Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[gvel]

I think it's pretty likely that will happen.

Look at POLY chart this year.

Yes, but I think the Poly chart went up across the board, but the overall number of points did not. I believe the moved some Theme Park view rooms to preferred.

 

[DonkeyHoTay]

I think it's pretty likely that will happen. Look at POLY chart this year.

Yes, but I think the Poly chart went up across the board, but the overall number of points did not. I believe the moved some Theme Park view rooms to preferred.

Poly was effectively a re-balancing of points across room types to acknowledge that some rooms previously categorized as TPV were... not.

I got one of those rooms - it was a ground floor 1bdrm villa with a patio "facing" the theme park. Thanks to the landscaping and buildings, I couldn't see the theme park! I complained and was moved to a Preferred view villa (no other TPV rooms left), which ironically had a view of the pool and TWO theme parks - turn your head one way and watch MK fireworks, turn the other way and watch the Epcot fireworks; and that room cost less than a TPV room!

 

[gvel]

Poly was effectively a re-balancing of points across room types to acknowledge that some rooms previously categorized as TPV were... not. I got one of those rooms - it was a ground floor room 1bdrm villa with a patio "facing" the theme park. Thanks to the landscaping and buildings, I couldn't see the theme park! I complained and was moved to a Preferred view villa (no other TPV rooms left), which ironically had a view of the pool and TWO theme parks - turn your head one way and watch MK fireworks, turn the other way and watch the Epcot fireworks; and that room cost less than a TPV room!

Which was the room number?

 

[Add-On-Itis]

@DonkeyHoTay
It's their fault they over categorized views. Views that wasn't there in the first place.

What's preventing them from declaring the whole building as Theme Park view. Then as people complain reduce them to perfer and resort view. Only to move those points?

Instead those points should never been declared and removed.

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

The PIT rebalancing is actually a good thing and different than the Trust issue we’re talking about IMO. BLT played out similarly.

A cabin is a cabin is a cabin. One that was declared a year ago on Loop A is the same as one declared today on Loop B. Except it’s not, because Disney gave themselves the right (we think?) to say the Loop B cabin costs more points than Loop A cabin, inflating the entire point chart arbitrarily. Surprise!

 

[Tatebeck]

So, here's a question.

I just did a quick search of the CFW POS. I did not find a written statement of the "maximum reallocation" value---the point value assigned to a use-day if there were no seasonal or day-of-week variations. The language describing maximum reallocation is there, but not the specific point value.

Does anyone know if a specific maximum reallocation point value has been published anywhere in the governing documents for CFW?

I don't think so, or at least not that I could find either. I had been looking too and found exactly what you did. It still has the language that reallocation could cause a leveling of all seasons/use days but never had a maximum reallocation value that the average cost of a cabin couldn't ever rise above. I would want that added if I were looking at buying at the cabins

 

[MonorailCoral]

That was how I took the expiring resorts comments!

The 2042 situation is exactly why I think they will move to a trust model with RTU plans.

They can technically add all the 2042 resorts to the trust immediately.

I think they could even find a way to create a RTU plan and put some inventory in, as is, so they are available for trades at 7 months for those with unrestricted points and then as are renovated, they start to sell as new home resorts.

Obviously, complete speculation and out of box thinking!

I am convinced that after 2042, DVC will be a different product than many of us are used too. Hopefully it wont be far off, but at least until 2042 (and beyond for the other longer life Associations), you know what you are getting (generally locked in point charts for the 014 resorts, deeded units etc).

After 2042, something else in the DVC universe will exist, may be better with dues/flexibility, but might also have some downsides, especially for resale. Given the popularity of DVC, I would think they wont mess with it too much if you purchased from Disney, other than trying to generating more direct sales.

They cant/wont want to risk all those 2042 dues which are currently payable not being available. How that happens, we don't know yet, but will keep getting clues as each of these new projects come online. And too many resorts come up at once, so this certainly seems like a viable option for them.

 

[Genie+]

I kind of get what you mean. Sure, every transaction you complete with a major corporation, not just Disney requires a certain level of trust. But you're comparing two very different items with different scopes. Tickets are a one time use item priced at $150+- per day... DVC is a high dollar long term financial commitment. I don't know about you, but I have a much higher risk tolerance for the former.

Also, the terms of tickets are well defined and dont necessarily leave a lot of room for screwing you over in creative ways.

Oh yeah, very true. I meant our contracts are already like the ticket fine print, where Disney is reluctant to guarantee much and gives themselves plenty of room for what they potentially could do. The newest contracts are heavier in that regard but every DVC contract has wording that allows for things that most owners would find horrible if they actually happened, and all we members have is the hope Disney does not find reason to do the worst. Peppered throughout is stuff like this:

“d. Term of the Vacation Ownership Plan at Each DVC Resort.

