Anyone done the math on points as liability to DVC

[Prince John Robin Hood]

No. Breakage are any rooms not booked by owners using points. They sell for cash. We get the income up to a max of 2.5% of the operating budget. The rest of it gets kept by DVCM. Some goes to BVTC as part of that additional.

The rooms Disney books with their own points is just like any owner booking. They can do with those what they want but just have to follow the rules of booking that we all do.

I wonder how profitable that is for Disney

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder how profitable that is for Disney

No one knows for sure but every resort every year has the maximum limit reached in our dues.

 

[ford91exploder]

I wonder how profitable that is for Disney

The problem of course is if you are Disney you want to sell rooms for cash instead of DVC points. And being part of the Disney empire means that a lot of pressure can be brought to bear on you even if theoretically the members best interest is your job. The fact is that Disney corporate signs your paycheck so you do what you are told

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I wonder how profitable that is for Disney

All profit. No outlay. It’s not like they say, hey, we will pay extra member fees for all the extra rooms we rent for cash. No. Members pay for the customer service, the housekeeping, property taxes, pool maintenance, all of it. Disney still just pays the min % in maintenance fees that they normally pay. All the extra “breakage” is subsidized by members.

 

[Sandisw]

All profit. No outlay. It’s not like they say, hey, we will pay extra member fees for all the extra rooms we rent for cash. No. Members pay for the customer service, the housekeeping, property taxes, pool maintenance, all of it. Disney still just pays the min % in maintenance fees that they normally pay. All the extra “breakage” is subsidized by members.

But to be fair, if members book the rooms, then it reduces breakage. I think there are lots of points that go to waste and unused ever year which is what causes such a large amount.

 

[DougEMG]

The rooms Disney books with their own points is just like any owner booking. They can do with those what they want but just have to follow the rules of booking that we all do.

Wasn't it last year that there were some very strange booking anomalies that occurred were rooms were disappearing before the 11 month+ 7 day window was even opened. I know it did happen to me with a BWV room and it took a call to member services to have them "magically" find a room to give me. I am sure they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar holding rooms ahead of when any member could book it and quietly tried to make it all go away by releasing those rooms.

What members perceive as rules I feel DVC considers only guidelines and they will push and interpret those guidelines however they feel like. If it wasn't for the work of some of the members here watching what DVC is doing, I think we'd be seeing a lot more shady stuff happening.

 

[Sandisw]

Wasn't it last year that there were some very strange booking anomalies that occurred were rooms were disappearing before the 11 month+ 7 day window was even opened. I know it did happen to me with a BWV room and it took a call to member services to have them "magically" find a room to give me. I am sure they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar holding rooms ahead of when any member could book it and quietly tried to make it all go away by releasing those rooms.

What members perceive as rules I feel DVC considers only guidelines and they will push and interpret those guidelines however they feel like. If it wasn't for the work of some of the members here watching what DVC is doing, I think we'd be seeing a lot more shady stuff happening.

Yes, there were a few issues around October 1st, and then some with VGF in early December.

VGF is going through a soft goods in 2021 so there is the possibility that played a role, since that does not have to follow rules if pulling for that, but nothing concrete to support either way what exactly happened, Those weeks are heavy FW too so possible that was part of it.

Again, could they sometimes slip things by, sure. But, overall, I think they play by the rules, and haven’t seen it happen often enough to assume it was anything more than a blip.

It is interesting that is occurred during times of heavy walking but not since.

 

[Donna M]

It is good that DVC is a luxury that we can discard if we aren´t happy with it anymore. They need to be held accountable, but we can always sell and never deal with them again if we aren´t happy with the situation.

 

[ford91exploder]

Wasn't it last year that there were some very strange booking anomalies that occurred were rooms were disappearing before the 11 month+ 7 day window was even opened. I know it did happen to me with a BWV room and it took a call to member services to have them "magically" find a room to give me. I am sure they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar holding rooms ahead of when any member could book it and quietly tried to make it all go away by releasing those rooms.

What members perceive as rules I feel DVC considers only guidelines and they will push and interpret those guidelines however they feel like. If it wasn't for the work of some of the members here watching what DVC is doing, I think we'd be seeing a lot more shady stuff happening.

