DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[Sandisw]

Because DVC has shown a history of looking out for the members best interest and fulfilling their legal obligations previously...

Have to be honest, I think it’s comments like this that have forced some posters away from this thread because unless you believe that DVCM is the devil, it’s not really a welcoming place any longer. I’ll leave it at that..

 

[New Mouse]

Have to be honest, I think it’s comments like this that have forced some posters away from this thread because unless you believe that DVCM is the devil, it’s not really a welcoming place any longer. I’ll leave it at that..

So the fact that dvc has intentionally screwed over its members on multiple occasions, including in the recent past has no bearing on the situation? If that scares people away, I dont think they really care what Disney does one way or the other.

 

[Bruggok]

Folks, I think we waste time arguing what was DVC's intent. Frankly it matters not whether they meant well or are greedily evil. At the end of the day they have to provide evidence that what they did is/will not negatively impact owners. Several of you (thank you all for going to bat for rest of us) have presented your arguments to DVC. I hope they will be transparent and explain clearly. Otherwise this will not end well for them.

 

[mlayman7]

This is the biggest advantage of this great discussion site. If something is not right, you have many people able to come together to see what is going on. You have people in all professions able to look at issues in different ways.
Two years ago, they tried to do this to a much greater extent until members on this site were able to look at everything and tell that it was not allowed. The result helped all members and they walked back those changes.
They have tried to do this again, albeit, to a lesser extent but then tried to hide it with adding more seasons.
Most members, me included, would have no idea what DVC is trying to do two years ago and now again for 2021 point charts. Because we are able to get together on this site, share information, and then conclude once again with lots of data and several discussions with DVC that what they are doing is once again wrong.
How could diminishing your ownership percentage, what you worked hard to pay for, help any member out?
If people cannot speak their mind on facts that have been shown on this thread then what happened?
If dvc doesn't want people upset with them try letting people know why they did what they did. I still love DVC, very excited about our recent booking over next Christmas. This does not mean I want to let them get away with decreasing my ownership percentage that I purchased.

 

[Sandisw]

So the fact that dvc has intentionally screwed over its members on multiple occasions, including in the recent past has no bearing on the situation? If that scares people away, I dont think they really care what Disney does one way or the other.

The key is that not everyone agrees that DVCM has done and is doing that . The only questionable move for me since I have been a member is the lock off issue with the 2020 charts. I am still not convinced it was an illegal move, but it was changed so it became a moot point,

I definitely think all owners have the right to decide for themselves how to view this and why I said people need to call, get first hand explanations, and then decide.

As I shared in earlier posts, I have taken information shared here, information given to me by DVCM, my own interpretation of the contact and information given to me by attorney friends who deal with contracts and come to a different conclusion.

 

[New Mouse]

The key is that not everyone agrees that DVCM has done and is doing that . The only questionable move for me since I have been a member is the lock off issue with the 2020 charts. I am still not convinced it was an illegal move, but it was changed so it became a moot point,

I definitely think all owners have the right to decide for themselves how to view this and why I said people need to call, get first hand explanations, and then decide.

As I shared in earlier posts, I have taken information shared here, information given to me by DVCM, my own interpretation of the contact and information given to me by attorney friends who deal with contracts and come to a different conclusion.

Do you think they reverted those point charts out of the goodness of their hearts and to make it right for the 20 people from this board that said something? I have to assume you are a fairly new owner of thats the only one you noticed.

 

[Eldon32]

I was supposed to have a call with DVC today, however the person(s) I was scheduled to meet with had an emergency and needed to reschedule.

My plan is basically to walk through Exhibit A which defines how points are created and valued. This one is from AKV:


There are a few takeaways for me here:

For real-estate interest formulation "demand days" (this is representative of a unit you own, by a percentage on your deed):
1. It clearly says "points" don't matter. The percentage of ownership does, and this is reiterated in this exhibit, in the POS, and in the deeds. Points are for a convenience of calculation - but you could say just as easy that a week stay costs "1%" of Unit 115C.
2. During initial point creation for the resort, DVC created initial "seasons". We don't know how many, and to be honest it doesn't matter (which to me becomes a realization later).
3. Each vacation home has a demand factor applied to it - this considers the type of vacation home (studio, one-bedroom, ext), if it contains a lock-off, and the view it has (standard, pool, ext). Note: that this is only a DESIRE ranking, not a SIZE ranking. Size of the home is accounted for later.
4. The demand factor is multiplied by the number of days in each season to give a studio, a one bedroom, and a two bedroom total number of "demand days" for each season.
5. Total "demand days" for all seasons of each vacation home type are totaled giving a total for the year.

