DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[JOLT]

I'll be focusing on the Base Year. What was it originally, past changes, does DVC believe they can legally alter BY any time, and why the base year that yields the highest point inflation was chosen. If anyone has other questions they'd like me to bring up in the call please feel free to let me know.

From my talk with Yvonne it is against the law for them to have a year where it costs less points to book the resort than purchase points.

There are only 2 years that could be chosen.

I would definitely focus on why they chose seasons where points will be inflated for every year but 2. How is that in the members best interest.

 

[DL1WDW2]

2020 Point Chart
2021 Point Chart
2022 Point Chart
Normally they keep this information but it seems they could not wait to remove the infamous 2020 Point Chart as if we would forget...
This years Annual DVC Yearly Meeting was Virtual Streamed and presented without much chance to dispute decisions made in members best interest.

I have this new Management Game Plan (described as all attractions must exit into gift shop for simple minds)
But
“Disney Magic” must always be used to justify and it is in
“The guest best interest”
And Bonus award if successful using them together to confuse the guest until they hang up.

 

[Kickstart]

Watching this thread. Really seems like shenanigans on DVC's part.

I actually don't understand why seasons should matter at all. I thought the primary constraint, the prime directive if you will, are that total points for the year need to remain the same. I would think this would be pretty easy to do, even for a leap year, and the only potential delta would be a rounding factor.

If they increase the length of higher priced seasons, they would have to lower the total points in other seasons. I find the whole seasons discussion to be an obfuscation of the more critical point - total points for the year shouldn't change at all. Why would they have to? We have a % ownership which should translate into a % ownership for the year.

Why have seasons at all... just assign a point cost to each day appropriately (historically busier days would be more than less popular days) so that the total doesn't change.

I understand the seasons help visual the different costs for different times of the year, but if seasons are being used to justify point creep then I'm not sure they make sense. I also understand that lock-offs also create some discrepancies, but the algebra to solve for that in a consistent way year to year can't be too difficult.

I just don't get it... points shouldn't change year to year. Or, if they have to change (for whatever reason), then the members yearly allotment should change the same %.

Base year fluctuation and variable seasons (or why changes to seasons would override the total points constraint) - seams like nonsense to me.

 

[New Mouse]

Watching this thread. Really seems like shenanigans on DVC's part.

I actually don't understand the why seasons should matter at all. I thought the primary constraint, the prime directive if you will, are that total points for the year need to remain the same. I would think this would be pretty easy to do, even for a leap year, and the only potential delta would be a rounding factor.

If they increase the length of higher priced seasons, they would have to lower the total points in other seasons. I find the whole seasons discussion to be an obfuscation of the more critical point - total points for the year shouldn't change at all. Why would they have to? We have a % ownership which should translate into a % ownership for the year.

Why have seasons at all... just assign a point cost to each day appropriately (historically busier days would be more than less popular days) so that the total doesn't change.

I understand the seasons help visual the different costs for different times of the year, but if seasons are being used to justify point creep then I'm not sure they make sense. I also understand that lock-offs also create some discrepancies, but the algebra to solve for that in a consistent way year to year can't be too difficult.

I just don't get it... points shouldn't change year to year. Or, if they have to change (for whatever reason), then the members yearly allotment should change the same %.

Base year fluctuation and variable seasons (or why changes to seasons would override the total points constraint) - seams like nonsense to me.

Bingo...seasons benefits absolutely no one other than providing a more broad opportunity to increase total points. In reality point distribution should always be on a 364 365 day scale and literally never change in its entirety other than that 1 day. If one day goes up another has to go down, problem solved.

 

[Leight19]

Watching this thread. Really seems like shenanigans on DVC's part.

I actually don't understand the why seasons should matter at all. I thought the primary constraint, the prime directive if you will, are that total points for the year need to remain the same. I would think this would be pretty easy to do, even for a leap year, and the only potential delta would be a rounding factor.

