Can Disney inflate point charts by adding new units?

[KAT4DISNEY]

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.

If I've picked out the questions correctly the answer is yes and yes.

I'm sorry I don't have time to pull out the POS and locate but there's a statement that the point reallocations must be within units and units are designated in the declarations into the association. At PVB I believe the units as declared had either studios or bungalows but not both so per that statement they would need to keep all points originally allocated to the bungalows within the bungalows and the same with studios. They could reallocate between lakeview and standard view studios though.

However DVC has shown they feel that they can ignore the statement or that it means something else and that they can reallocate within different unit types which then means we might see a shifting of points from the bungalows to the studios. However I think the benefits from that is so minor if there are any at all that they wouldn't bother. There are a lot of studios to reallocate points to but it would have to be a lot of points going from the bungalows to the studios to be very noticeable and since PVB studios are already right at the top for DVC. A case where the member response would not be worth the headache.

 

[Yinn]

There are a lot of studios to reallocate points to but it would have to be a lot of points going from the bungalows to the studios to be very noticeable and since PVB studios are already right at the top for DVC. A case where the member response would not be worth the headache.

I think this is the big part. It's specific to PVB but there's 20 bungalows and 360 studios but a 1 point increase per studio would be a 18 point reduction per night for bungalows. That's a 10-15% discount on bungalows. Obviously this would change but the smallest spread between a studio and a bungalow right now is 96 points. That only allows for a 5 point per night increase on studios before that gap closed before a bungalow cost the same as a lake view studio. That ties their hands quite a bit as to how they can inflate - at least with PVB.

 

[DebbieB]

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?

sales offices. There was a building on the lawn.

 

[sethschroeder]

That ties their hands quite a bit as to how they can inflate - at least with PVB.

No exactly because off topic to this thread the inflation everyone is worried about right now (or should be) is DVC actually just raising total points to book rooms with points that don't exist so they can just take breakage. We saw general increases across a number of resorts which is where lots of questions have come from this year and where rumored 2022 point chart changes are coming from.

Like I said though off topic to this thread.

 

[Yinn]

No exactly because off topic to this thread the inflation everyone is worried about right now (or should be) is DVC actually just raising total points to book rooms with points that don't exist so they can just take breakage. We saw general increases across a number of resorts which is where lots of questions have come from this year and where rumored 2022 point chart changes are coming from.

Like I said though off topic to this thread.

That goes back to my original question though. Doesn't the total point pool have to stay the same for the resort?

 

[sethschroeder]

That goes back to my original question though. Doesn't the total point pool have to stay the same for the resort?

Its supposed to but as we see with the math this year Disney is basically creating points by making the total points on average to book all rooms higher. Its not by much so the individual owner doesn't see it but to Disney it means lots of extra money through breakage.

 

[Cabius]

Its supposed to but as we see with the math this year Disney is basically creating points by making the total points on average to book all rooms higher. Its not by much so the individual owner doesn't see it but to Disney it means lots of extra money through breakage.

To clarify: the total points available for use hasn't changed, but the value of those points has been somewhat reduced as the point chart actually exceeds the points allotment.

Making up numbers: if there were 1 million points a few years ago, there are still 1 million points today. No new points have been created.

But a few years ago, those 1 million points would book every single room for every single night (leap years excepted). Whereas today, if you personally owned all 1 million points at the resort it wouldn't be quite enough to do that.

There may still be 1 million points, but the point chart now requires 1.005 million points to max out, and that difference means slightly less value for owners, and slightly more guaranteed cash rental revenue for Disney.

 

[sethschroeder]

To clarify: the total points available for use hasn't changed, but the value of those points has been somewhat reduced as the point chart actually exceeds the points allotment.

Making up numbers: if there were 1 million points a few years ago, there are still 1 million points today. No new points have been created.

But a few years ago, those 1 million points would book every single room for every single night (leap years excepted). Whereas today, if you personally owned all 1 million points at the resort it wouldn't be quite enough to do that.

There may still be 1 million points, but the point chart now requires 1.005 million points to max out, and that difference means slightly less value for owners, and slightly more guaranteed cash rental revenue for Disney.

That's how Disney wants you to view it because then they can say its best for members to not be able to book every room for the year.

So yes I agree they are not physically creating points but essentially its the same thing. There are now 0.005 million points in your example that only Disney can use in the form of breakage on top of the normal breakage that occurs.

Yes it all starts getting in to the weeds.

 

[Cabius]

That's how Disney wants you to view it because then they can say its best for members to not be able to book every room for the year.

So yes I agree they are not physically creating points but essentially its the same thing. There are now 0.005 million points in your example that only Disney can use in the form of breakage on top of the normal breakage that occurs.

Yes it all starts getting in to the weeds.

Oh, I find it totally outrageous! I'm not trying to defend Disney here. Member points are less valuable, and Disney enjoys extra breakage income.

I'm just trying to be clear about exactly how the system is being manipulated, for clarity.

If Disney actually added more points, there would be too many member points chasing the same capacity, which would cause worse availability -- basically inflation.

By increasing the point chart of the same number of points, we have the opposite problem: all of the member points don't buy quite as much -- basically deflation.

 

[icc2515]

To clarify: the total points available for use hasn't changed, but the value of those points has been somewhat reduced as the point chart actually exceeds the points allotment.

Making up numbers: if there were 1 million points a few years ago, there are still 1 million points today. No new points have been created.

But a few years ago, those 1 million points would book every single room for every single night (leap years excepted). Whereas today, if you personally owned all 1 million points at the resort it wouldn't be quite enough to do that.

There may still be 1 million points, but the point chart now requires 1.005 million points to max out, and that difference means slightly less value for owners, and slightly more guaranteed cash rental revenue for Disney.

