Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[RobDoc]

Anyone have a list of this for all the resorts?

Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:

..................OKW.. BWV(St) BWV(Pref) VWL BCV SSR . AKV . BLT
Studio .......... 15 ......15 ......... 18 ...... 18 .. 18 .. 16 . 15 .. 16
One Bedroom 30 ......30 .......... 36 ....... 36 .. 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39
Two Bedroom. 40 ......40 .......... 46 ...... 46 .. 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54
Grand Villa ..... 65 .....-- ..........100 ...... --- . ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96

 

[ron7654]

Our typical DVC stay is Sunday-Thursday, leaving the Friday and Saturday to Disney to book out at high rates. My guess is that oppupancy on the weekends is down and very competative, so the burden has been shifted to weekday DCVers in the form of higher points per stay, and enabling Disney to rent weekend rooms at a lower rate. I can't see many DVCers benefiting from this move, don't know many that just book weekends.

 

[Chuck S]

Our typical DVC stay is Sunday-Thursday, leaving the Friday and Saturday to Disney to book out at high rates. My guess is that oppupancy on the weekends is down and very competative, so the burden has been shifted to weekday DCVers in the form of higher points per stay, and enabling Disney to rent weekend rooms at a lower rate. I can't see many DVCers benefiting from this move, don't know many that just book weekends.

I really don't think there is a correlation between points per night required and Disney's cash rental price. Remember that CRO used the one bedroom units at two DVC resorts as overflow from value resorts during free dining a couple of years ago. So they can pretty much rent them for as much or as little as they want.

 

[donmil723]

Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:

..................OKW.. BWV(St) BWV(Pref) VWL BCV SSR AKV BLT
Studio .......... 15 ......15 ......... 18 ........ 18 ... 18 .. 16 . 15 .. 16
One Bedroom 30 ......30 .......... 36 ........ 36 ... 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39
Two Bedroom. 40 ......40 .......... 46 ........ 46 ... 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54
Grand Villa ..... 65 .....-- ..........100 ....... --- .. ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96

It seems weird that a studio at BWV (Pref), VWL, and BCV would be more points per night than BLT especially when BLT one and two bedrooms are higher!

 

[DVCGeek]

It seems weird that a studio at BWV (Pref), VWL, and BCV would be more points per night than BLT especially when BLT one and two bedrooms are higher!

I agree, but I think that just means that at BLT there will be some type of studio (presumably Standard View) available at some point in the year at that rate or less; for BLT I don't think any of the #s are actually an average, so overall BLT should still be higher... I read these to mean that BLT & VGC will ALWAYS end up having at least two seasons, but theoretically the other resorts could go to just one (the nightly average of all points in that room class for the year).

 

[dmoore22]

I can see this benefiting those that bring a large group or have a family reunion requiring a Grand Villa. But for my wife and I that are almost empty nestors (I'm retired) the new chart is costing me more points. Normally we stay just shy of 2 weeks. Now we will lose a whole. One less day at WDW. One less day that we will be spending money onsite. The original chart was more equitable.

 

[drusba]

Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:

..................OKW.. BWV(St) BWV(Pref) VWL BCV SSR . AKV . BLT
Studio .......... 15 ......15 ......... 18 ...... 18 .. 18 .. 16 . 15 .. 16
One Bedroom 30 ......30 .......... 36 ....... 36 .. 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39
Two Bedroom. 40 ......40 .......... 46 ...... 46 .. 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54
Grand Villa ..... 65 .....-- ..........100 ...... --- . ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96

Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.

 

[MELSMICE]

Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.

How I wish they would have the system like that where every night is the same amount of points. I, personally, think it would even be better if each season had a point value assigned per night.

Example - Value season 15 pts. per night for 1BR
Dream season 18 pts. per night for 1BR

etc, but you get the idea.

 

[Dean]

How I wish they would have the system like that where every night is the same amount of points. I, personally, think it would even be better if each season had a point value assigned per night.

Example - Value season 15 pts. per night for 1BR
Dream season 18 pts. per night for 1BR

etc, but you get the idea.

It would only work if the demand for each day of the week were about the same. My guess is those that want it are looking at long weekends. I would be better served as well but I don't think it'd be in the best interest of the membership overall.

 

[RobDoc]

Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.

