Can Disney inflate point charts by adding new units?

[chalee94]

That being said, I cannot understand the higher point values for the RIV. I suppose part of it is that subjective thing.

DVC execs get greedy sometimes (see also: Vero, Aulani). They try to sell it on being the long term "Epcot resort" since BWV and BCV will be expiring in 20 years, but with the skyliner having had 3 minor crashes already, not sure how that is going to pan out. It's a nice enough resort to visit, but I'll be fine if I never stay at it.

 

[chalee94]

The current exec team is very good at "creating points" for DVD.

Others have since mentioned the 2022 point chart scam that is currently unresolved so the real question is just, "Can Disney inflate point charts (whenever they feel like it)?"

Wish someone with some pull would get together with the FL regulators because it doesn't look like these DVC execs have any intention of correcting their "error" unless they are forced to do so.

 

[Sandisw]

Technically, contractually, the answer to that question should be "no." The total # of points for a resort to book all rooms in a year can never change (minor fluctuations due to # of weekend days/leap year/etc aside). # of points is how your % ownership is represented, and Disney cannot change that. Additionally, the contracts also specify that a certain # of points will always be able to book a week in a specific category. Now, they can kind of get away with making it so that, say, September always has that minimum, and everywhere else the point increase goes way up, but those points in the contract are supposed to prevent inflation from using higher point units to inflate lower point units over time. My understanding is that was at the crux of the 2020 point chart dispute in 2019 over lockoff units, and was part of the reason why DVC amended the point charts after it was disputed by owners.

There are owners discussing the inflation of the 2022 points charts, and many have contacted DVC about their concern. I highly recommend reading this thread, as smarter minds than I have done really in-depth analysis of the contracts/agreements and point charts to prove that DVC is inflating point charts beyond the total # of points for a resort:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-point-balancing-2022-vs-2021.3820183/

I think this is different then what the OP is asking. DVD can add more inventory to the resort and thus when doing that, it adds more total points
because rooms come with them,

As owners we own a percentage of the unit…not the entire resort. So, adding more rooms can happen and then adjustments made to account for it,

 

[RoseGold]

I guess you could chalk that down to location for BRV vs SSR maybe. But it seems like it should be lower than BLT since it's significantly older.

BLT has a few cool spots in the chart where it is really good value, it can make some weird comparisons. Even if points get shuffled around, I think BLT is going to really be a star in a few years as the charts continue to increase with properties that can't beat BLT in location. Compare overall BLT vs any 2042 vs RIV and the trend is clear.

And I own Poly and VGF, haha.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

This is a good point. I don't know if many people take the point charts into account when they buy. I know I didn't, I just looked at dues and cost per point when I bought resale. But that might work fine for someone like me anyway since we typically book where we feel like (or what we can get) in the 7 month window.

There's some good info on the interwebs that factor the point charts into determining the most economical resorts, specifically analysis done by a former poster to this site. The analysis hinges on buying where you'll be staying though so if you're buying SSR points to sleep around at all resorts, cost per point including dues is still probably the best metric.

 

[The Jackal]

I saw Shannon Ford's video too and almost commented. Polynesian Studios have always had periods where they were more expensive than VGF studios. This isn't new. They're larger than VGF and have 2 showers.

Now, they've really reduced the point requirement for summer months for Poly and bumped up the last two seasons (during Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving), but I can't see where it came from the bungalows.

We typically travel in July and for 2022, our Poly week is now 18 points less than 2021.

VGF studios have 2 showers also, but only 1 sink in bathroom. VGF2 rooms will very close in size to PVB studios. 440 sq ft compared to 447 sq ft. VGF 1 studios are 374 sq ft. Curios to see the layout for VGF 2.

 

[Lorana]

I think this is different then what the OP is asking. DVD can add more inventory to the resort and thus when doing that, it adds more total points
because rooms come with them,

As owners we own a percentage of the unit…not the entire resort. So, adding more rooms can happen and then adjustments made to account for it,

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought they were asking if they could add more rooms and inflate the point chart. Adding more room types shouldn’t really allow for massive inflation by reallocating across room types, though I know that has happened in the case of SSR Treehouses.

At the very least, I know contracts specify that XX number of points will always be able to book a week in a unit type at least one week in a year. And the contracts further specify how much DVC is allowed to adjust the charts on an annual basis. I imagine at some point, there would need to be a ceiling on how much they can take points from expensive units and redistribute them to smaller units, especially as our % ownership in a unit always needs to represent that % unit. If you redistribute points such that my % unit - which might compromise % of different unit types - now collectively costs more points for the entire year, you’ve actually reduced my % and that isn’t allowed per the legal contract. At Poly this is probably easier to track because it’s only 2 unit types. If my unit is all studios and when the resort opened, it was (just making an example up) 2,000 points to book that % unit over a year, you can’t then take points from the bungalow to bump it up to 4,000 points for the year. The challenge is, of course, figuring out exactly what has been done - this is easiest at Poly but much harder to figure out at other resorts - and then contesting it with DVC. At the very least, it’s something owners should be up in arms about should they continue to do so.