Note before proceeding, that a "unit" is not a vacation home. There may (will?) be multiple vacation homes in a defined unit. For example, you may have a plex of one bedroom, two bedroom, and multiple studios within a single unit. The combination within each unit doesn't matter, since we're going to figure out the value of the unit based on the vacation homes it contains next. It is entirely possible that someone with 200 points owns 3% of unit 110A but another person with 200 points owns 1% of unit 110B because of the types and quantities of vacation homes within the unit, as well as their views.

5. For each vacation home in a unit (studio, one bedroom, two bedroom) - the quantity of each vacation home type is multiplied by "demand days" for the year - then added together to represent a total number of "demand days" in the entire unit.
6. When you are sold a deed, you are sold a percentage relative to the number of "demand" days in that unit, which are already weighted based on initially defined seasons, views, unit types, and other factors that represent the value of that unit.

Converting "demand days" to "points":
1. Again, this section says "points" don't matter and are only an easier way to account for the percentage of ownership against the "demand days" you purchased.
2. The percentage of "demand days" purchased are multiplied by the square footage in the unit to determine the total square footage owned relative to the unit's total space.
3. The owned square footage is then multiplied by some "constant number" (across the entire resort?) to determine the number of vacation points your "percentage of demand days" for a specific unit are worth.

The page goes on to say that the initial points for each home, on each day will be determined by projected demand and that they are allowed to reallocate them per the MSA which I've put below. I think most people have seen this before.

What the kicker is for me, is in the very last sentence of the last paragraph in exhibit A (above): "In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."



Exhibit A reads to me that regardless of anything in the MSA to the contrary, total points year to year can *never* increase. It doesn't matter if it's for holidays, seasons or anything - all of this would have to be done via reallocation. Your points were created by measuring a unit's value based on the number of days it can be used, projected demand (including holidays, seasons), view, vacation home type and quantity, as well as unit square footage. The only exception would be a leap year since you are creating additional "demand days" for each unit.

I know we've said a lot about "moving Easter" and things like that in this thread - but my own opinion is it just doesn't matter. Once the ownership interest is created, it's tied to the demand factor they used on those holidays and in those seasons forever, before points are even created. The only thing they can do is move points around. In order to create more points, they would have to increase one of the variables. Besides leap year, you don't get more than 365 days in a year. You can't go back and increase the demand factor against a unit, because it's a factor against ownership interest ("demand days", not "points"), and you purchased a percentage of a unit's total "demand days" - not a fixed quantity. Increasing the demand factor by 2x would just translate into you owning the same percentage of that increase.

 

[Sandisw]

Do you think they reverted those point charts out of the goodness of their hearts and to make it right for the 20 people from this board that said something? I have to assume you are a fairly new owner of thats the only one you noticed.

11 year owner and with all due respect, your comment is proving my point. Lets not derail the thread with this, We will agree to disagree

 

[Mumof4mice]

Have to be honest, I think it’s comments like this that have forced some posters away from this thread because unless you believe that DVCM is the devil, it’s not really a welcoming place any longer. I’ll leave it at that..

Nobody buys DVC because they think "DVCM is the devil".

My family bought 3 contracts before our fist trip to WDW. Travel from Australia to Orlando typically takes 24 hours each way. Many other members spend more and travel as far. I'll bet many of us don't own any other timeshare, and only bought DVC based on trust for The Walt Disney Company.

Maybe it's DVCMC that needs to examine what they have done, to concern die-hard fans like us. One can be a Disneyphile AND hold DVCM leadership accountable for acting in the membership's best interest. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Sandisw]

Nobody buys DVC because they think "DVCM is the devil".