I suspect there is an error in the chart where either BWV should not have any variation based on view or AKV and BLT should have variation based on view. That might explain some differences, but still might not account for all variation.

Ny understanding is that the chart has been compiled from the POS. If anyone can take a look at their BWV, AKV and BLT Offering Statement, the information is listed there for your resort.

 

[dmoore22]

As I'm reading these posts I'm hearing the same problems and challenges that I'm having with the 2010 points chart. We have been going to WDW twice a year, once in late spring/early summer and during the weeks of Xmas and New Years. We stay 12 nights most of the time which obviously includes at least 1 weekend. We stay in a studio since only two of our six kids are still at home. No matter how I manipulate the charts I lose a minimum of 14 points per vacation. That translates into fewer days onsite, in the parks, in the state and less money being spent by my family and me in those venues. Perhaps I should be happy because it means I'll save money. But, alas, I'm not. In reviewing the charts, and the point percentage change, its obvious that they have created, using a form of taxation, a recessive scale. It benefits larger groups with a large contract using the larger accomodations with the burden shifting to those with fewer points who are trying to get more bang for each point they have. The old chart wasn't perfect but it has served my family and me well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[tjkraz]

As I'm reading these posts I'm hearing the same problems and challenges that I'm having with the 2010 points chart. We have been going to WDW twice a year, once in late spring/early summer and during the weeks of Xmas and New Years. We stay 12 nights most of the time which obviously includes at least 1 weekend. We stay in a studio since only two of our six kids are still at home. No matter how I manipulate the charts I lose a minimum of 14 points per vacation. That translates into fewer days onsite, in the parks, in the state and less money being spent by my family and me in those venues.

True you may spend less but as long as there are 365 (or 366) days in the year, Disney is still making similar dollars by filling a room each night. In fact, they probably stand to gain from the reallocation because, by all appearances, weekend occupancy is quite under 100% and one of the goals here is to fix that problem.

In reviewing the charts, and the point percentage change, its obvious that they have created, using a form of taxation, a recessive scale. It benefits larger groups with a large contract using the larger accomodations with the burden shifting to those with fewer points who are trying to get more bang for each point they have.

I would argue that the opposite has happened. High weekends have ALWAYS been used to subsidize low weekdays. The weekend points are much higher in 2009 and they remain higher in 2010. The primary change is that you aren't getting as big of a break in 2010 as you have in the past.

The old chart wasn't perfect but it has served my family and me well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

You're only assuming it wasn't "broke." The current charts (thru 2009) have approximately 45% of all points spread over the two weekend nights. If members aren't using 45% of their points for weekends, the system is absolutely broke.

If Disney sells 10 million points and weekdays represent 5.5 million (55%), you can't have members collectively economizing and use 8 million of their points for weekday stays.

Weekends are higher than weekends due to demand.
Easter week is higher than mid-September due to demand.

DVC has a responsibility to create a system in which demand is in line with cost. Members should have to pay more for weeks and days of the week with higher demand. And when demand is low, the points are discounted (weekdays, Adventure + Choice season.) But we are the ones who determine that demand and I suspect it will remain fluid through the lifetime of the program. These reallocations really should occur every few years.

 

[dmoore22]

There is one other issue that is fueling changes at DVC.

"Loss of credit line pinches Disney time-shares' profits"Jason Garcia | Sentinel Staff Writer
February 12, 2009

The lending turmoil racking the nation's time-share industry is squeezing even the Walt Disney Co.

The company recently disclosed that its Celebration-based time-share arm, Disney Vacation Club, lost access to a long-standing line of credit it had been tapping to raise cash by selling bundles of the time-share mortgages it issues to individual buyers.

Although Disney said time-share sales rose during its fiscal first quarter, which ended Dec. 27, the subsequent sales of "mortgage receivables" plummeted: According to a recent regulatory filing, the company sold $17 million in receivables during the quarter, down from $41 million a year ago.

Packaging time-share mortgages together and selling them off to investors -- "securitizing" them -- has been a valuable profit center for Disney Vacation Club in recent years. Disney Co. Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs said during a December conference with analysts that the practice generated about $40 million in operating profit last year for Vacation Club.



That's about 2 percent of the $1.9 billion in operating profit rung up by Disney's worldwide parks-and-resorts division in fiscal 2008.