Oh you noticed those little anomalies as well, They also existed around the 7 month mark plus all the weeks with a prime room class with 1-2 days missing in the MIDDLE of the week - but magically those SAME room classes were readily available from CRO with $ 95 buck fee and a really unfavorable point exchange rate. Now if it were the weekend days which were unavailable that would be much more logical as people do like weekend getaways but the middle of the week that stretches credulity a bit further than it can go.

 

[DougEMG]

Again, could they sometimes slip things by, sure. But, overall, I think they play by the rules, and haven’t seen it happen often enough to assume it was anything more than a blip.

I think the problem is that DVC reads the rules one way, then a little later reads them another way. They are very flexible in how they interpret the rules.

I think one of the first things they pulled over members was when they decreased the point cost of SSR studios by increasing the cost of SSR treehouses. I am 100% convinced that this was not allowed based on the fact that contracts specify you own a specific percent of a specific unit which is only represented by x number of points. Studios and Treehouses aren't in the same unit ever, so we are robbing one member to advantage another. Most members though liked having the cheaper studios, so not much of an uproar over that change.

 

[Matty B13]

There were also some issues with the AKV value rooms last year from what I remember.

 

[Sandisw]

There were also some issues with the AKV value rooms last year from what I remember.

IIRC, That was because of cash renovations on the hotel side. Because they didn’t know for sure how long that wing would be impacted, people booked and then had to be moved.

But, maybe you are referring to something else?

 

[bobbiwoz]

I think the problem is that DVC reads the rules one way, then a little later reads them another way. They are very flexible in how they interpret the rules.

I think one of the first things they pulled over members was when they decreased the point cost of SSR studios by increasing the cost of SSR treehouses. I am 100% convinced that this was not allowed based on the fact that contracts specify you own a specific percent of a specific unit which is only represented by x number of points. Studios and Treehouses aren't in the same unit ever, so we are robbing one member to advantage another. Most members though liked having the cheaper studios, so not much of an uproar over that change.

I did complain to them because the treehouses were touted to be the same points as a two bedroom at SSR and suddenly they weren’t. We had our treehouse stay when they were the same, but never again.

Another time I feel they, DVC, were underhanded, was when they changed the BLT points. I was at a DVC presentation on board a cruise when they only showed the then current point chart for BLT. Afterward I told them that they should also give out the amended chart. They did at the next presentation I attended.

As Members, we have to keep reminding them that we have read the papers, we are watching.

 

[Bing Showei]

Again, could they sometimes slip things by, sure. But, overall, I think they play by the rules, and haven’t seen it happen often enough to assume it was anything more than a blip.

It is interesting that is occurred during times of heavy walking but not since.

It may not be that in only occurs during heavy walk times, but that it is only apparent during those periods because of the more visible effects of severely limited supply and any violation of booking windows, but as you said, it could be a blip and would be hard to prove otherwise.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting Disney intentionally blocked walks. Not a fan of walks, but even much less a fan of circumventing/violating booking rules/regulations.

 

[zavandor]

I did complain to them because the treehouses were touted to be the same points as a two bedroom at SSR and suddenly they weren’t. We had our treehouse stay when they were the same, but never again.

If they tried something like that now, there would be an outrage. At the time they could get away with it because we still had faith they were running DVC the "Disney way" and not as the timeshare scams people were used to. That was the first crack, what gave them the impression they could get away with anything.

 

[Bing Showei]

If they tried something like that now, there would be an outrage. At the time they could get away with it because we still had faith they were running DVC the "Disney way" and not as the timeshare scams people were used to. That was the first crack, what gave them the impression they could get away with anything.

I remain convinced that you raising this issue in 2019 really pushed Disney to decide it was better to roll back the 2020 point charts than to open the conversation, or legal examination of historical misdeeds.

The challenge for us as member owners is the natural tendency to only speak when the changes affect us personally. Many members did raise the issue of the Treehouses, but the majority of the membership actually benefited with lower SSR room costs. This of course, tacitly gave Disney permission to continue engaging in these changes.

The increasingly aggressive, anti-owner resale restrictions that started in 2011 relies on this same tacit approval by way of grandfathering, and essentially pacifying, members. It's less "doing right" by members and more crowd control policy.