For Club Members at the Beach Club Villas, the Wilderness Lodge Resort, and the BoardWalk Villas, the term of the Vacation Ownership Plan will continue through January 31, 2042, the expiration date of the ground lease and the condominium for each of those DVC Resorts, unless: (i) the ground lease is sooner terminated in accordance with its terms; (ii) the Vacation Ownership Plan is sooner terminated in accordance with the applicable DVC Resort Documents; or (iii) the term is otherwise extended in accordance with the applicable DVC Resort Documents.”

“b. Rules and Regulations Governing Access to and Use of Reservation System.

Making a reservation through the Club and the special restrictions and priority provisions governing the use of the Club are set forth in the Membership Agreement, the Home Resort Rules and Regulations, the DVC Resort Agreement, and the Disclosure Document. The Management Company, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion, may change the terms and conditions of the Membership Agreement and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for a Club Member's Home Resort. BVTC, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion, may change the terms and conditions of the Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange, and rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and may impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Such changes may be made by the Management Company or BVTC without the consent of any Club Member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase the Club Member's costs of ownership. Further, although the Management Company and BVTC are required to make such changes in accordance with applicable law and the respective document, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them.”

Every contract has scary stuff that would be hard to accept without having some confidence Disney continues to act reasonably. What does DVC mean by not guaranteeing our ground leases last to expiration of our contracts? Whatever that is, I have to hope they wouldn’t do it just because they somehow can.

Anything too egregious would negatively impact their business. I try to also consider that when weighing my risks of the individual terms I do not like. How likely are they to do it and to what extent. The further on the egregious side of the spectrum, the more unlikely they are to do it, barring some crazy event compelling them to decide it’s in their best interest.

Technically DVC and park tickets reserve the right to ruin our magic lol. How many members would regret buying if ability to trade into other resorts was later removed? But what circumstances would it take for Disney to push to the edge of their legal limits over trying to maintain a reasonable relationship with their consumers.

 

[DonkeyHoTay]

Which was the room number?

Cannot remember the ground floor room number, but it was probably the only ground floor 1bdrm villa facing Grand Floridian at the corner of the building. Definitely not Theme Park View!

@DonkeyHoTay
It's their fault they over categorized views. Views that wasn't there in the first place.

What's preventing them from declaring the whole building as Theme Park view. Then as people complain reduce them to perfer and resort view. Only to move those points?

Instead those points should never been declared and removed.

Have to agree.... didn't they have this problem at BLT and had to re-allocate because of all the complaints? So, rather than learn that lesson the first time, they did it again at Poly Tower ... accidentally?

When the CM manager on duty at the Poly tower was moving us, she told me the resort was getting this complaint regularly about several rooms obviously mis-categorized and she was told it would be adjusted for 2026. I am surprised they needed guest complaints to become aware of these room view issues....

 

[Sandisw]

So the point charts can shift upwards as more units are declared?

Yes, because the RTU plan has inventory and the point charts are made to book all the inventory that has been added.

Because they are not selling ownership interests to units, they don’t have to decide ahead of time how many points will be needed to represent 100% use of that specific unit.

So, they can decide how many points they want to attach to those rooms when they are added, but once that happens, the points are no longer attached to just those room.

It becomes one big pool of points that can be used to create charts for all the rooms there.

It will definitely be interesting to see how many points are attached to the next set of cabins and what it works out to for the year in comparison to what it was for the first and second declarations.

 

[Sandisw]

So, here's a question.

I just did a quick search of the CFW POS. I did not find a written statement of the "maximum reallocation" value---the point value assigned to a use-day if there were no seasonal or day-of-week variations. The language describing maximum reallocation is there, but not the specific point value.

Does anyone know if a specific maximum reallocation point value has been published anywhere in the governing documents for CFW?

No, it has not and I don’t think it will ever be because the maximum will be based on total points and rooms activated.

Right now we have 63 cabins for around 450K points. The maximum would be based on that.

But, they can make the next set of cabins more than what they already did and then reshuffle.

They do have to meet the 20% rule for a use day, so I believe that will play a role in how they add points with the inventory

But, the documents explain that the balance always has to match against all points and rooms in the RTU plan and not for specific rooms.

If they decided to add some rooms from LSL as part of the same RTU as CFW, then the maximum values for cabins and those rooms would be based on total points for all.

They points don’t have to stay with the specific units/rooms once they have been activated.

For me, this is why this is a different product and people should at least know the differences.

Now, I have said that unless it’s a unique situation like this…where I think they were always supposed to be the same resort.,, I really believe they won’t make hybrid RTU plans, assuming they stick with all future resorts being sold via a trust model instead of a leasehold condo like the others.