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought they were asking if they could add more rooms and inflate the point chart. Adding more room types shouldn’t really allow for massive inflation by reallocating across room types, though I know that has happened in the case of SSR Treehouses.

At the very least, I know contracts specify that XX number of points will always be able to book a week in a unit type at least one week in a year. And the contracts further specify how much DVC is allowed to adjust the charts on an annual basis. I imagine at some point, there would need to be a ceiling on how much they can take points from expensive units and redistribute them to smaller units, especially as our % ownership in a unit always needs to represent that % unit. If you redistribute points such that my % unit - which might compromise % of different unit types - now collectively costs more points for the entire year, you’ve actually reduced my % and that isn’t allowed per the legal contract. At Poly this is probably easier to track because it’s only 2 unit types. If my unit is all studios and when the resort opened, it was (just making an example up) 2,000 points to book that % unit over a year, you can’t then take points from the bungalow to bump it up to 4,000 points for the year. The challenge is, of course, figuring out exactly what has been done - this is easiest at Poly but much harder to figure out at other resorts - and then contesting it with DVC. At the very least, it’s something owners should be up in arms about should they continue to do so.

There is a maximum reallocation chart that would male all days equal. But, if more rooms are added that come with points, it raises the total points at the resort.

So, they do have flexibility to readjust. I know there is some debate about that.

And yes, if your unit is assigned 2000 points, they can never sell more than 2000 points for that room. That is true. That is different than number of total points across the resort and what can go up and down when looking at all units and all configurations of rooms within that unit.

But, resorts can grow in size, and the points will be determined prior to sale for each of those new units.

But yes, the number of points owned has to match what the contract says it can book. For example, I believe my RIV contract says I can book a studio for every 18 points I own. So my new 125 points should always get me at least 6 nights a year in that room size.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I saw a video explaining that the Polynesian studios have now surpassed the Grand Floridian studios in terms of point cost due to the bungalow points being redistributed. This is exactly why I didn't buy at Poly or Copper Creek. Is it possible for Disney to add super-expensive units like the bungalows to other DVC resorts and then over time bump up the point cost for other room categories? Or, is there some sort of protection against this type of point cost inflation?

There are a few of us that believe the POS does not allow that. The way the verbage is it would only allow reallocations between units of the same size and not across units unless they were all the same size and it's rare or never that they've created units all the same size in a resort. There also were supporting sales documents in the past that backed that up. And ignored.

Then we get into the fact that DVC already did something similar although it ended up being the reverse with the SSR Treehouses. Those units of a different size were added and at the time they were the same and marketed as the same point cost of a 2BR. They were popular and people were trying them out so DVC decided the demand required them to reallocate so they pulled points out of the other SSR units over to the THV and the points required are now more than a 2BR. Most people felt "it made sense" so I have no idea if there were many or any complaints about it not meeting the POS and if there were DVC ignored them.

So long story short - while I'd argue they couldn't per the POS DVC has in fact done something that is that equivalent process. I do not think they'd push it as far as adding Bungalow/Cabin type accommodations to an existing association and increasing points in smaller units though but they have surprised in the past.

If the question is about PVB bungalow points shifting to studios then that is one that shouldn't be done. I think on the charts what was proposed just shifted the points around in the seasons that made a time or two more than the VGF studio but a time or two it is less although I'd have to look at it again.

 

[RoseGold]

I would agree there is a point escalation (ex. RIV) and I could also see why the Poly or the VGF command more points per night over the other resorts. Disney prices the hotel side of the GF and Poly resorts the highest out of all the others including the Contemporary and oftentimes I have seen the Poly a bit higher.

I agree with this to some degree, but not over 20%, like it is in my example for this weekend. I definitely don't think VGF/Poly are over 40% better than BW. I can't make any coherent argument other than $$$$ as to why RIV's charts are so close to VGF/Poly.

The charts are increasing, the pattern is obvious. The next property will exceed VGF. Heck, maybe even VGF2 will exceed VGF. Club level or theme park view would be obvious way to crank up the points. I'm sure Disney could figure out how to throw out a cheese plate and some juice boxes. More points = more money.

 

[Stargazer65]

The charts are increasing, the pattern is obvious.

Curious, do you think this will affect OKW after 2042? When all the 2042 contracts expire, can they/will they jack up the point charts for those with 2057 contracts?

 

[fixerupper]

Curious, do you think this will affect OKW after 2042? When all the 2042 contracts expire, can they/will they jack up the point charts for those with 2057 contracts?