If they increase the length of higher priced seasons, they would have to lower the total points in other seasons. I find the whole seasons discussion to be an obfuscation of the more critical point - total points for the year shouldn't change at all. Why would they have to? We have a % ownership which should translate into a % ownership for the year.

Why have seasons at all... just assign a point cost to each day appropriately (historically busier days would be more than less popular days) so that the total doesn't change.

I understand the seasons help visual the different costs for different times of the year, but if seasons are being used to justify point creep then I'm not sure they make sense. I also understand that lock-offs also create some discrepancies, but the algebra to solve for that in a consistent way year to year can't be too difficult.

I just don't get it... points shouldn't change year to year. Or, if they have to change (for whatever reason), then the members yearly allotment should change the same %.

Base year fluctuation and variable seasons (or why changes to seasons would override the total points constraint) - seams like nonsense to me.

I also was confused how base year plays into inflating points since I’d think if number of days in high point season increase it should be offset by decreasing the number of points required in that season (or some other change that would net no point increase). I assumed I’m missing something in what base year actually means but they shouldn’t be able to inflate points by saying there’s more “premium” days this year so it costs more to book; if they have calendar with increased number of premium days they should decrease cost somewhere so no points generated.

From reading this and the previous lock off premium issue with 2020 I feel like it’s indisputable now that the dvc management or whoever sets point charts is not following legal requirements to act in our best interest. Anyone know what actual companies are involved in these things and how they interact? I was under impression there is company separate from Disney that manages the dvc resorts/dues. When extra points are generated do they go to Disney or this company (or am I wrong in assuming they are two separate entities). Mainly trying to establish who makes the decisions, how the various group interests connects, and who profits when extra points are made?

 

[JOLT]

I also was confused how base year plays into inflating points since I’d think if number of days in high point season increase it should be offset by decreasing the number of points required in that season (or some other change that would net no point increase). I assumed I’m missing something in what base year actually means but they shouldn’t be able to inflate points by saying there’s more “premium” days this year so it costs more to book; if they have calendar with increased number of premium days they should decrease cost somewhere so no points generated.

From reading this and the previous lock off premium issue with 2020 I feel like it’s indisputable now that the dvc management or whoever sets point charts is not following legal requirements to act in our best interest. Anyone know what actual companies are involved in these things and how they interact? I was under impression there is company separate from Disney that manages the dvc resorts/dues. When extra points are generated do they go to Disney or this company (or am I wrong in assuming they are two separate entities). Mainly trying to establish who makes the decisions, how the various group interests connects, and who profits when extra points are made?

Before I got into this thread I thought each year PVB had to have as close to 4,032,720 points as possible. I figured they balanced the chart and if it had to be a little more because you have to charge a whole point than there would be minor fluctuation.

I learned that a Base year is a year that they balance the chart and then apply that chart with the same dates to every other year. If more days fall on weekends the total points would be more. They have to pick a year that would never go below the 4,032,720 points.

Since easter falls on different days each year and easter is split between 2 seasons it will inflate the total point for almost all years.

 

[Sandisw]

Before I got into this thread I thought each year PVB had to have as close to 4,032,720 points as possible. I figured they balanced the chart and if it had to be a little more because you have to charge a whole point than there would be minor fluctuation.

I learned that a Base year is a year that they balance the chart and then apply that chart with the same dates to every other year. If more days fall on weekends the total points would be more. They have to pick a year that would never go below the 4,032,720 points.

Since easter falls on different days each year and easter is split between 2 seasons it will inflate the total point for almost all years.

I will add only one comment. The change regarding the number of days for the Easter season being in the highest premier season was done based on real time demand...or lack there of...for those days.

 

[Kickstart]

Before I got into this thread I thought each year PVB had to have as close to 4,032,720 points as possible. I figured they balanced the chart and if it had to be a little more because you have to charge a whole point than there would be minor fluctuation.

