Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[Dean]

Here I hat I have found out so far in figuring if total points have changed for OKW

If you figure the change based on 2009 year the points are relatively close at for all 2br + GV the difference is 576
For all lock offs split it is –4,944. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the points balance at 7741236

If you figure the change based on 2010 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -16020
For all lock offs split it is –20160. No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is –16452 with the total the points of 7760526

If you figure the change based on 2011 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -20925
For all lock offs split it is –33805. No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is –22269 with the total the points of 7676136. One interesting note is that for this year the points for 504 2br units do balance at 7016688. This year is also equivalent to the 1994

I can not imagine that the regulations would allow DVC (or any other) timeshare to create some arbitrary year, although I could imagine being allowed to use a year which is reprehensive of the life of the contract (but with the extension that would open another issue. What we need to know is what was the base year for the initial point allocation.

I guess since I have not fallen upon any easy answer I will in addition to expressing my displeasure in how the announcement was handled, ask for the methodology that they used to comply with the POS and state regulations.


Drusba

Your post is very thoughtful and by my opinion accurate.

One point to add is that while not effecting contracts, the apparent pattern of guides miss stating the terms of the contract (intentionally of otherwise) represents a clear violation of the deceptive sales practices laws.


bookwormde

It makes a big difference if the base year includes an extra weekend or weekday. Given OKW start of 1991/92 and that both of those years (as do MOST years) have an extra weekday rather than extra weekend day, I think it's reasonable to assume that this is the base year they used esp since it doesn't create extra points in the system. 2010 has an extra weekend day instead. I'd suggest using 2009 or 2011 rather than 2010 for this reason.

There is an Exhibit in the Public Offering Statement applicable to each particular resort entitled "Real Estate Interest and Point Formulation" that indicates otherwise and that what is sold is based on estimated use demand for the various room sizes.

I think if you read that "exhibit A" that for those resorts that do not have dedicated studio and 1 BR units, it only lists the larger units. For OKW it only list 2 & 3 BR units (not studio or 1 BR) for determining the "demand factor" while for BWV it lists all unit sizes. I don't have a POS from SSR but I'd be willing to bet that this section only lists 2 & 3 BR units in determining the demand factor. I'm betting the one you looked at that lists those units sizes has dedicated smaller units. That would specifically suggest to me that what I posted earlier IS correct, that this calculation is done assuming no lockoff's.

 

[Dean]

LOL, I never did the DVC presentation. Actually I've never been to a full blown timeshare presentation. I can only make my judgements based on what you write. And again, I'm not being hurt at all in this deal, matter of fact my point requirement is dropping by 1.

However, I can also totally understand why people are upset even if the POS spells out what DVC can do in regards to points re-allocations. There is no way to say they don't have a legitimate gripe, especially those that bought into BLT and AKL and now find themselves a couple points short in meeting their travel needs. That very vital key bit of information that higher-ups knew was being withheld.

And those that have been members for quite some time also can be upset, they don't have to be happy simply because the POS says it's OK. There is no provision in the POS saying members have to be happy about everything.

You should do one or two for the experience, might I suggest Westgate or Spinnaker. I see why some are upset in general but other than those that bought BLT in the last few months, I don't see why they would be upset with Disney.

Just to clarify the discussion of what impact oral representations have on compliance with Floridas time share statutes

721.11 Advertising materials; oral statements

(4) No advertising or oral statement made by any seller or resale service provider shall:
(a) Misrepresent a fact or create a false or misleading impression regarding the timeshare plan or promotion thereof.
(i) Make any misleading or deceptive representation with respect to the contents of the public offering statement and the contract or the rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations of the purchaser under the contract or this chapter.


Here is the link that I pulled the info from if anyone is interested.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 721

bookwormde

You signed that they did not misrepresent as part of the paperwork in buying. Even then you'd have to prove it legally which would be tough without multiple independent witnesses or a recording of the events.

 

[kristenrice]

It is not, necessarily, designed to increase occupany. It is designed to balance demand for rooms. If 65% of members consistently wanted Sun to Thursday only, they could, in theory, block out a member who wanted a week or more, just as having too many weekend only user would block longer term travelers. Too much demand on weekdays and too little demand on weekends could also be somewhat behind the change to the 11 month plus 7 day booking window change, and the slight crack-down on commercial renting seen in recent years. It would seem DVC was trying other methods available to them to rebalance the system before they reallocated points.

OK, thanks. I am not much of a numbers person, but this explanation does seem reasonable. It still stinks for us 5-night travellers, but we'll deal with it.

 

[jarestel]

Let's face it, Disney has created an emotional bond with it's fans and to be willing to short change us with so little concern of our view is disappointing.

