Can Disney inflate point charts by adding new units?

[DaveNan]

One way they can do exactly what OP is asking is to add new rooms at an inflated points rate to an existing association and then rebalance later. Lets take VGF as an example. When they add VGF2 they could make all those rooms a new booking category. Preferred Lake View, and Preferred STD view. The rooms are bigger and it is closer to the lobby. Now in my example I am going to exaggerate the impact. Say across the board in all periods (seasons) they up the point cost by 6 points per night for a studio (12 and 18 for 1BR and 2 BR) The current SV studio in Jan is 17/21, so the new building Preferred SV will be 23/27. In two years, they could decide the preferred room book slower, and then they could rebalance across SV and PSV making the rates 19/23 for VGF1 and 21/25 for VGF2. (my example assumes the 2 resorts to be the exact same size if the sizes are different the adjustment up and adjustment down would have to be changed to keep the total number of points the same. In this example Disney would create any "ghost" points as much of this thread points out. (change the base year, increase to LO premium, of pull a quick one on rebalancing). They have stood by their ability to move points between room categories, units, building while balancing. Only the total number of points to book all the units in the association for a year needs to stay the same. When they have actually increased this number is when they have violated the POS and backed off after member complaints.
They demonstrated this in a way when they added the treehouses at SSR. At that time (and I bet they regret it because they could have sold more points) they had the original treehouse point charts match the 2BR at SSR. At that time there was only 1 room class at SSR, whereas today there is STD and PREF. They later decided the treehouses are more desirable and increased the points to stay there with an aggregate decrease in the rest of SSR. Had they deemed them more valuable when they added them, they could have had a higher points chart and actually sold more points based on the higher point charts for the added units. I believe they have learned from that mistake, and I would not be surprised if VGF2 is not a separate booking category with higher point charts. And in the future, they can rebalance across the categories.

 

[Ssplashhmtn]

One way they can do exactly what OP is asking is to add new rooms at an inflated points rate to an existing association and then rebalance later. Lets take VGF as an example. When they add VGF2 they could make all those rooms a new booking category. Preferred Lake View, and Preferred STD view. The rooms are bigger and it is closer to the lobby. Now in my example I am going to exaggerate the impact. Say across the board in all periods (seasons) they up the point cost by 6 points per night for a studio (12 and 18 for 1BR and 2 BR) The current SV studio in Jan is 17/21, so the new building Preferred SV will be 23/27. In two years, they could decide the preferred room book slower, and then they could rebalance across SV and PSV making the rates 19/23 for VGF1 and 21/25 for VGF2. (my example assumes the 2 resorts to be the exact same size if the sizes are different the adjustment up and adjustment down would have to be changed to keep the total number of points the same. In this example Disney would create any "ghost" points as much of this thread points out. (change the base year, increase to LO premium, of pull a quick one on rebalancing). They have stood by their ability to move points between room categories, units, building while balancing. Only the total number of points to book all the units in the association for a year needs to stay the same. When they have actually increased this number is when they have violated the POS and backed off after member complaints.
They demonstrated this in a way when they added the treehouses at SSR. At that time (and I bet they regret it because they could have sold more points) they had the original treehouse point charts match the 2BR at SSR. At that time there was only 1 room class at SSR, whereas today there is STD and PREF. They later decided the treehouses are more desirable and increased the points to stay there with an aggregate decrease in the rest of SSR. Had they deemed them more valuable when they added them, they could have had a higher points chart and actually sold more points based on the higher point charts for the added units. I believe they have learned from that mistake, and I would not be surprised if VGF2 is not a separate booking category with higher point charts. And in the future, they can rebalance across the categories.

This is a really great summary of what I think OP was asking about.

And I fear it is DVC management’s intent with VGF2.

*If* creating point charts for VGF2 that are high, with the intent of rebalancing them to VGF1 later, if that is their intent from the beginning, it would not be representing the best interest of the association, and likely be illegal. But they could try to get away with it.

