the documents with the sketchier wording, "The number of Home Resort Vacation Points that a Club Member has with respect to an Ownership Interest will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Member's Ownership Interest"

No clauses for when an ownership may change, etc. Just that it is FIXED and WILL ALWAYS BE. Right before they go on about how they can reallocate. They can reallocate, (it just depends on who you ask how much they are allegedly allowed to), but your interest simply CANNOT change.

 

[Leight19]

Well depending on the documents, some are a bit confusing/debatable depending on wording and some say explicitly that they can. I think it is more likely that they were ambiguous with their original wording and then clarified rather than they wrote different documents that 100% contradicted each other

And there is nothing that directly impacts your direct ownership. They say in no uncertain terms, even in the documents with the sketchier wording, "The number of Home Resort Vacation Points that a Club Member has with respect to an Ownership Interest will remain fixed and will always be symbolic of the Club Member's Ownership Interest"

No clauses for when an ownership may change, just that it is FIXED and WILL ALWAYS BE. Right before they go on about how they can reallocate. They can reallocate, it just depends on who you ask how much they can, but your interest simply CANNOT change.

Do you have example of where there is language that explicitly grants them the authority to adjust point charts to balance demand across room types? I’ve not seen that before and would be interested in how it’s worded.

 

[Tatebeck]

Do you have example of where there is language that explicitly grants them the authority to adjust point charts to balance demand across room types? I’ve not seen that before and would be interested in how it’s worded.

Of course! The most explicit I've seen is in the multi site POS, page 23/24 of the document. Please note that while it is in the multi site POS, this section is still specifically talking about Home Resort reservation points, NOT about vacation points in general as they are being used across BVTC for swaps at 7 months

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.di...ering_Statement_Rev_05_16_2024_10-01-2024.pdf

"In order to meet Club Member needs and expectations as evidenced by
fluctuations in demand at the Club Member’s Home Resort, DVCM may, in its discretion, increase or
decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Vacation Home on a given Use Day during a given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Vacation Home on that Use Day during the previous calendar year. This reallocation may be made across all or any Vacation Home types."

 

[Cfabar1]

There are also some anomalies in the system where the percentage between categories is different.

I feel like HHI Season 1 the difference from a 2 BR to a 3 BR is very different than other seasons for example - especially on weeknights. 20 points for the 2 BR 27 points for the 3 BR.

Next season 2 BR weeknight is 24 but the 3 BR is 47. That would imply they are not under an obligation for a certain percentage to be there between room categories.

 

[Sandisw]

I think you agree with me it doesn’t say they have the authority to balance demand across units. The difference is I think you believe that ambiguity is an allowance to make the change as nothing explicitly restricts them. My understanding is when a contract has specific language enumerating the authority they have to rebalance point charts with specific clauses described (seasonal demand, end of concierge) that’s the limit of authority granted. It does not implicitly allow similar undesecribed changes and in fact the lack of explicit authority granted to make the other changes after explicitly describing authority to make similar changes is evidence they do not have the authority.

That said, id still like your take on how this works for changes that directly impact the percent ownership I have of a specific deeded unit. Arguing to the extreme would you agree they couldn’t intentionally sell new units with inflated point charts with plan to sell more points and later rebalance across units? I would think this limitation would obviously not be allowed but cannot think of any justification for why it wouldn’t be if they are able to just later rebalance across units as you describe here

The example I gave was in specific reference to CL in that the contract made clear that CL always would be more and the that if CL went away, those extra points would be redistributed back.

In order for them to go back somewhere and leave CL, it means they are not assigned to the CL rooms to begin with. It is a unique situation which may have played a role in what we see in the 2027 charts.

Now, in the other case, I can’t seem to find anyting that discusses the 1:1 balance for use other than when discussing what can be sold.

Nothing to do with balances for the purposes of booking as long as the total points remain the same…or as close as possible when a reallocation occurs.

Because the POS uses both vacation home and then unit, I think it’s a bit contradictory and why it isn’t clear to me…which is why I only lean they can balance at the resort level for bookings but not for sale…which is why if they ROFR a contract, they can’t put those points back into any other unit then where they came from, even if it means they don’t have enough to make a contract to sell.

I personally don’t think the reallocation of points in the charts we use for booking change ownership interests at all.

When there is a leap year, you add one days worth of points to the system that are not tied to any specific unit.

The lock off premium is another factor. Since points are sold based on the 2 bedroom values, those points aren’t necessarily accounted for in the ownership interest % because the points attributed to the lock off were never sold, yet are in the chart.

From my understanding, for example, let’s say a unit has fivie two bedroom lock offs and lets just use one Use Day for booking.

They assign and sell 250 points…50 points per unit.

But, the lock off premium adds points to that unit, but those points are not sold, so don’t impact the % of ownership, but they do add to the point chart.

Those lock off premium points can be shifted around to a certain degree. VGF doesnt even require them to balance them…they can increase or decrease without having to balance elsewhere…not sure about others

Same is true for the years where a travel period has more Friday/Saturdays than what was used to create the chart. It will add points, but because they were not sold, an ownership interest % is not changed.

Now, can they add new inventory and then reallocate across the whole resort? Some say no and some say yes.

My opinion is I am really not sure…I slightly lean they can because those new points comes with inventory but wouldn’t bet on that position.

DVCC obviously believes they have the ability to adjust across a resort based on supply and demand and owners needs because they have done it with the treehouses, and with the sections of preferred and standard to SSR.

It’s never been legally tested.

As long as they don’t sell more points than what the unit has, then % of ownership, IMO, doesn’t change, even if for that year, there are technically a few extra points…the calendar and rounding will do that.

An example of rounding thst can add a few points.

Lets say there are 68 studios across all the units and they sold 1000 points assigned to them.

Now, they want to make it 15 points a night. . That comes to 1020..20 extra…but at 14 points a night, now you have only 952 points.

Which won’t work because you have sold 1000 points. So, they have to go with the 15 points a night vs 14 points a night…but it creates that 20 points.

The definitely have an obligation to try and set it as close to even as possible, but this is how you might get a few extra points here or there, because units were not all created with the same number of rooms and room sizes.

You might have a GV and 2 bedroom in one unit but another unit is just the GV…if they raise the 2 bedroom, then the GV in that unit has to go down to stay point neutral.

But, the unit with only one GV can’t go down, because then you have points missing from the chart…so, they may need to do a bit of jenga, which is another way you could end up with a few extra.

We have to be sure to compare to the base year used and not just the previous year.

Another example….one year there are 5 Fridays but the next year only 4 in a specific travel period

Even if they don’t change the nightly point amount, the extra points from the year when there were 5 will now be gone and it will be a decrease without looking like it.

I admit, I don’t analyze the charts in that much depth and because I am not confident that they can’t balance at the resort level, it’s not something id contact DVC about unless it was major.

Having said all this, if you believe the charts have more points above and beyond the normal variables that can happen, then I’d reach out to DVC to ask for someone to call and help go through it.

If the extra points that are in a chart, for me, are less than .001% off, I consider that balanced.