I learned that a Base year is a year that they balance the chart and then apply that chart with the same dates to every other year. If more days fall on weekends the total points would be more. They have to pick a year that would never go below the 4,032,720 points.

Since easter falls on different days each year and easter is split between 2 seasons it will inflate the total point for almost all years.

... and this is where I stop following. Why does it matter? Reduce points across the season, another season, or just reduce points for a few days in a season... until you're back to the same number of points that were allocated, or back to the same number of points the first full year the resort was sold out.

 

[dismedvc]

Why have seasons at all... just assign a point cost to each day appropriately (historically busier days would be more than less popular days) so that the total doesn't change.

This is the best Idea I have ever seen. A point chart with each individual day in a 365 (or 366) day year having a specific point cost, would result in the cost to book a particular unit (size and view) for all of the days in that year, to be exactly the same every year.

 

[Matty B13]

This is the best Idea I have ever seen. A point chart with each individual day in a 365 (or 366) day year having a specific point cost, would result in the cost to book a particular unit (size and view) for all of the days in that year, to be exactly the same every year.

If they can do it for Park Tickets, I don't see why they couldn't do it for DVC Resorts.

 

[drusba]

Just some additional thoughts. As I have mentioned, the issue of whether the 7-season point charts are legal may depend, at least partially, on whether DVC could change base years after a resort was originally put on sale. That had to be what happened here because 2035 has no importance as a base year unless you are adopting the 7-season chart that has total annual points fluctuate largely based on the dates of Easter. In other words, many of us would find it incredible if DVC tried to claim it actually chose the 2035 early-Easter base year when BRV when on sale in 2,000, BCV shortly after, SSR soon thereafter etc., when there was a five-season chart for which the annual total points did not fluctuate as a result of the changes in the dates for Easter, i.e., under those charts the total points for March and April stayed the same because the two Easter weeks were in premier season and all the rest of March and April was in magic season.

DVCM is the entity charged with creating point charts, Under the DVC Membership Agreements, total points in the base year cannot be changed. DVCM can shift Home Resort Vacation Points needed from days in one season to others, as long as any increase is met by an equal decrease, but nothing in the membership agreement says it can change the number of seasons or the base year, or change to a base year that heavily relies on the date of Easter for total points when the original base year did not.

Another important document is the first page of Exhibit A to the Master Cotenancy Agreement in the POS. The one for BRV is attached. The key to that exhibit is that it provides the actual way to determine total ownership interests and total ownership points before the resort goes on sale. It is in fact the base year analysis. It sets out how DVCM is to choose a calendar with seasons and evaluate expected demand in laying out points in that calendar for the various rooms. Once all that is determined, it is the calendar and point totals per room and night that actually determines the total ownership interests and total points applicable to the resort.

In other words, those percentage ownership interests and all the total points when you add up all the deeds are determined by that base year analysis done before the resort went on sale. No other document allows a change in that initially chosen base year or number of seasons, and to allow such possible base year changes years after the resort was sold would mean DVCM would improperly have the power to change the total ownership interests that could exist for the resort at time the resort was created, when in fact the only real power to make changes that it has is to shift points from one already-existing season to another.

 

[zavandor]

I've just had a call with DVC, with YC, head of Regulatory Affairs and a team leader who has been involved in the point reallocation.

Fasten seat belts.

They told me the Base Year doesn't exist. Or better, it is used only when the resort is created and the total number of points available for sale is calculated. Then the Base year is not used anymore for point reallocations. So the question if the Base Year has changed over time is meaningless, it hasn't changed because it's used only when the resort goes for sale. (this is also compatible with the fact that OKW and BWV don't have a BY mentioned in the POS).