Let me see if I have this correct because I don't understand the term "value for owners". If I owned all 1 million points in the example I would be able to book every single night of the year for every single room lets pretend that this is 36,500 nights 100 rooms x 365 nights in this fictional example. Now that Disney has made some changes I am only able to book 36,400 nights for the year leaving and extra 100 nights that Disney could book for $700/night x 100 nights= a nice $70,000 profit for Disney by screwing me out of 100 nights.

 

[sethschroeder]

Let me see if I have this correct because I don't understand the term "value for owners". If I owned all 1 million points in the example I would be able to book every single night of the year for every single room lets pretend that this is 36,500 nights 100 rooms x 365 nights in this fictional example. Now that Disney has made some changes I am only able to book 36,400 nights for the year leaving and extra 100 nights that Disney could book for $700/night x 100 nights= a nice $70,000 profit for Disney by screwing me out of 100 nights.

Correct

They don't actually create more points instead they simply make it so that extra nights are left over for them to book since they have rights to any room that DVC members don't book themselves.

 

[Lorana]

By increasing the point chart of the same number of points, we have the opposite problem: all of the member points don't buy quite as much -- basically deflation.

And violates the terms of our contract. An owner's points = the % ownership of the unit they own as part of the deed real estate. By inflating the point chart such that the total amount of points owned for the resort cannot book all rooms in that resort for the year, they have decreased our % ownership. They either need to fix the point charts, or increase our total owned points. They are certainly not going to do the latter, but some owners have contacted them about the former. (see the 2021 vs 2022 point balancing thread I linked earlier which goes into this topic in depth).

 

[Sandisw]

And violates the terms of our contract. An owner's points = the % ownership of the unit they own as part of the deed real estate. By inflating the point chart such that the total amount of points owned for the resort cannot book all rooms in that resort for the year, they have decreased our % ownership. They either need to fix the point charts, or increase our total owned points. They are certainly not going to do the latter, but some owners have contacted them about the former. (see the 2021 vs 2022 point balancing thread I linked earlier which goes into this topic in depth).

The problem with this is that the % of the unit as represented by points is not equal for all owners.

If my unit has 1000 points and I own 100, I own 10% of that unit. But if you own the same 100 points but are part of a unit with 2000 points, you only own 5% of the unit.

IMO, I think we need to be careful when discussing % of ownership because it’s not based on the resort.

This is the reason they use points for use because units are not all the same size.

 

[Yinn]

To clarify: the total points available for use hasn't changed, but the value of those points has been somewhat reduced as the point chart actually exceeds the points allotment.

Making up numbers: if there were 1 million points a few years ago, there are still 1 million points today. No new points have been created.

But a few years ago, those 1 million points would book every single room for every single night (leap years excepted). Whereas today, if you personally owned all 1 million points at the resort it wouldn't be quite enough to do that.

There may still be 1 million points, but the point chart now requires 1.005 million points to max out, and that difference means slightly less value for owners, and slightly more guaranteed cash rental revenue for Disney.

I think I saw this trick on Office Space before. So basically we just need a Milton to solve the issue for us DVC owners.

 

[mustinjourney]

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 also have two showers.

 

[Lorana]

The problem with this is that the % of the unit as represented by points is not equal for all owners.

If my unit has 1000 points and I own 100, I own 10% of that unit. But if you own the same 100 points but are part of a unit with 2000 points, you only own 5% of the unit.

IMO, I think we need to be careful when discussing % of ownership because it’s not based on the resort.

This is the reason they use points for use because units are not all the same size.

That shouldn't matter, however, and within a resort, XX points would equal the same % ownership, so if within the resort of my ownership, the points needed to book the resort for the year increases, then my points no longer represent the % of my ownership. That's the relevant point I'm making. Points aren't arbitrary, and they are directly tied to % ownerships, which is why the total # points to book the resort for the year cannot increase (beyond changes for leap year, etc.)

 

[Sandisw]

That shouldn't matter, however, and within a resort, XX points would equal the same % ownership, so if within the resort of my ownership, the points needed to book the resort for the year increases, then my points no longer represent the % of my ownership. That's the relevant point I'm making. Points aren't arbitrary, and they are directly tied to % ownerships, which is why the total # points to book the resort for the year cannot increase (beyond changes for leap year, etc.)

This thread is about adding points and rooms which they can expressly do.

So I didn’t want people to get confused because if more rooms are added, your % of total resort changes which in no way changes your ownership as defined by the POS.

That’s all I am trying to share.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

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

Completely agree with this.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This thread is about adding points and rooms which they can expressly do.

So I didn’t want people to get confused because if more rooms are added, your % of total resort changes which in no way changes your ownership as defined by the POS.

That’s all I am trying to share.

The thread was about adding a new expensive type of room to existing associations and then shifting points to the existing rooms. Not certain where it went from there. And there's a lot of people that think the POS prohibits that type of move however DVC has done actions that make one think they believe they could do what the OP asked. I doubt they would though.

 

[Sandisw]

The thread was about adding a new expensive type of room to existing associations and then shifting points to the existing rooms. Not certain where it went from there. And there's a lot of people that think the POS prohibits that type of move however DVC has done actions that make one think they believe they could do what the OP asked. I doubt they would though.

It just seemed to be mixing the points situation being discussed elsewhere and what the OP was asking about so I was helping new people make sure they were aware that those are two different subjects being currently discussed.

I do agree that there is some level of mix in terms of shifting points across the entire resort, but in certain circumstances I think it can be done when a unit is filled with more than one room type as long as it balanced. The treehouses is one that I want to investigate more as its one of my home resorts, but life is getting in the way right now with elderly parents to do that kind of research.

We will see how this new building is declared for units, but since they are all studios, it will make it more complicated I think to shift, but don't think it is impossible depending on how those units at the original VGF were made.