2027 Points Charts Predictions

[zavandor]

The premise is that the point chart must balance against the points declared into a unit, but those points represent 365 days of use or 51 weeks of use?

It can’t be both. Or, are you just saying that the 51 weeks is simply saying that DVD remains over of one weeks worth of points but those are included in the chart?

Not sure why…it’s not meshing today for me! Lol

Earlier I was commenting on the fact you said (or I thought you said) that your unit has 51 weeks worth of points declared, not 52.
I do not know if it's true or not

In a traditional timeshare, a developer sells 51 weeks and one week (it's known which one) is kept for maintenance.
In a floating weeks timeshare, 51 weeks are sold, owners can book any of the 52 and the one remaining is left for maintenance.
In a point system, enough points are sold to book 51 weeks (/ 98% of the points), owners book the days they want and what is left is used for maintenance. Or the managing company can schedule maintenance and remove availability from the calendar before bookings open.

2% is often quoted, but I don't remember if/where I read it. Is it in the POS? 1/52 = 1,92%. So maybe it's rounded up for simplicity.

 

[Sandisw]

Earlier I was commenting on the fact you said (or I thought you said) that your unit has 51 weeks worth of points declared, not 52.
I do not know if it's true or not

In a traditional timeshare, a developer sells 51 weeks and one week (it's known which one) is kept for maintenance.
In a floating weeks timeshare, 51 weeks are sold, owners can book any of the 52 and the one remaining is left for maintenance.
In a point system, enough points are sold to book 51 weeks (/ 98% of the points), owners book the days they want and what is left is used for maintenance. Or the managing company can schedule maintenance and remove availability from the calendar before bookings open.

2% is often quoted, but I don't remember if/where I read it. Is it in the POS? 1/52 = 1,92%. So maybe it's rounded up for simplicity.

IIRC, the 2% is in the FL statute. So I get that DVD can’t sell all declared points.

Since my unit has 59803 points, DVD can’t sell about 1178 of those points.

So, my question is the points charts built on all the points…owners and DVDs? Or only the owners share?

I’m trying to get a clearer picture from those who say things must balance to the RU…using my unit as a specific example.

I know DVD can book with their points so 100% of unit points can be used…but is the point chart built without DVDs share of points?

That would allow some flexibility when shifting points on the chart without going over 100% in unit

I get why 51 weeks was used in early resorts, whe. Points was new, but why continue when the FL statute has been updated..

And I still have a feeling that 51 weeks of use days per unit plays some role in the balance…

What I do feel extremely confident about is that shifting across room types is allowed, providing they can make the points work with all the units when they shift one.

Basically, did the chart use all 58903 points for my unit in the chart or only 98% of those, since the other 2% don’t count since they are never sold?

 

[Cfabar1]

Basically, did the chart use all 58903 points for my unit in the chart or only 98% of those, since the other 2% don’t count since they are never sold?

I imagine DVD would be able to answer this question if you inquired? Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Sandisw]

I imagine DVD would be able to answer this question if you inquired? Seems pretty straightforward.

I am sure they will… but I want others takes on how they are defining the points from a RU that are in the chart so that when I decide to contact DVC for clarification I have actual info that others feel is how it should be.

 

[zavandor]

IIRC, the 2% is in the FL statute. So I get that DVD can’t sell all declared points.

Since my unit has 59803 points, DVD can’t sell about 1178 of those points.

So, my question is the points charts built on all the points…owners and DVDs? Or only the owners share?

I’m trying to get a clearer picture from those who say things must balance to the RU…using my unit as a specific example.

I know DVD can book with their points so 100% of unit points can be used…but is the point chart built without DVDs share of points?

That would allow some flexibility when shifting points on the chart without going over 100% in unit

I get why 51 weeks was used in early resorts, whe. Points was new, but why continue when the FL statute has been updated..

And I still have a feeling that 51 weeks of use days per unit plays some role in the balance…

What I do feel extremely confident about is that shifting across room types is allowed, providing they can make the points work with all the units when they shift one.

Basically, did the chart use all 58903 points for my unit in the chart or only 98% of those, since the other 2% don’t count since they are never sold?

Pretty certain the point charts are developed for all points, including the 2% DVC still owns.

 

[Sandisw]

Pretty certain the point charts are developed for all points, including the 2% DVC still owns.

Thank you. That at least helps one area for me.

 

[DisneyFanSea]

I've tried my best to go through this thread but I still can't wrap my head around PVB having point chart increases in 2027 in all kinds of unit types from Sep 1 - Sep 30 without any decrease in points elsewhere within 2027.

It seems some explanation is regarding TP units being reclassified as Preferred, but wouldn't that mean TP units should have a point decrease?

I also saw mention of a variance and an increase of 20% of a time. Does this mean that in other years the point chat should have a 20% decrease in baseline in certain year points chart to balance out?

 

[Leight19]

I've tried my best to go through this thread but I still can't wrap my head around PVB having point chart increases in 2027 in all kinds of unit types from Sep 1 - Sep 30 without any decrease in points elsewhere within 2027.

It seems some explanation is regarding TP units being reclassified as Preferred, but wouldn't that mean TP units should have a point decrease?

I also saw mention of a variance and an increase of 20% of a time. Does this mean that in other years the point chat should have a 20% decrease in baseline in certain year points chart to balance out?

So for your first question mathematically if you reduce the number of rooms in an expensive room category to less expensive one the number of total points go down. Here, if they did that, the points from change in number of rooms were then offset by making September more expensive.