They told me that when they do a reallocation they project the new point charts over the years, in order to find a minimum year and a maximum year, i.e. the years when the total number of points needed to book the resort is the lowest and highest. They have to ensure that the points for minimum year are not lower than the points sold (otherwise it would go against the Florida law) and that the points for the maximum year are not too much higher than the points sold. They said something about the difference being in the 0.2 - 0.4% range. [We know it's higher and I've told them]

I was speachless for a bit, because they've talked about a Base Year with a lot of people, of course some have reported here as well. They've admitted they've used the term improperly in the past and they now prefer to use the term "minimum year".
After the initial shock, I realized this didn't change much what was my thesys, actually it made it stronger.

What I told them is:
- DVC management company has a fiduciary duty toward the members, it must do their best interest
- the members have bought points that represent a reale estate interest and those points are used to book rooms. Point inflation is without a doubt against the interests of the members, so the DVCMC should do their best to minimize point inflation
- the DVCMC has all the rights to do point reallocations to balance demand; actually, they have to do it
- according to what they told me, the DVCMC is not bind by keeping a certain Base Year in doing the reallocations and they must just ensure the minimum year doesn't go lower than points sold and maximum year is not to much higher than point sold
THEN
- the DVCMC is allowed to do the reallocation using the current year as the minimum year. Every year they can recalculate the point charts to offset the change in weekends and holidays and have the points as close as possible to the points sold. This is the best way to both guarantee a demand balance and avoid point inflation.

If they're not bind in any other way (by law or by contract) to a certain Base year, then they can reallocate every year to guarantee zero or just a very little amount of point inflation.
I told them in 2022 SSR has over 35k extra points. Those are enough for a thousands or more nights that members won't be able to book. It's not enormous but it's not negligible. And those extra points do not benefit the members in any way, because the breakage created generates extra revenue for DVD, since the brekage income limit is already hit every year.

I don't think they were expecting this, their reply was (IMHO) weak.
The told me that they try to limit the amount of changes to the charts, because it might upset people if with a certain number of points someone can book 5 nights and then the next year it's 4 nights.
I replied that:
- because of point inflation people already can book fewer nights than before
- if they transparently explain why the point charts are adjusted every year (to offset calendar change) people would understand and not complain

I have also told them I think the current reallocation goes against the POS. Because the POS says they can increase the points required in a unit in a certain day, but it has to be balanced by a decrease in another day for the same unit. Because of point inflation for 2022 they had a point increase that was not balanced by a decrease. That was excusable if the concept of Base Year exists and is enforced by law. But if it doesn't then the way they've done the reallocation doesn't comply with the rules.
[this is essentially Drusdba's point, made a few posts back. Unfortunately I didn't read the latest message before the call otherwise I would have told them that as well]

Minor thing: I told them I understand why they have rebalanced Fall and Summer, but I still don't understand why they haven't touched the first two weeks of December. But I've told them I didn't want to go that route because it was not really the topic of the call and time is always short.

Not sure I've convinced them, but I've read some doubt in their voice. They told me they'll report my feedback to the team and they'll come back to me.

As usual, I have appreciated the opportunity to talk with DVC leadership and it's great they made themselves available to listen to my complaint.

P.S. They've confirmed they've read this thread

 

[JGINPL]

I've just had a call with DVC, with YC, head of Regulatory Affairs and a team leader who has been involved in the point reallocation.

Fasten seat belts.

They told me the Base Year doesn't exist. Or better, it is used only when the resort is created and the total number of points available for sale is calculated. Then the Base year is not used anymore for point reallocations. So the question if the Base Year has changed over time is meaningless, it hasn't changed because it's used only when the resort goes for sale. (this is also compatible with the fact that OKW and BWV don't have a BY mentioned in the POS).

They told me that when they do a reallocation they project the new point charts over the years, in order to find a minimum year and a maximum year, i.e. the years when the total number of points needed to book the resort is the lowest and highest. They have to ensure that the points for minimum year are not lower than the points sold (otherwise it would go against the Florida law) and that the points for the maximum year are not too much higher than the points sold. They said something about the difference being in the 0.2 - 0.4% range. [We know it's higher and I've told them]

I was speachless for a bit, because they've talked about a Base Year with a lot of people, of course some have reported here as well. They've admitted they've used the term improperly in the past and they now prefer to use the term "minimum year".
After the initial shock, I realized this didn't change much what was my thesys, actually it made it stronger.

