2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Brian Noble]

Oh, I am sure there at least four different things that would forbid such a rebalancing. But, they are very clearly out of balance. Not everyone would agree that the imbalance is bad, and whether or not they do probably depends on their specific vacation patterns.

But IMO it is not healthy for the system overall to be so out of whack with demand, and there is some concrete evidence for this. As one example, consider the mix of units offered as spec rentals. That exists because the differences in point requirements for the two do not come close to matching the underlying organic demand, which I'd argue is more accurately captured by Disney's prevailing rental rates. And, it is exactly that mis-match that leads to the spec rental imbalance problem.

Of course, it is also exactly that mis-match that makes studios such a very good bargain as a DVC owner, and a lot of people really like that, so....they probably can't touch it without risking a fight. The good news is that 1BRs are still (usually) an okay deal, so as a Villa afficianado, I'm not all that upset about it. They just aren't as good of a deal as the studios.

 

[zavandor]

Oh, I am sure there at least four different things that would forbid such a rebalancing. But, they are very clearly out of balance. Not everyone would agree that the imbalance is bad, and whether or not they do probably depends on their specific vacation patterns.

But IMO it is not healthy for the system overall to be so out of whack with demand, and there is some concrete evidence for this. As one example, consider the mix of units offered as spec rentals. That exists because the differences in point requirements for the two do not come close to matching the underlying organic demand, which I'd argue is more accurately captured by Disney's prevailing rental rates. And, it is exactly that mis-match that leads to the spec rental imbalance problem.

Of course, it is also exactly that mis-match that makes studios such a very good bargain as a DVC owner, and a lot of people really like that, so....they probably can't touch it without risking a fight. The good news is that 1BRs are still (usually) an okay deal, so as a Villa afficianado, I'm not all that upset about it. They just aren't as good of a deal as the studios.

it's also Disney's self interest. A lower cost studio is an easier sell for a family of 5. They have time later to understand they would be better adding on to book 1BRs.

 

[Brian Noble]

The POS states that the point cost of the rooms is proportional to the square footage.

Here's a thing I haven't thought about before.

If this is a rule (as opposed to a "guideline") then why is there a lockoff premium? After all, a 2BR is exactly the same square footage as a 1BR plus a studio. As far as I know, all of the dedicated and lockoff 2BRs (in each resort that has both) are essentially the same floor plan; the only difference is whether or not there is a connecting door.

 

[zavandor]

Here's a thing I haven't thought about before.

If this is a rule (as opposed to a "guideline") then why is there a lockoff premium? After all, a 2BR is exactly the same square footage as a 1BR plus a studio. As far as I know, all of the dedicated and lockoff 2BRs (in each resort that has both) are essentially the same floor plan; the only difference is whether or not there is a connecting door.

View attachment 1030831

Is GV cost proportional to the square footage? never checked
ETA: and duo studios?

 

[zavandor]

Oh, I am sure there at least four different things that would forbid such a rebalancing. But, they are very clearly out of balance. Not everyone would agree that the imbalance is bad, and whether or not they do probably depends on their specific vacation patterns.

But IMO it is not healthy for the system overall to be so out of whack with demand, and there is some concrete evidence for this. As one example, consider the mix of units offered as spec rentals. That exists because the differences in point requirements for the two do not come close to matching the underlying organic demand, which I'd argue is more accurately captured by Disney's prevailing rental rates. And, it is exactly that mis-match that leads to the spec rental imbalance problem.

Of course, it is also exactly that mis-match that makes studios such a very good bargain as a DVC owner, and a lot of people really like that, so....they probably can't touch it without risking a fight. The good news is that 1BRs are still (usually) an okay deal, so as a Villa afficianado, I'm not all that upset about it. They just aren't as good of a deal as the studios.

Also, I do not believe the booking imbalance is that much of a problem. There is no resort where no studio is bookable at all at 11 months, usually it happens only to the cheaper categories. Most resort also sell out 1BR consistently. OKW and SSR 1BR are deposited in II. There's not that much breakage. Sure, studio sell out much earlier than 1BR, but we were never guaranteed a room in the first place.

 

[Leight19]

So I would be fully supportive of Dvc making new resorts with studio to 1br cost comparison closer together or low room view price premium to more evenly balance demand. I am not supportive of rebalancing across room categories or view types for existing resorts because I bought into resort with the existing point chart distributions.

 

[Sandisw]

Against which base year are you calculating that? It should be a year with the minimum number of weekends. That could explain a small discrepancy.

I based it on 365 days because if it’s a max chart no day is different.

What I know is 58903 is attached to that unit. In terms of what is sold.

But then you have this chart which says there are only 51 weeks of use days per vacation home.

How does this reconcile with the language that charts are based in a 365 day base year? 51 weeks is not 365 and it’s 357.

Which brings me back to why I see different things that don’t make it completely clear because different info.

Here is where I have now landed.

The total points to use my unit for 51 weeks…is 58548.