It's not usually a good idea to make financial decisions based on emotion... as some of us are finding out. If nothing else positive comes of this, this would have to be this cloud's silver lining. Talk of pixie dust, magic, and family fun is wonderful when one is just shooting the breeze, but when it comes down to spending $$$, a more pragmatic and realistic approach is generally the way to go.

 

[lugnut33]

You should do one or two for the experience, might I suggest Westgate or Spinnaker. I see why some are upset in general but other than those that bought BLT in the last few months, I don't see why they would be upset with Disney.

LULZ, did you really just say that you don't know why people are upset?

 

[chalee94]

I am one who is able to change my point amount purchased at BLT. I bought 2 days before the minimum 100pts. add-on went into effect. Disney didn't get the paperwork to me until a week later, thus I haven't turned it in yet. I spoke with my guide yesterday who said it would be "no problem" adjusting the points up. I increased from 30 to 40 pts., due to the re-allocation of points. If,purchasers have officially closed, it may be another matter in adjusting those points. Otherwise, even if paperwork has been sent in, I think there is still time if one hasn't closed.

make sure that increase includes an extra buffer in case the 2011 charts change again.

will this change the way you plan your vacation days? In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?

more likely to stay sun-thurs and skip a year a little more often. we'll see...

 

[Dean]

But are you not assuming there has been a "change" in demand patterns? Disney has been saying off and on since it began DVC that demand for weekdays is significantly higher than weekends. It is the demand pattern that has always existed because weekends were always higher than weekdays and thus built into the system as originally conceived. Thus, it would appear they are trying to change the long-existing pattern rather than basing an adjustment upon changes in demand patterns that have actually occurred.

All they would have to demonstrate is a change to actual vs anticipated patterns, not a change from say 2000 to now. This should have been done back in 2001 or 2002, the thing to fault DVC on is the delay. My info suggests they were so afraid of members reaction that they let it ride somewhat off balance. I think the smaller contracts on the secondary market, lower minimums to buy in (150, 100, 160) and the improved use (and abuse) of the options by members likely forced their hand. Plus I suspect they were getting a fair amount of complaints by members trying to reserve S-F under the 7 day reservation rule.

It's a business move for them---but not every business move DVC has made has been the best one.

semantics maybe depending on your intention Maria. It's a management move, not really a business move, and one required of them by state law and the POS.

From FL Statue 721

(5) Every filed public offering statement for a timeshare plan which is not a multisite timeshare plan shall contain the information required by this subsection. The division is authorized to provide by rule the method by which a developer must provide such information to the division.

(a) A cover page stating only:

1. The name of the timeshare plan; and

2. The following statement, in conspicuous type: This public offering statement contains important matters to be considered in acquiring a timeshare interest. The statements contained in this public offering statement are only summary in nature. A prospective purchaser should refer to all references, accompanying exhibits, contract documents, and sales materials. You should not rely upon oral representations as being correct. Refer to this document and accompanying exhibits for correct representations. The seller is prohibited from making any representations other than those contained in the contract and this public offering statement.

 

[TIGGERmetoo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolMN
This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased. I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed. Perhaps the initial answer will be no, but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it. I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it.

My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is)

Some have already been told they could.

Anyone know if they get/got to purchase at the price b4 the increase?

 

[HookdonWDW]

Here are my thoughts from another thread...

Here's something I think that many of those who are upset by the reallocation aren't thinking about:

Part of the reason to have a reallocation is to keep things in balance, and keep bookings as close to 100% as possible. Most of us have heard that stated here repeatedly. But the part that hasn't really been discussed (I think because many of us think that it is intuitive), is what would happen if DVC didn't adjust the point charts, and weekdays continued to become more popular as rooms sit empty on weekends.

DVC sells everyone their points based on their needs. If point values are balanced, people use their points at a variety of times during the year - those with kids/families may be willing to spend extra points to stay during school breaks, those without other commitments may travel during less popular times because they want the points savings, and those who like to travel during traditionally busy periods will spend what's required for their stays. But now the points are out of balance. People who would usually stay during a vacation week can get the weekend, but not weekdays. If they live further away, given current points costs, it may not be worth going if they can't get their week. So they bank their points for another time. Someone who lives locally can go for long weekends, but when they look at how many points it costs, it just doesn't make sense. So locals don't book up those extra weekends. Members start looking at weekend points and realize that it works "better" for them to pay cash for weekends and use their points on weeknights. The balance is set off further.

After a few years of this, what are we left with?

• Rooms are sitting empty on weekends
• DVC can't get rid of all of the breakage rooms available on weekends
• Members can't use all of their points, due to lack of availability

And there's the big rub - eventually people will start losing their points because they've already banked, and they still can't get the week they want. Or even if they can get it "somewhere", they can't get in exactly where they want, when they want. Owner satisfaction goes down. For a while, people will probably trade to RCI or for a cruise, but we all know that you lose point value with that - if members have to do this on a regular basis to keep from losing their points, satisfaction goes down, and more people are upset. People rent out points they can't use, and that solves some of the problem, but it probably adds more to the stress of weekday points than it alleviates. Check out the Rent/Trade board and look at how many of those looking for reservations want just weekday reservations. Now we have a whole new group messing up room availability.