My family bought 3 contracts before our fist trip to WDW. Travel from Australia to Orlando typically takes 24 hours each way. Many other members spend more and travel as far. I'll bet many of us don't own any other timeshare, and only bought DVC based on trust for The Walt Disney Company.

Maybe it's DVCMC that needs to examine what they have done, to alienate die-hard fans like us. One can be a Disneyphile AND hold DVCM leadership accountable for acting in the membership's best interest. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

I completely agree. We should hold DVCMC accountable when we believe they have done something they should not or when we want clarification for decisions.

The point I was trying to make is that people like me have stopped sharing specifics as to why we have come to a different conclusion because of comments like the one that was directed at me.

 

[New Mouse]

I completely agree. We should hold DVCMC accountable when we believe they have done something they should not or when we want clarification for decisions.

The point I was trying to make is that people like me have stopped sharing specifics as to why we have come to a different conclusion because of comments like the one that was directed at me.

Well its hard to take the stance seriously when dvc literally fired their president with cause... its not because they were unintentionally doing something that affected members. You can think whatever you want, but past actions would lead most to believe that their intentions arent typically with the best interest of dvc in mind.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I think the justification from their side is the extra seasons that change based on timing of Easter better enables them to balance inventory by selectively increasing point cost based on how they anticipate people travel each specific year. Once they change number of seasons you get added variability based on calendar and I think they claimed legally can’t have any year where they require less points to book resort then sold (e.g. even though cheaper for those who book some couldn’t book any room). Idk specifics about why they can’t further adjust points in each category each year to not have overage on years that have inflated points (the contract does allow increases by calendar variability) but I think the above has been their explanation. What I think is not up for debate is they chose things that vast majority of membership would view as not in their best interest but in best interest for them to generate revenue off unrented rooms.

Thanks for trying to shed light on it. At the end of the day, they can’t add points to the calendar. There has to be the same amount of points per year, plain and simple. It appears they violated the contract.

 

[Aussie RJ]

DVC stands to make additional profits against rooms the members as a collective can no longer book. I fail to see how that is a benefit of our membership. After the lock off premium fiasco for me trust is now very much an issue. We all bought from the mouse and I was certainly told during the hour long presentation that points added to one night would be offset against another night. That to any layman is wrong!

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Folks, I think we waste time arguing what was DVC's intent. Frankly it matters not whether they meant well or are greedily evil. At the end of the day they have to provide evidence that what they did is/will not negatively impact owners. Several of you (thank you all for going to bat for rest of us) have presented your arguments to DVC. I hope they will be transparent and explain clearly. Otherwise this will not end well for them.

This is how I feel. I don’t think DVC or Disney is “evil”. They’re not. They are a business and sometimes really hard decisions have to be made in business. If anyone thinks they are evil, why do you own DVC? If I thought a company had sinister motives I wouldn’t do business with that company.

I do wish, however, to hear an actual good answer that makes sense as to how this change benefits owners. It appears that is doesn’t benefit owners, but I am ready to listen.

 

[Eldon32]

I think as a group of HOA members, this discussion is productive.

I've read a lot of opinions, a lot of graphs and charts, and a lot of my own readings of the DVC terms to come to my conclusion. My goal here is to understand all of the perspectives so I can be armed with the information I need to question the leadership intelligently when that discussion happens.

I'm not going to jump to malice for even in our group there are many differing understandings.

 

[Sandisw]

This is how I feel. I don’t think DVC or Disney is “evil”. They’re not. They are a business and sometimes really hard decisions have to be made in business. If anyone thinks they are evil, why do you own DVC? If I thought a company had sinister motives I wouldn’t do business with that company.

I do wish, however, to hear an actual good answer that makes sense as to how this change benefits owners. It appears that is doesn’t benefit owners, but I am ready to listen.

The very best place to get that answer IMO is to talk to those at DVCM and let them go into detail about it all.

This entire situation and points shared here have forced me to learn a lot about the contract and timeshares in general and to be frank, taught me I was not as accurate in my understanding of it all as I thought I was. I’m fortunate to have some very good and knowledgeable friends who helped me make sense of it all.