 

[Sandisw]

@DonkeyHoTay
It's their fault they over categorized views. Views that wasn't there in the first place.

What's preventing them from declaring the whole building as Theme Park view. Then as people complain reduce them to perfer and resort view. Only to move those points?

Instead those points should never been declared and removed.

My understanding is that the shift was made for the resort level for the units not yet declared.

They adjusted it there…for example, unless I read it wrong, the actual units that were classified as TPV were not units that had officially been declared.

When they put us in rooms at the resort for a stay, they can be in any room…whether it’s an officially declared room or not.

Same with cash guests,,, they can stay in any room even if it’s an offical DVC room.

That is why what happened at the tower is allowed. Because the recalculated the entire for sale and shifts points before they went to the association

 

[Tatebeck]

No, it has not and I don’t think it will ever be because the maximum will be based on total points and rooms activated.

Right now we have 63 cabins for around 450K points. The maximum would be based on that.

But, they can make the next set of cabins more than what they already did and then reshuffle.

They do have to meet the 20% rule for a use day, so I believe that will play a role in how they add points with the inventory

But, the documents explain that the balance always has to match against all points and rooms in the RTU plan and not for specific rooms.

It does still have this wording though: "The right to reallocate Home Resort Vacation Points is reserved by DVCM solely for adjusting the Home Resort Reservation Component to account for Club Member demand"

So if they mess with the point charts over time with egregious changes after many contracts are already sold, wouldn't members be able to sue for breach of contact if the changes weren't seen as done solely accounting for club member demand?

In addition to that ruining the reputation and future sales of course. I just don't see them doing anything too crazy with it after the fact.

 

[Sandisw]

It does still have this wording though: "The right to reallocate Home Resort Vacation Points is reserved by DVCM solely for adjusting the Home Resort Reservation Component to account for Club Member demand"

So if they mess with the point charts over time with egregious changes after many contracts are already sold, wouldn't members be able to sue for breach of contact if the changes weren't seen as done solely accounting for club member demand?

In addition to that ruining the reputation and future sales of course. I just don't see them doing anything too crazy with it after the fact.

No, because any inventory and points that are activated into the same RTU plan become one big pool of points and home resort.

Right now, we have 63 cabins with about 475k points. That means it take about 7500 points to use each cabin for a year.

They are allowed, because they are not selling ownership but RTU, add the cabins with whatever point total they want.

So, if they want, they can add another 30 cabins, and assign them 300k for use,,,,now you have 93 cabins with a till of 775k points. That brings it to 8100 per cabin to use it for the year

That is what they can use to set the point charts.

The documents explain that it’s all based on all inventory activated for use and that they can add multiple component sites to the same plan.

Even when it talks about reallocation it says it has to balance against all inventory that has been added to the plan.

Yes, they can still raise or lower based on demand but the difference is that the total points is not fixed like it is when you sell a leasehold condo.

A RTU plan can never sell out…because DVDs can add more rooms to it, no matter where they are located as long as they have added them to the trust as trust property.

Now, DVD may choose to never add future inventory to a RTU plan, but the option is there and what you are buying is the right to use any and all inventory that is part of your plan.

Right now it is only cabins, so those who own at CFW have only cabins as their home resort inventory.

But, if DVD decides to add inventory from LSL to this same plan, then those who bought when it was just CFW, now have both CFW and LSL as a home resort.

So, the point charts totals need to match the total points that have been activated…but that total can rise as much as DVD wants it to by adding more inventory to that plan.

ETA: I too do not see them doing anything crazy but they have already made the yearly total to book a cabin different between the first and second declarations.

And, if someone reads the POS, it does explain that the points can go up and down but balance against all inventory, that they can add inventory from other component sites, and that even replace inventory with comparable options.

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

No, it has not and I don’t think it will ever be because the maximum will be based on total points and rooms activated.

Right now we have 63 cabins for around 450K points. The maximum would be based on that.

But, they can make the next set of cabins more than what they already did and then reshuffle.

They do have to meet the 20% rule for a use day, so I believe that will play a role in how they add points with the inventory

But, the documents explain that the balance always has to match against all points and rooms in the RTU plan and not for specific rooms.

If they decided to add some rooms from LSL as part of the same RTU as CFW, then the maximum values for cabins and those rooms would be based on total points for all.

They points don’t have to stay with the specific units/rooms once they have been activated.

For me, this is why this is a different product and people should at least know the differences.

Now, I have said that unless it’s a unique situation like this…where I think they were always supposed to be the same resort.,, I really believe they won’t make hybrid RTU plans, assuming they stick with all future resorts being sold via a trust model instead of a leasehold condo like the others.