 

[Marionnette]

One way they can do exactly what OP is asking is to add new rooms at an inflated points rate to an existing association and then rebalance later. Lets take VGF as an example. When they add VGF2 they could make all those rooms a new booking category. Preferred Lake View, and Preferred STD view. The rooms are bigger and it is closer to the lobby. Now in my example I am going to exaggerate the impact. Say across the board in all periods (seasons) they up the point cost by 6 points per night for a studio (12 and 18 for 1BR and 2 BR) The current SV studio in Jan is 17/21, so the new building Preferred SV will be 23/27. In two years, they could decide the preferred room book slower, and then they could rebalance across SV and PSV making the rates 19/23 for VGF1 and 21/25 for VGF2. (my example assumes the 2 resorts to be the exact same size if the sizes are different the adjustment up and adjustment down would have to be changed to keep the total number of points the same. In this example Disney would create any "ghost" points as much of this thread points out. (change the base year, increase to LO premium, of pull a quick one on rebalancing). They have stood by their ability to move points between room categories, units, building while balancing. Only the total number of points to book all the units in the association for a year needs to stay the same. When they have actually increased this number is when they have violated the POS and backed off after member complaints.
They demonstrated this in a way when they added the treehouses at SSR. At that time (and I bet they regret it because they could have sold more points) they had the original treehouse point charts match the 2BR at SSR. At that time there was only 1 room class at SSR, whereas today there is STD and PREF. They later decided the treehouses are more desirable and increased the points to stay there with an aggregate decrease in the rest of SSR. Had they deemed them more valuable when they added them, they could have had a higher points chart and actually sold more points based on the higher point charts for the added units. I believe they have learned from that mistake, and I would not be surprised if VGF2 is not a separate booking category with higher point charts. And in the future, they can rebalance across the categories.

Those are my exact thoughts (and fears) about VGF2. They're going to create new booking categories for VGF2 (resort studio theme park view, resort studio lake view, etc). Those will initially be represented by much higher points-per-night requirements than the standard and lake view deluxe studios in VGF1. This will allow them to sell a lot more points than if they kept to the current points chart and booking categories. Then, because it will create an outsized demand for the "cheaper" studios in VGF1, DVC will adjust the points charts to raise the points needed to book a night at VGF1 while lowering the points needed for VGF2.

 

[Sandisw]

Those are my exact thoughts (and fears) about VGF2. They're going to create new booking categories for VGF2 (resort studio theme park view, resort studio lake view, etc). Those will initially be represented by much higher points-per-night requirements than the standard and lake view deluxe studios in VGF1. This will allow them to sell a lot more points than if they kept to the current points chart and booking categories. Then, because it will create an outsized demand for the "cheaper" studios in VGF1, DVC will adjust the points charts to raise the points needed to book a night at VGF1 while lowering the points needed for VGF2.

I alluded to above that there is some way it could occur because not all units as declared in VGF1 consisted of same room sizes.

I think it could allow for some of this. In my reading before of FL timeshare law, it discussed points for sale and limits on that but I have not had time to dig deep enough on beyond that.

So units have to be balanced for sale but then when discussing entire resort is there room to move around based on other factors at the entire resort? There can be different interpretations for some of the language regarding it

Its why I don’t think there is a cut and dry answer to that based on my surface level research. I definitely agree they called them resort studios to indicate they will be different in some way.

 

[sssteele]

If VGF 2 is a new DVC resort like Copper Creek, it would not have any effect on VGF point charts.

 

[Marionnette]

If VGF 2 is a new DVC resort like Copper Creek, it would not have any effect on VGF point charts.

But it's not going to be. DVC has already indicated that it will be part of the VGF condo association. This would be similar to how Jambo and Kidani are both part of the AKV condo association.

 

[sssteele]

But it's not going to be. DVC has already indicated that it will be part of the VGF condo association. This would be similar to how Jambo and Kidani are both part of the AKV condo association.

I feel bad for VGF1 owners.

 

[Sandisw]

I feel bad for VGF1 owners.

Except all resorts can have this happen. It’s part of the program.

 

[CarolMN]

I feel bad for VGF1 owners.

I don't - at least not right now. I'm waiting for the official information & sales to begin. All of the opinions so far are based on speculation. Based on past experience, a lot of the speculation discussed prior to the release of official info has turned out to be wrong. (It's still fun to speculate, though, LOL).