Staggs warned at the time that the nation's frozen credit markets would likely make lending terms so unfavorable that Disney would do "less or no" securitization in 2009. He also acknowledged that being forced to carry the time-share mortgages, rather than cash them out immediately, could slow Disney Vacation Club's earnings growth.

"There is profit that we don't make," Staggs said. "We'll make it over time, as opposed to realizing it in the current year when we do the securitization."

Disney has historically helped about 75 percent of its time-share buyers finance their purchases, according to research by Morgan Stanley. Sales prices typically range between $20,000 and $30,000 for the equivalent of a one-week share in a two-bedroom unit.

Disney's credit facility, which it initially secured in December 1999, expired Dec. 4, according to company filings.

Similar problems are buffeting the rest of the time-share industry, as the market for all manner of mortgage-backed securities has fizzled. Some developers -- dependent on the capital raised from reselling time-share notes to continue growing -- have been forced to lay off hundreds of employees and slow or halt construction.

Analysts say there is little chance that Disney could be forced to take similar steps. The sprawling media-and-entertainment conglomerate is large enough that it can likely self-finance mortgages and hold the notes as long as needed without jeopardizing its construction plans.

"It probably makes the time-share division less profitable than it would have otherwise been," said Robert LaFleur, a lodging analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group. "But from a practical matter about Disney's ability to build and sell time shares, it shouldn't have an effect."


More time-shares to open

Disney plans to open three new time-share properties in Orlando this year and one in Anaheim, Calif. It is also pressing ahead with plans for 830-room resort in Hawaii, in which 480 units are to be Vacation Club villas. Construction on that resort, which is to open in 2011, began in January.

Any slip at Disney Vacation Club could have broader implications for Disney's parks-and-resorts division, where the time-share unit has become an important growth engine. The theme-park division accounts for more than a quarter of Disney Co.'s total revenue.


Club key part of profit

Morgan Stanley estimates that Vacation Club accounted for as much as 20 percent of the profit growth for Disney Parks and Resorts in fiscal 2008. Disney itself credited higher time-share sales with helping offset declines elsewhere in its parks unit during the first quarter of fiscal 2009; total revenue for Parks and Resorts fell about 4 percent during the quarter from a year earlier, less than many analysts had expected.

Vacation Club contributes about 10 percent of the parks-and-resorts unit's total profit, Staggs said during the December analyst conference.

Disney's time-share unit is a "swing factor" for the parks division overall in 2009, Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne wrote in a research note last month. He has forecast a "small increase" for Vacation Club in 2009, compared with an estimated 18 percent growth rate last year."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-diztimeshare1209feb12,0,4931450.story

 

[DisFlan]

You're only assuming it wasn't "broke." The current charts (thru 2009) have approximately 45% of all points spread over the two weekend nights. If members aren't using 45% of their points for weekends, the system is absolutely broke.

And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed. Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.

I'm not saying re-allocations aren't needed at times (nor do I see a big positive from them), but they aren't going to "fix" a system that started with some built-in potential problems. At some point, a real fix will take more than reshuffling a few points. We'll likely be stuck with a "broke" system for quite a while.


DisFlan

 

[tjkraz]

There is one other issue that is fueling changes at DVC.

If you're implying that there was a profit-based motivation to the reallocation, then I disagree.

The reallocation didn't create any "new" points. It didn't give DVC anything additional to sell. There are still the same number of points at OKW, BCV, BWV, etc. in 2010 as there are in 2009.

Some (like you and me) will find that their points don't go as far and you could use that to argue that DVC reallocated in order to sell add-on contracts. But consider that while some are "losers" due to the reallocation, others are "winners." People who have used their points for stays based around weekends will find that their points now go further than they have in the past. This group of owners is now LESS likely to buy more points and may even consider selling part of their current holdings.

It's a two-way street. DVC could gain some small amount of sales from one group but they are losing another.

Also I would propose that the reallocation can only hurt long-term sales to new members. By raising the weekday points, DVC is no longer the great value it used to be for Sunday - Thursday stays. In the past those using points for weekdays used to talk about breakeven periods in the neighborhood of 6-8 years. Now that weekdays cost more, it's probably more in the 7-10 year range. That will only lose business for DVC.