If something wasn't done, this had the potential of snowballing into something that would eventually become untenable. People simply wouldn't be able to get into DVC because although there was weekend availability, weekdays were booked up. I'm sure it's already happening - remember, not everyone reads the Boards and know to book at 11 and 7 months out. It's becoming near impossible to get any reservation at 2-3 months out at certain times of the year. Something had to give. Personally, I'm surprised they didn't adjust the points charts sooner.

I'm more bothered about the changes to the wait list than I am to the points chart changes. I know that change is hard to get used to - we get comfortable with our routines. But in this case, I think it was necessary to avoid a potentially larger problem. I wouldn't be surprised if we see further adjustments to weekday v. weekend points until usage is evened out. JMHO YMMV.

 

[jekjones1558]

If that window were opened for you and then in 2 or 3 years the points were reallocated again, the howls would be 10 times as loud as they are today.

For the record, I am not even affected by this change. We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities. But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.

 

[DVC92]

I think most members can agree that either through sheer incompetence or utter lack of ethical responsibilty, DVC management fails to communicate any major change to members in a timely fashion. That being said, the rationale for the point reallocation, which I believe will be the first of several until weekday and weekend points are evened out, will be the imbalance of members booking weekdays. I'm sure that is probably true. However, this situation was fostered by DVC by lowering the minimum purchase requirement, raising the points necessary to book accommodations in the newer resorts, and the allowing of small add-ons. Whether intentionally or not, they possibly deceived members who made these purchases (I am not one) into believing they could book 1-5 days, Sun-Thurs. The point differential between weekdays and weekends has always existed, and notwithstanding DVC's right to alter the point chart, there was nothing in the history of DVC that would have led anyone to fathom such a change would be made. Some members will now purchase additional points, and new purchasers will require an increase in their point purchase to derive a 4 or 5 day trip. Therefore, mission accomplished by DVC. Is legal action possible by some members who feel they were deceived? Certainly, you can sue anyone for anything. Success of such a suit is probably unlikely, but who knows. Unless one really doesn't want to have a business relationship with DVC henceforth, just go with the flow and make the reservations you are capable of booking and enjoy your vacations!

 

[jarestel]

I am sure that Disney, with its massive legal department, is well within legal activities with this rearrangment of points. However, this decision in light of many other recent and quite unpopular decisions may come back to bite them. DVC has initiated a number of large building projects, and are banking on the increasing sales of DVC. The impact of the down economy is unknown, but the rate of sales is likely to decline- many in the luxury industry are seeing significant downturns, and DVC will similarly be impacted. One of the first rules of good business (oft forgetten in today's business world) is to NOT bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the major corporations that have gone under recently- many due to too fast expansion, declines in customer service, and a significant recession. I only hope that the department of future forecasting and sorcery is as good as their legal department.....I really believe that these recent business decisions are NOT a good idea for the company given the current economic climate. Unfortunately, pixie dust and thinking magical thoughts will not help sales- but bad PR and poor word of mouth from current customers, along with surge of resales (which take away from NEW sales for DVC) will hurt.

Look at the list of failed companies....many are huge surprises. I truly hope that Disney is looking at the huge, long term picture........two years ago Disney was trading around 34, today it is around 20; now around 2002-2003 it hit its low, around 15, and it came back. But, heading into a recession on the decline isn't the direction I would want disney to be going. Glad I only own DVC and not their stock!

We shall see.....we have owned for 11 years. We have seen changes, most negative, but this change in light of the several other changes (wait list, paper plates) seem to be making the proverbial camel showing some sagging. Wonder what will be the next change (internal or external to DVC) that breaks that camel's back!

The problem is that if a current member grows disenchanted with DVC, he/she must find another buyer for the contract, assuming one will decide not to just walk away from the contract and simply give it up to DVC. So one disenchanted member is replaced by a new member who doesn't know things were ever any different than when the new member buys into the program.

And the same is true for any new buyers from here on out. They don't know, and probably don't care how things used to work, they simply adjust to the way things are now. Disney doesn't lose any business and the old dissatisfied customers are replaced by new, and for the moment anyway, satisfied customers.

 

[Dean]

LULZ, did you really just say that you don't know why people are upset?

Certainly. I don't understand why rational people are upset with DVC that they made this change that they are obligated to do under rule and state Law and that they knew or should have known was at least a possibility. I do understand why a subset who bought recently, esp BLT, are upset at the timing. I can understand being disappointed if one is negatively affected.

Anyone know if they get/got to purchase at the price b4 the increase?