That represents, using the max chart, what it would take to reserve 51 weeks a year and that is what needs to balance but since charts are 365 days of use, then that extra is flexible and can flex based on several factors.

So, you have to use 51 weeks to determine total points to use 100% of the time, but charts are build with 365 days.

In a way, both positions can be true at the same time.

ETA. And because there are mixed units it makes it even easier to flex between vacation homes. And it even leads me closer that the shift at SSR may not have actually changed the 51 weeks balance for the units.

 

[Sandisw]

To add, the cabins which are in the trust model and only RTU, is built on 52 weeks because they can shift between components sites and are not locked in to points to units.

 

[Tatebeck]

I based it on 365 days because if it’s a max chart no day is different.

What I know is 58903 is attached to that unit. In terms of what is sold.

But then you have this chart which says there are only 51 weeks of use days per vacation home.

How does this reconcile with the language that charts are based in a 365 day base year? 51 weeks is not 365 and it’s 357.

Which brings me back to why I see different things that don’t make it completely clear because different info.

Here is where I have now landed.

The total points to use my unit for 51 weeks…is 58548.

That represents, using the max chart, what it would take to reserve 51 weeks a year and that is what needs to balance but since charts are 365 days of use, then that extra is flexible and can flex based on several factors.

So, you have to use 51 weeks to determine total points to use 100% of the time, but charts are build with 365 days.

In a way, both positions can be true at the same time.

ETA. And because there are mixed units it makes it even easier to flex between vacation homes. And it even leads me closer that the shift at SSR may not have actually changed the 51 weeks balance for the units.

I think they still would base it on 365 use days since that is what the POS says, and maybe the chart just shows 51 Full 7 day use periods because most years have week 52 go into the next year and week 1 start a few days into the year. So not very many (I think around 2/7) would have 52 full weeks, the rest would have 51.

 

[Sandisw]

I think they still would base it on 365 use days since that is what the POS says, and maybe the chart just shows 51 Full 7 day use periods because most years have week 52 go into the next year and week 1 start a few days into the year. So not very many (I think around 2/7) would have 52 full weeks, the rest would have 51.

Yes we know the charts are based on 365, but I still think that 51 week number is important in some way.

So, when it comes to figuring this out, I don’t think it should or can be ignored.

ETA: There are always 52 weeks in a year, as that is 364 days.

 

[zavandor]

Yes we know the charts are based on 365, but I still think that 51 week number is important in some way.

So, when it comes to figuring this out, I don’t think it should or can be ignored.

Florida law says a developer can only sell 51 weeks for each unit for a traditional timeshare. For points it's always said they must keep 2%.
I thought DVC would declare all the points in the unit and sell 98% of them, but instead they just declare 51/52 and sell them all. And the extra week is kept for maintenance.

 

[Sandisw]

Florida law says a developer can only sell 51 weeks for each unit for a traditional timeshare. For points it's always said they must keep 2%.
I thought DVC would declare all the points in the unit and sell 98% of them, but instead they just declare 51/52 and sell them all. And the extra week is kept for maintenance.

I understand FL law and what they have to keep.

So are you saying then that the 58903 points sold for my unit only represent 51 weeks of use?

If so, then how can they make charts for 52 weeks or 365 days?

My understanding is all rooms are declared but DVD doesn’t sell the last two percent of points attached to them. …they just must own them…which gives them rooms for maintenance.

But they dont actually remove them…and owners can book them abs DVD can book rooms with their 2% ownership.

Hence, why this isn’t as clear cut because what is 100% that had to balance? Is it only what has been sold, what gets used for 51 weeks? 365 days?

Plus, as I mentioned, the max chart comes close to that number in my unit with 365 days with one 2 bedroom being PV and one RV.

 

[zavandor]

I understand FL law and what they have to keep.

So are you saying then that the 58903 points sold for my unit only represent 51 weeks of use?

If so, then how can they make charts for 52 weeks or 365 days?

My understanding is all rooms are declared but DVD doesn’t sell the last two percent of points attached to them. …they just must own them…which gives them rooms for maintenance.

But they dont actually remove them…and owners can book them abs DVD can book rooms with their 2% ownership.

Hence, why this isn’t as clear cut because what is 100% that had to balance? Is it only what has been sold, what gets used for 51 weeks? 365 days?

Plus, as I mentioned, the max chart comes close to that number in my unit with 365 days with one 2 bedroom being PV and one RV.

Maybe I have not understood.
The total points declared for the rooms in your unit are the points ned to book them for 51 or 52 weeks?

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I have not understood.
The total points declared for the rooms in your unit are the points ned to book them for 51 or 52 weeks?

Based on the % I own, my unit has 58903 points.

I know that to book that unit 365 in a calendar year, using the max charts takes 58900 if we make one 2 bedroom PV and one RV…close but not perfect.

When I read that it’s 51 weeks of use, then it seems it would matter but the charts are not created that way.

So, I am starting to thank that they have the ability to flex that extra 8 days of points as a way to account for that “base year” concept with a minimum number of weekend days.