What I told them is:
- DVC management company has a fiduciary duty toward the members, it must do their best interest
- the members have bought points that represent a reale estate interest and those points are used to book rooms. Point inflation is without a doubt against the interests of the members, so the DVCMC should do their best to minimize point inflation
- the DVCMC has all the rights to do point reallocations to balance demand; actually, they have to do it
- according to what they told me, the DVCMC is not bind by keeping a certain Base Year in doing the reallocations and they must just ensure the minimum year doesn't go lower than points sold and maximum year is not to much higher than point sold
THEN
- the DVCMC is allowed to do the reallocation using the current year as the minimum year. Every year they can recalculate the point charts to offset the change in weekends and holidays and have the points as close as possible to the points sold. This is the best way to both guarantee a demand balance and avoid point inflation.

If they're not bind in any other way (by law or by contract) to a certain Base year, then they can reallocate every year to guarantee zero or just a very little amount of point inflation.
I told them in 2022 SSR has over 35k extra points. Those are enough for a thousands or more nights that members won't be able to book. It's not enormous but it's not negligible. And those extra points do not benefit the members in any way, because the breakage created generates extra revenue for DVD, since the brekage income limit is already hit every year.

I don't think they were expecting this, their reply was (IMHO) weak.
The told me that they try to limit the amount of changes to the charts, because it might upset people if with a certain number of points someone can book 5 nights and then the next year it's 4 nights.
I replied that:
- because of point inflation people already can book fewer nights than before
- if they transparently explain why the point charts are adjusted every year (to offset calendar change) people would understand and not complain

I have also told them I think the current reallocation goes against the POS. Because the POS says they can increase the points required in a unit in a certain day, but it has to be balanced by a decrease in another day for the same unit. Because of point inflation for 2022 they had a point increase that was not balanced by a decrease. That was excusable if the concept of Base Year exists and is enforced by law. But if it doesn't then the way they've done the reallocation doesn't comply with the rules.
[this is essentially Drusdba's point, made a few posts back. Unfortunately I didn't read the latest message before the call otherwise I would have told them that as well]

Minor thing: I told them I understand why they have rebalanced Fall and Summer, but I still don't understand why they haven't touched the first two weeks of December. But I've told them I didn't want to go that route because it was not really the topic of the call and time is always short.

Not sure I've convinced them, but I've read some doubt in their voice. They told me they'll report my feedback to the team and they'll come back to me.

As usual, I have appreciated the opportunity to talk with DVC leadership and it's great they made themselves available to listen to my complaint.

P.S. They've confirmed they've read this thread

Great recap. Thank you for doing this. I'm not as articulate as you are, and would probably freeze up when talking with them. But I do agree and appreciate very much what you are doing!

 

[JOLT]

did they not give a reason for the point increase of 35k points and how it was for the members benefit?

 

[JGINPL]

Even though I do not want a phone call I did write to them and highlighted a little with what Zavandor had in his and broke it down a little with booking a room:
Hello -
I'm writing to talk about the Point Chart Reallocation. I do not need a phone call back but wanted to voice a couple of points:

- DVC management company has a fiduciary duty toward the members, it must do their best interest
- the members have bought points that represent a real estate interest and those points are used to book rooms. Point inflation is without a doubt against the interests of the members, so the DVCMC should do their best to minimize point inflation
- the DVCMC has all the rights to do point reallocations to balance demand;
- the DVCMC is allowed to do the reallocation using the current year as the minimum year. Every year they can recalculate the point charts to offset the change in weekends and holidays and have the points as close as possible to the points sold. This is the best way to both guarantee a demand balance and avoid point inflation.