For those reasons I find it extremely hard to believe DVC felt it would profit from a reallocation. LOWERING the points on weekdays would have been more conducive to selling points. Who wouldn't buy if you could get a BCV Studio for 5 points per night or AKV Savanna view for 6 points per night?

 

[tjkraz]

And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed. Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.

Not everyone will embrace weekends after the changes but more will than in the past. The resorts aren't at 0% occupancy on weekends now. SOME volume of members is already using their points for weekends. And that number will rise come 2010.

Not charging a premium for weekends would have the opposite effect. Right now so many people are used to visiting on weekdays to save points that it's become second nature. But you better believe folks would jump at the opportunity to do a long weekend without having to pay that premium.

Instead of pulling kids out of school or scheduling around busy holidays, parents could plan a Thursday to Monday stay (5 days.) If one or two of those days were already school holidays, the kids wouldn't miss more than a day or two. Parents would save vacation time as well.

Weekends would become very popular and weekday occupancy would suffer noticeably.

Just due to the nature of the 5-day work and school week, some disparity is necessary. We'll have to see how these changes are embraced. I wouldn't be shocked if weekday prices came down a bit in a few years. It won't be to the 2009 level, but there could be reductions if booking patterns dictate.

 

[dmoore22]

If you're implying that there was a profit-based motivation to the reallocation, then I disagree.

I'm not suggesting profit but generating income to maintain the high level of services and entertainment we take for granted.

Disney has not been immune to the current recession/depression. They have attempted to keep park attendance up through incentives such as "Buy 4 days, get three extra for free." Unfortunately it has become a loss leader that leads to more losses. People are coming in through the turnstiles but they are not spending as much money as in the past. The Disney Corporation has been consolidating positions and letting folks go, with a severance package, to cut costs and add efficiency.

Disney now cannot sell the loans for DVC membership which has accounted for almost 10% of the Disney Parks profits. With that source of income gone the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Division is struggling to come up with creative ways to generate demand for its products and services to make up for that loss. DVC is a ready-made source of demand in that members are not going to let their points go unused. The need is to get them into the parks and to spend $$$. The current points chart (at least for our home resort) appears to be geared toward that DVC member that is more likely to have the extra cash and resources to fly in from great distances and bring the extended family for a long weekend and also spend $$$ in the parks. This is obviously a short-term fix to generate the necessary funds to maintain park and resort operations.

With the tight credit markets, and households being cautious in their spending, the ability of Disney to sell DVC points is currently an unknown. Today's unemployment numbers and record mass layoffs continue to plague the economy. Florida is one of 5 states that has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Disney cannot rely on Florida resident traffic to fill the rooms and parks on the weekends. Time will tell.

Perhaps it would be best for the DVC members to contact member services directly or through the "Contact Member Services" link at dvcmember.com to express their feelings one way or another. I did and received a very nice response that included the following statement:

"Section 3(2)(a) also provides a guideline by which DVCMC will adhere
when making Points Chart changes, which is the reallocation will not
exceed 20% without the express approval of at least 60% of the existing
owners.

The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your
comments will be shared with our leadership team.

Thank you again for sharing your concern.

Sincerely,

Disney Vacation Club Member Services"

 

[Dean]

And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed. Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.

I'm not saying re-allocations aren't needed at times (nor do I see a big positive from them), but they aren't going to "fix" a system that started with some built-in potential problems. At some point, a real fix will take more than reshuffling a few points. We'll likely be stuck with a "broke" system for quite a while.


DisFlan

There is no perfect system, the best they can hope for is to average the issues for most people. The ONLY way to even out the weekends and weekdays is to create a minimum stay in some way or the other than strongly encourages a full week at a time then it doesn't matter. That certainly changes the system from what it is to a different type of timeshare concept but is not without it's merits for some. There really is not way to truly fix the issues generated by a points system that is not based in the weeks concept. It has it's pluses but inherent issues as well.

 

[DaveH]

Please, please, please make the points level. We will do nothing but long weekends. Please push for this. We are empty nesters that still work. Long weekends all the time would be GREAT!!!!!

 

[Dean]

Please, please, please make the points level. We will do nothing but long weekends. Please push for this. We are empty nesters that still work. Long weekends all the time would be GREAT!!!!!

It's not feasible with out a min stay of at least 5=7 days for the very reason you want it.