To me, the notion Disney can sell a new addition to existing resort with misclassified rooms and then pull points from previously sold resort to “cover” the cost of those extra points claimed from fraudulent room classification is ludicrous. Idk why anyone views this as an acceptable answer to poly point charts.

 

[Patmcpsu]

It seems some explanation is regarding TP units being reclassified as Preferred, but wouldn't that mean TP units should have a point decrease?

Using simplified numbers, here is how most people would assume the redistribution would go:

From: 100 Theme Park Rooms @ 30 pts/ea + 100 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea = 5,000 points
To: 75 Theme Park Rooms @ 35 pts/ea + 125 Standard rooms @ 19 pts/ea =5,000 points

OR (what apparently happened):

From: 100 Theme Park Rooms @ 30 pts/ea + 100 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea = 5,000 points
To: 75 Theme Park Rooms @ 33.333 pts/ea + 125 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea =5,000 points

 

[Sandisw]

So for your first question mathematically if you reduce the number of rooms in an expensive room category to less expensive one the number of total points go down. Here, if they did that, the points from change in number of rooms were then offset by making September more expensive.

To me, the notion Disney can sell a new addition to existing resort with misclassified rooms and then pull points from previously sold resort to “cover” the cost of those extra points claimed from fraudulent room classification is ludicrous. Idk why anyone views this as an acceptable answer to poly point charts.

When they have not fully declared all the units into the condo association, they still have flexibility to adjust. Thst is my understanding.

So, any units not yet declared aren’t set in stone in terms of point values. So, those rooms that were going to be TPV, may have been in undeclared units…which means, they can move those points to other undeclared units and balance before they move that into the association.

The POS states that they don’t have to ever declare more than the initial phase.

Now, this doesn’t explain the move at PVB longhouses which I believe someone is trying to get that answer.

But for the tower, until those units are fully declared, I think these adjustments are allowed.

 

[DisneyFanSea]

So for your first question mathematically if you reduce the number of rooms in an expensive room category to less expensive one the number of total points go down. Here, if they did that, the points from change in number of rooms were then offset by making September more expensive.

Using simplified numbers, here is how most people would assume the redistribution would go:

From: 100 Theme Park Rooms @ 30 pts/ea + 100 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea = 5,000 points
To: 75 Theme Park Rooms @ 35 pts/ea + 125 Standard rooms @ 19 pts/ea =5,000 points

OR (what apparently happened):

From: 100 Theme Park Rooms @ 30 pts/ea + 100 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea = 5,000 points
To: 75 Theme Park Rooms @ 33.333 pts/ea + 125 Standard rooms @ 20 pts/ea =5,000 points

Thank you for the breakdown, this makes sense to me now!!

To me, the notion Disney can sell a new addition to existing resort with misclassified rooms and then pull points from previously sold resort to “cover” the cost of those extra points claimed from fraudulent room classification is ludicrous. Idk why anyone views this as an acceptable answer to poly point charts.

Now, this doesn’t explain the move at PVB longhouses which I believe someone is trying to get that answer.

Is the expectation/contract is that points should only adjust for certain dates only across the same room type for rooms that are fully declared?

 

[Leight19]

Thank you for the breakdown, this makes sense to me now!!




Is the expectation/contract is that points should only adjust for certain dates only across the same room type for rooms that are fully declared?

So within pos for most of the resorts it is explicitly stated that they are enabled to move points across days to balance demand. They also explicitly state any change they make cannot change distribution of points across units which would make these changes explicitly illegal. From my read and others who claim to have legal backgrounds it’s fairly clear they are not authorized to move points beyond the day to day scope which would make moves across rooms and view types illegal.

That said, the defense for legality is they have done it previously and were able to get away with it. However, when they made changes that were egregious and faced actual potential for legal challenge they backed off the changes. I suspect the changes at poly and akv value are in same scope; blatantly illegal but unlikely to get enough traction to force point charts to reverse.

 

[Sandisw]

Thank you for the breakdown, this makes sense to me now!!




Is the expectation/contract is that points should only adjust for certain dates only across the same room type for rooms that are fully declared?

Not necessarily. It all depends on the way that units are organized.

Some units have multiple room types in them. The points are declared for the unit.

And, that is what has to stay balanced when it comes to sales, and many believe it has to remain that way even when the balance based on owners travel patterns.

There is language that seems to support that but there is other language that some of us see that seems to contradict it.

So, if you go with the premise that units must always balance, you can still have moved across room types if they can make it work against all units.

For example, my unit at RIV has 3 tower studios and two two bedroom lock offs. They can move the total points in that unit between any of those rooms.

However, my other RIV unit is just one GV and one two bedroom lock off..so whatever they do, all units would need to work

As mentioned, DVCMC is of the belief that they can adjust point charts across units as long as the total resort stays balanced against declared points and has done it in the past.

But, there has never been a legal challenge to it so who knows which side would win. I lean they can move across the resort but not enough that I’d bet on it.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

When they have not fully declared all the units into the condo association, they still have flexibility to adjust. Thst is my understanding.

So, any units not yet declared aren’t set in stone in terms of point values. So, those rooms that were going to be TPV, may have been in undeclared units…which means, they can move those points to other undeclared units and balance before they move that into the association.

The POS states that they don’t have to ever declare more than the initial phase.

Now, this doesn’t explain the move at PVB longhouses which I believe someone is trying to get that answer.

But for the tower, until those units are fully declared, I think these adjustments are allowe

Was there ever an answer?