I think OKW is a special case. They may try to offer extension again, and ROFR as much as they can. Barring that, they will rent the rooms for cash while they refurb and resell the other 2042 properties. But then, yes, they will all have eye watering charts and prices.

 

[Minniemoo15]

Funny enough, they actually didn’t redistribute PVBs bungalow points to studios for 2022 point chart. I can see why many would think that because PVB studios went up considerably for many times of the year. But PVB Bungalows also raised in points due to the overall inflation issue as discussed in the thread above.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Curious, do you think this will affect OKW after 2042? When all the 2042 contracts expire, can they/will they jack up the point charts for those with 2057 contracts?

OKW will still follow the same POS and point charts until it's done in 2057. The entire land lease and thus association was extended until then meaning DVC will either own a lot to rent out for cash or they might have a special sale of OKW points good for 15 years. Or who knows what but increasing point charts won't be one of the options. Quick claim deeds were done turning over all those contracts to DVC in 2042 so they'll still be there just like it were a brand new resort.

 

[DebbieB]

OKW and BWV both added rooms when their sales centers closed. Much smaller scale but they didn't adjust charts, at least not noticeable. BWV's added rooms were pool/garden (end of the hall). OKW was 3 buildings (62-64).

 

[zavandor]

I saw a video explaining that the Polynesian studios have now surpassed the Grand Floridian studios in terms of point cost due to the bungalow points being redistributed.

Can you please link the video? I don't think a redistribution between bungalows and studios has happened. It was attempted with the original 2020 point charts, but it was later rolled back because of members' complaints and threaten of legal action.

 

[Nabas]

OKW and BWV both added rooms when their sales centers closed. Much smaller scale but they didn't adjust charts, at least not noticeable. BWV's added rooms were pool/garden (end of the hall). OKW was 3 buildings (62-64).

I did not know that!

By end of the hall, do you mean the rooms farthest from the lobby? What were these rooms before DVC?

 

[sssteele]

Oddly enough Copper Creek and Boulder Ridge point charts are very similar, even though the Copper Creek chart has the cabins factored in.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Oddly enough Copper Creek and Boulder Ridge point charts are very similar, even though the Copper Creek chart has the cabins factored in.

They made the choice to match the original set of CCV points to the VWL point chart. Studios, 1BRs and 2BRs were all the same likely because they saw difficulty if people looked at both and wondered why the same location had big differences. Then the Cabins and to a lesser degree the few GV's allowed them to pump up the points within CCV and be more in line with the newer resorts.

 

[Yinn]

There are a few of us that believe the POS does not allow that. The way the verbage is it would only allow reallocations between units of the same size and not across units unless they were all the same size and it's rare or never that they've created units all the same size in a resort. There also were supporting sales documents in the past that backed that up. And ignored.

Then we get into the fact that DVC already did something similar although it ended up being the reverse with the SSR Treehouses. Those units of a different size were added and at the time they were the same and marketed as the same point cost of a 2BR. They were popular and people were trying them out so DVC decided the demand required them to reallocate so they pulled points out of the other SSR units over to the THV and the points required are now more than a 2BR. Most people felt "it made sense" so I have no idea if there were many or any complaints about it not meeting the POS and if there were DVC ignored them.

So long story short - while I'd argue they couldn't per the POS DVC has in fact done something that is that equivalent process. I do not think they'd push it as far as adding Bungalow/Cabin type accommodations to an existing association and increasing points in smaller units though but they have surprised in the past.

If the question is about PVB bungalow points shifting to studios then that is one that shouldn't be done. I think on the charts what was proposed just shifted the points around in the seasons that made a time or two more than the VGF studio but a time or two it is less although I'd have to look at it again.

I haven't researched the treehouse situation enough and will have to do that, but I think I'm confused.

Let's say they add 10 bungalows. I don't know what the actual point allocations are, but let's say for easy math it's 10,000 points per bungalow for a total of 100,000 points. Wouldn't the points chart adjust for the bungalows only since those are bungalow points? From my understanding, they can't say those 100,000 points automatically go into studios.

If so, those 100,000 points then need to be spread through the year. Which means they could inflate a specific season of the added category, but not as a whole.

But let's even assume they could spread it across categories. Doesn't the whole per year point total still need to remain the same? Ie, the sum of all DVC rentals can't total more than the total available DVC points...can it? If it has to remain the same then that would mean for every point a studio goes up in point, a bungalow somewhere goes down by 1 point.

So based on my understanding, if they did add bungalows for points inflation and reallocation was allowed. Then they would make more cash, availability for studios would get worse, studios would be more expensive to book, but bungalows would be cheaper.

Personally I'd love for bungalows to be cheaper...but then again I have a guaranteed week so the points increase and availability wouldn't affect me.