DVCMC it appears may have increased points for over 35,000 at SSR in 2022 through the most recent reallocation. I and others do not understand how that is helping DVC members as a whole. This is more likely helping DVD with increased profits being the associations are capped with how much they can make from these bookings. This amount could book a 2 bedroom year-round for 116 weeks.

 

[drusba]

I've just had a call with DVC, with YC, head of Regulatory Affairs and a team leader who has been involved in the point reallocation.

Fasten seat belts.

They told me the Base Year doesn't exist. Or better, it is used only when the resort is created and the total number of points available for sale is calculated. Then the Base year is not used anymore for point reallocations. So the question if the Base Year has changed over time is meaningless, it hasn't changed because it's used only when the resort goes for sale. (this is also compatible with the fact that OKW and BWV don't have a BY mentioned in the POS).

They told me that when they do a reallocation they project the new point charts over the years, in order to find a minimum year and a maximum year, i.e. the years when the total number of points needed to book the resort is the lowest and highest. They have to ensure that the points for minimum year are not lower than the points sold (otherwise it would go against the Florida law) and that the points for the maximum year are not too much higher than the points sold. They said something about the difference being in the 0.2 - 0.4% range. [We know it's higher and I've told them]

I was speachless for a bit, because they've talked about a Base Year with a lot of people, of course some have reported here as well. They've admitted they've used the term improperly in the past and they now prefer to use the term "minimum year".
After the initial shock, I realized this didn't change much what was my thesys, actually it made it stronger.

What I told them is:
- DVC management company has a fiduciary duty toward the members, it must do their best interest
- the members have bought points that represent a reale estate interest and those points are used to book rooms. Point inflation is without a doubt against the interests of the members, so the DVCMC should do their best to minimize point inflation
- the DVCMC has all the rights to do point reallocations to balance demand; actually, they have to do it
- according to what they told me, the DVCMC is not bind by keeping a certain Base Year in doing the reallocations and they must just ensure the minimum year doesn't go lower than points sold and maximum year is not to much higher than point sold
THEN
- the DVCMC is allowed to do the reallocation using the current year as the minimum year. Every year they can recalculate the point charts to offset the change in weekends and holidays and have the points as close as possible to the points sold. This is the best way to both guarantee a demand balance and avoid point inflation.

If they're not bind in any other way (by law or by contract) to a certain Base year, then they can reallocate every year to guarantee zero or just a very little amount of point inflation.
I told them in 2022 SSR has over 35k extra points. Those are enough for a thousands or more nights that members won't be able to book. It's not enormous but it's not negligible. And those extra points do not benefit the members in any way, because the breakage created generates extra revenue for DVD, since the brekage income limit is already hit every year.

I don't think they were expecting this, their reply was (IMHO) weak.
The told me that they try to limit the amount of changes to the charts, because it might upset people if with a certain number of points someone can book 5 nights and then the next year it's 4 nights.
I replied that:
- because of point inflation people already can book fewer nights than before
- if they transparently explain why the point charts are adjusted every year (to offset calendar change) people would understand and not complain

I have also told them I think the current reallocation goes against the POS. Because the POS says they can increase the points required in a unit in a certain day, but it has to be balanced by a decrease in another day for the same unit. Because of point inflation for 2022 they had a point increase that was not balanced by a decrease. That was excusable if the concept of Base Year exists and is enforced by law. But if it doesn't then the way they've done the reallocation doesn't comply with the rules.
[this is essentially Drusdba's point, made a few posts back. Unfortunately I didn't read the latest message before the call otherwise I would have told them that as well]

Minor thing: I told them I understand why they have rebalanced Fall and Summer, but I still don't understand why they haven't touched the first two weeks of December. But I've told them I didn't want to go that route because it was not really the topic of the call and time is always short.

Not sure I've convinced them, but I've read some doubt in their voice. They told me they'll report my feedback to the team and they'll come back to me.

As usual, I have appreciated the opportunity to talk with DVC leadership and it's great they made themselves available to listen to my complaint.