It's a balancing act for us as owners. No one enjoys policing policy. Hell, I would rather be ignorant of all of this, to be honest. I would certainly be a happier owner. But I can't unsee the things that have happened, and because my family enjoys the Disney timeshare interest that we own, I owe it to them to speak up.

I only hope that as a community others will have the resolve to do the same. Because without that concerted effort, the alternative would be to just walk away. And, as evidenced by my ownership, I just have too many years of WDW visits with friends and family that I still believe is worth fighting for.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think the problem is that DVC reads the rules one way, then a little later reads them another way. They are very flexible in how they interpret the rules.

I think one of the first things they pulled over members was when they decreased the point cost of SSR studios by increasing the cost of SSR treehouses. I am 100% convinced that this was not allowed based on the fact that contracts specify you own a specific percent of a specific unit which is only represented by x number of points. Studios and Treehouses aren't in the same unit ever, so we are robbing one member to advantage another. Most members though liked having the cheaper studios, so not much of an uproar over that change.

as part of the same resort which the treehouse villas are as both are considered SSR. That one was legitimate by the rules because it did not create a change in total resort points, Unlike all the other recent changes which have inflated resort point totals

 

[Sandisw]

as part of the same resort which the treehouse villas are as both are considered SSR. That one was legitimate by the rules because it did not create a change in total resort points, Unlike all the other recent changes which have inflated resort point totals

Except the points assigned to units when sold must stay point neutral since ownership is deeded that way.

Now it’s possible when they added the new units of the treehouses, before they were all sold out for initial determination, they were allowed to shift but kept it point neutral.

For example, if a treehouse was awarded...making up numbers...1000 points and by the time they adjusted, only 500 points were deeded, shifted those points to a different unit in SSR and sold from there, it would be considered okay in meeting point neutrality.

But no one knows if this was the case, and if in
even it was possible based on what was not yet sold. Not all units are created equal at each resort. Some consistent of a lot of rooms, sections or some just one.

Again, not a simple it was or was not a violation simply because they were just added.

ETA. Realized one sentence got deleted when I posted. If they reduced points like I suggested was possible it would still have to balance again all units because points assigned are based on actual use for the year.

 

[ford91exploder]

Except the points assigned to units when sold must stay point neutral since ownership is deeded that way.

Now it’s possible when they added the new units of the treehouses, before they were all sold out for initial determination, they were allowed to shift but kept it point neutral.

For example, if a treehouse was awarded...making up numbers...1000 points and by the time they adjusted, only 500 points were seeded, they shifted those points to a different unit in SSR and sold from there, it would be considered okay in meeting point neutrality.

But no one knows if this was the case, and if in
even it was possible based on what was not yet sold. Not all units are created equal at each resort. Some consistent of a lot of rooms, sections or some just one.

Again, not a simple it was or was not a violation simply because they were just added.

Agreed to me THV re-assignment SEEMS to follow the rules as the THV's were added to the SSR resort thereby increasing the total declared points for the resort, I never recall reading anything saying that points cannot be reallocated between room classes. When Disney changed SSR/THV point allocation the points on the chart stayed the same which is different than the more recent changes where points are created out of thin air.

Remember this is the guy who NEVER gives Disney pass, I agree with your major point that we cant know whether this was planned like this or simply a happy accident which benefited the DVC members in Disney trying to create a price increase to increase the supply of breakage in THV room class.

 

[DougEMG]

Agreed to me THV re-assignment SEEMS to follow the rules as the THV's were added to the SSR resort thereby increasing the total declared points for the resort, I never recall reading anything saying that points cannot be reallocated between room classes. When Disney changed SSR/THV point allocation the points on the chart stayed the same which is different than the more recent changes where points are created out of thin air.

Remember this is the guy who NEVER gives Disney pass, I agree with your major point that we cant know whether this was planned like this or simply a happy accident which benefited the DVC members in Disney trying to create a price increase to increase the supply of breakage in THV room class.

My contract/deed refers to me owning a specific percentage of a specific unit which is only represented by points. Total points for that unit for the entire year can not change, but they can change how they are allocated within seasons and room types in that unit. Since that deed was created before the treehouses there are no treehouses in that unit so that unit's total points can not be changed because of a change at the treehouses.

They aren't allowed to swap points between units because that is what members legally own a percent of.