Maybe someone specifically involved can say for sure but my understanding was at the price they had previously agreed to. The rub will come when someone is upset enough to back out and out of their cancelation window, esp if the deed has already been recorded. Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see DVC let some back out and take it back under ROFR at the price paid, we'll see.

 

[Dean]

seasons and dates[/B], but the overall total will not change for the life of your contract."

I would not find this inconsistent with what has happen, actually the reverse.

But wasn't that the PROBLEM back in the beginning? Weekends and weekdays were close to the same number of points, so locals were able to book up all the weekends, shutting out the possibility of booking an entire week to those that had to travel from far away? Won't it be right back where it all started if they do that?

I don't think it was ever a major issue, only a worry that if the points differential were too small that it might then be an issue. I doubt this change is enough to do that but only time will tell. If it's not close to perfect, they may change it again and if they do, likely the same direction as this one.

After reading the last three pages, I am even more confused...

If people bought their contracts with enough points to take a Su-Th vacation, they are now forced to go fewer days....period. There is no way around it. Ok, so the luck parties of 2-4 people can maybe downgrade from a 1BR to a studio, but families of 5-6 are now stuck. I don't understand how this is supposed to increase occupancy.

The theory is that it will drive occupancy by evening out demand. You raise the times that are higher demand (day, season, unit size) and/or lower the reverse. This and the 7 day reservation on one call should increase both weekend occupancy and full 6-7 day stays over S-F stays. The question is whether the change is enough to do so given the 20% limitation. My guess is it is but we shall see. If not, we'll have this thread again in 2-3 years if not next year. In that sense it should increase occupancy (number of rooms reserved) but possibly decrease or be neutral to saturation (number of people in units) during the busier time.

 

[jarestel]

For the record, I am not even affected by this change. We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities. But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.

In that case, I would direct my same comments to them. If folks spend even more money on points based on the new charts only to find that in a few years their points are insufficient once more, then there will be howling. Much howling.

 

[tjkraz]

Anyone know if they get/got to purchase [BLT] at the price b4 the increase?

I do not believe there has been an increase for BLT. The original offering price was $112 less $5 and that is still the price today.

As for getting the $5 discount on a small add-on necessitated by the reallocation...that remains to be seen.

 

[LIFERBABE]

For the record, I am not even affected by this change. We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities. But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.

Agreed! We are in the same camp. Lots of points lots of options.

I did buy BLT in multiple small contracts when the announcement was made about the new mins.

I did buy more than I needed because I had a purpose for the matching developer points as well as the BLT points.

I understand the need for the reallocation, but I still think it was shady the way they did it. They knew it was coming and defrauded the purchasers. Lying by omission is still lying. They did not negotiate in good faith and that is what is wrong with this.

I was just posting last week on the SSR Guaranteed categories thread that DVC has shown us that they have no qualms about bending it's membership over when it benefits them. THey do what they want and change the rules to suit them. I still have great DVC vacations, but I am no fan of JL and company and hope to be rid of him soon.

 

[Val]

I agree that if a current owner walks away and someone else buys their contract, disney has another buyer- but that new buyer just bought out of OLD inventory at devalued prices, rather than from the enormous amounts of NEW inventory that Disney will have soon. Given that I have seen Vero beach listed for as low as $47.50/point with full points coming in the upcoming use year, this could be a potential downside for Disney. The resale market is likely to see the opportunity as well- and really ramp up their advertising and sales.... why buy at $110/point when we have it for 60-80/point? BWV, BCV and WLV are likely to remain popular for the near future- and resales for those my steal from BLT. Further, there is a fair amount of word-of-mouth advertising that is likely to be significantly curtailed. All of this could hurt upcoming sales for a company with a huge amount of upcoming and very pricey inventory. This will be interesting to watch.....Disney doesn't always seem to be the greatest at customer relations recently, and this could be their undoing.

I really don't think that DVC will fail- but it may be hurting, and that could mean a further reduction in the few remaining perks we have. Buying was a gamble. Up until the last 2 years it has been a good value gamble for my family. Not so now, and we need to sit and wait and watch the next 6-12 months. We may have lost on this one in the long haul, but that is the name game in the timeshare business. But Disney may also hurt in this gamble, and Disney hurting can potentially hurt all owners.

It will be a very interesting 6-12 months!

 

[bookwormde]

Dean,

What you sign about oral representation in the contract only applies to the contract not to oral representations related to regulatory misrepresentation. Two different worlds and areas of the law

bookwormde

 

[jarestel]

That being said, the rationale for the point reallocation, which I believe will be the first of several until weekday and weekend points are evened out, will be the imbalance of members booking weekdays.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is DVC's ultimate goal which would then be accompanied by a minimum stay requirement to eliminate problems caused by "locals" booking up all of the weekend days. The fun is just beginning. The next 5 years should be very interesting!