P.S. They've confirmed they've read this thread

So now we have multiple contradictory explanations for justifying the change to the 7-season point charts that create significantly higher point totals in numerous years. It seems they are just making it up as they go along, i.e., they now realize the explanations they gave members earlier lack validity and have created a new one which says they can change the original base year created simply by not calling the choice of a new calendar year for determining point totals a "base" year.

What they said also contradicts the statements in the Product Understanding Checklists applicable to each resort, which declares that the only total point increases from year to year that can possibly occur are those naturally caused by the change in the calendar year, such as increases resulting from the extra day in a leap year, and thus not caused by any separate action taken by DVC. After creating a base year applicable to a resort. DVC has no expressed right to use any method that itself results in increasing total points for a year, i.e., it has the right to increase points for a use day or days in a vacation home only if it does an equal decrease on other days, and thus, by definition, that is an action that cannot itself result in an increase in total points for the year. But what DVC is saying now is that it can, despite all the contractual language to the contrary, purposefully take action that results in greatly increasing points in many years, consisting of changing the seasons and switching to using the variation in Easter dates as a method of determining total annual points. And it cites to no provisions in the POS that gives it any power to do that.

 

[Sandisw]

So now we have multiple contradictory explanations for justifying the change to the 7-season point charts that create significantly higher point totals in numerous years. It seems they are just making it up as they go along, i.e., they now realize the explanations they gave members earlier lack validity and have created a new one which says they can change the original base year created simply by not calling the choice of a new calendar year for determining point totals a "base" year.

What they said also contradicts the statements in the Product Understanding Checklists applicable to each resort, which declares that the only total point increases from year to year that can possibly occur are those naturally caused by the change in the calendar year, such as increases resulting from the extra day in a leap year, and thus not caused by any separate action taken by DVC. After creating a base year applicable to a resort. DVC has no expressed right to use any method that itself results in increasing total points for a year, i.e., it has the right to increase points for a use day or days in a vacation home only if it does an equal decrease on other days, and thus, by definition, that is an action that cannot itself result in an increase in total points for the year. But what DVC is saying now is that it can, despite all the contractual language to the contrary, purposefully take action that results in greatly increasing points in many years, consisting of changing the seasons and switching to using the variation in Easter dates as a method of determining total annual points. And it cites to no provisions in the POS that gives it any power to do that.

This is the language in the Product Understanding Checklist for RIV..only one I have.

All it says is From time to time, the number of vacation points required to reserve a specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change. This reallocation occurs for various reasons, such as a change in the pattern of Members Usage.

Is that different from previous ones?

 

[EYL]

I remembered this from the 2020 reallocation thread:

DVDs received in 2007 and 2012 say this:
“But here’s a very cool secret about vacation points. Drumroll please. The total number of vacation points on this chart can never change for the life of your membership. While reservation requirements for seasons and dates will vary from year to year, the total number of vacation points for the year will be exactly the same this year as it will be many years later. Imagine bragging……”

Sometime in 2012, wording in the DVDs was changed to this:
"Aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year, this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year, it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

So for 2022, they changed it to "We can increase it anytime we want, by however amount we want"?

 

[Minniemoo15]

I remembered this from the 2020 reallocation thread:



So for 2022, they changed it to "We can increase it anytime we want, by however amount we want"?

This is what is causing me the most concern. The above phrasing about total points not changing is exactly how I understood the point chart system to work. And for so many years they stuck to this. Now all of a sudden 2022 has a lot more points added across all resorts and they can’t give us a good reason why this is. Obviously there was a change made - what was the change , why did they make it, how does it benefit members and is it in line with what the POS lays out ?

 

[laserpastry]

As someone who has not yet bought into DVC but was planning to do so, this is very concerning to me. Buying into a timeshare is a dicey thing already, but I thought I would be able to trust Disney that the total number of points cannot change from year to year. This point inflation is sketchy, regardless of whether or not it is legal.