Great explanation - as always! Thank you.
And, just a tad frightening if I were a Cabin buyer

 

[Sandisw]

Great explanation - as always! Thank you.
And, just a tad frightening if I were a Cabin buyer

It could be for sure! But, I also don’t believe that DVD is going to go wild…however, I can see them slowly rising the average a few points over time.

Consipuracy thinking here,,.it could give insight in why they didn’t mind starting with a lower point chart to start because they know that as they add more inventory, they can slowly get those up because of the structure of the trust and RTU.

 

[Tatebeck]

No, because any inventory and points that are activated into the same RTU plan become one big pool of points and home resort.

Right now, we have 63 cabins with about 475k points. That means it take about 7500 points to use each cabin for a year.

They are allowed, because they are not selling ownership but RTU, add the cabins with whatever point total they want.

So, if they want, they can add another 30 cabins, and assign them 300k for use,,,,now you have 93 cabins with a till of 775k points. That brings it to 8100 per cabin to use it for the year

That is what they can use to set the point charts.

The documents explain that it’s all based on all inventory activated for use and that they can add multiple component sites to the same plan.

Even when it talks about reallocation it says it has to balance against all inventory that has been added to the plan.

Yes, they can still raise or lower based on demand but the difference is that the total points is not fixed like it is when you sell a leasehold condo.

A RTU plan can never sell out…because DVDs can add more rooms to it, no matter where they are located as long as they have added them to the trust as trust property.

Now, DVD may choose to never add future inventory to a RTU plan, but the option is there and what you are buying is the right to use any and all inventory that is part of your plan.

Right now it is only cabins, so those who own at CFW have only cabins as their home resort inventory.

But, if DVD decides to add inventory from LSL to this same plan, then those who bought when it was just CFW, now have both CFW and LSL as a home resort.

So, the point charts totals need to match the total points that have been activated…but that total can rise as much as DVD wants it to by adding more inventory to that plan.

I know that they are able to add more inventory at any time, even if it is added at a higher point rate per cabin or per room than previous inventory.

But after that inventory is added, (unless they are going to add a new booking or view category) then at the second step, when they go to make all the older existing rooms a slightly higher rate to make all of the cabins the same cost per night, then they are specifically reallocating points withing the RTU.

And according to their own documents they can ONLY reallocate due to member demand. If there is a huge change in existing rooms and if the members all got together and said that the changes were in no way related to demand, DVC could be made to prove in court that it followed the contracts as written and made the changes according to member demand. It would be a long shot of course, but it clearly doesn't say that they can reallocate across the entire RTU just because. The POS documents say that it has to be based on member demand specifically.

So small increases would be normal, but a huge addition that spiked all existing rooms average point cost by a large amount could still cross the line the way I read it

ETA: So it makes it more flexible for DVC than it has been in the past, but there are still rules they must follow, and there isn't unlimited flexibility is my point

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

It could be for sure! But, I also don’t believe that DVD is going to go wild…however, I can see them slowly rising the average a few points over time.

Consipuracy thinking here,,.it could give insight in why they didn’t mind starting with a lower point chart to start because they know that as they add more inventory, they can slowly get those up because of the structure of the trust and RTU.

Yeah, and I suppose a Favorite Week is the only way to inoculate against that potential future inflation?

 

[gvel]

It could be for sure! But, I also don’t believe that DVD is going to go wild…however, I can see them slowly rising the average a few points over time.

Consipuracy thinking here,,.it could give insight in why they didn’t mind starting with a lower point chart to start because they know that as they add more inventory, they can slowly get those up because of the structure of the trust and RTU.

I was not around the DVC world when the Treehouses were added to SSR... from a practical standpoint how did the addition of the treehouses compare to what can be done under the trust model regarding inventory and points allocation for CFW and potentially LSL?

 

[Tatebeck]

Yeah, and I suppose a Favorite Week is the only way to inoculate against that potential future inflation?

It's the only foolproof way I believe. Another slightly worse option could be to wait until almost all of your chosen resort has been added to the RTU, and then buy just before sellout. Once they have declared most of the resort, any changes to the last bit of the declared units will have a much smaller effect on the large number of already declared units. It could still change further with future additions to the RTU after that though.

I was not around the DVC world when the Treehouses were added to SSR... from a practical standpoint how did the addition of the treehouses compare to what can be done under the trust model regarding inventory and points allocation for CFW and potentially LSL?

Pretty much they did what the Trust explicitly lets them do now. Declared new rooms to the association after the fact and reallocated points from between those and other already existing and sold units. It was questionable depending on who you ask and how you read the older contracts and POSs, but explicitly are allowed in the new Trust or CFW RTU documents