 

[gisele2]

Folks, I think we waste time arguing what was DVC's intent. Frankly it matters not whether they meant well or are greedily evil. At the end of the day they have to provide evidence that what they did is/will not negatively impact owners. Several of you (thank you all for going to bat for rest of us) have presented your arguments to DVC. I hope they will be transparent and explain clearly. Otherwise this will not end well for them.

I agree with you .

 

[gisele2]

I was supposed to have a call with DVC today, however the person(s) I was scheduled to meet with had an emergency and needed to reschedule.

My plan is basically to walk through Exhibit A which defines how points are created and valued. This one is from AKV:
View attachment 553051

There are a few takeaways for me here:

For real-estate interest formulation "demand days" (this is representative of a unit you own, by a percentage on your deed):
1. It clearly says "points" don't matter. The percentage of ownership does, and this is reiterated in this exhibit, in the POS, and in the deeds. Points are for a convenience of calculation - but you could say just as easy that a week stay costs "1%" of Unit 115C.
2. During initial point creation for the resort, DVC created initial "seasons". We don't know how many, and to be honest it doesn't matter (which to me becomes a realization later).
3. Each vacation home has a demand factor applied to it - this considers the type of vacation home (studio, one-bedroom, ext), if it contains a lock-off, and the view it has (standard, pool, ext). Note: that this is only a DESIRE ranking, not a SIZE ranking. Size of the home is accounted for later.
4. The demand factor is multiplied by the number of days in each season to give a studio, a one bedroom, and a two bedroom total number of "demand days" for each season.
5. Total "demand days" for all seasons of each vacation home type are totaled giving a total for the year.

Note before proceeding, that a "unit" is not a vacation home. There may (will?) be multiple vacation homes in a defined unit. For example, you may have a plex of one bedroom, two bedroom, and multiple studios within a single unit. The combination within each unit doesn't matter, since we're going to figure out the value of the unit based on the vacation homes it contains next. It is entirely possible that someone with 200 points owns 3% of unit 110A but another person with 200 points owns 1% of unit 110B because of the types and quantities of vacation homes within the unit, as well as their views.

5. For each vacation home in a unit (studio, one bedroom, two bedroom) - the quantity of each vacation home type is multiplied by "demand days" for the year - then added together to represent a total number of "demand days" in the entire unit.
6. When you are sold a deed, you are sold a percentage relative to the number of "demand" days in that unit, which are already weighted based on initially defined seasons, views, unit types, and other factors that represent the value of that unit.

Converting "demand days" to "points":
1. Again, this section says "points" don't matter and are only an easier way to account for the percentage of ownership against the "demand days" you purchased.
2. The percentage of "demand days" purchased are multiplied by the square footage in the unit to determine the total square footage owned relative to the unit's total space.
3. The owned square footage is then multiplied by some "constant number" (across the entire resort?) to determine the number of vacation points your "percentage of demand days" for a specific unit are worth.

The page goes on to say that the initial points for each home, on each day will be determined by projected demand and that they are allowed to reallocate them per the MSA which I've put below. I think most people have seen this before.

What the kicker is for me, is in the very last sentence of the last paragraph in exhibit A (above): "In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

View attachment 553054

Exhibit A reads to me that regardless of anything in the MSA to the contrary, total points year to year can *never* increase. It doesn't matter if it's for holidays, seasons or anything - all of this would have to be done via reallocation. Your points were created by measuring a unit's value based on the number of days it can be used, projected demand (including holidays, seasons), view, vacation home type and quantity, as well as unit square footage. The only exception would be a leap year since you are creating additional "demand days" for each unit.

I know we've said a lot about "moving Easter" and things like that in this thread - but my own opinion is it just doesn't matter. Once the ownership interest is created, it's tied to the demand factor they used on those holidays and in those seasons forever, before points are even created. The only thing they can do is move points around. In order to create more points, they would have to increase one of the variables. Besides leap year, you don't get more than 365 days in a year. You can't go back and increase the demand factor against a unit, because it's a factor against ownership interest ("demand days", not "points"), and you purchased a percentage of a unit's total "demand days" - not a fixed quantity. Increasing the demand factor by 2x would just translate into you owning the same percentage of that increase.

Thanks for the time you took to explain all of this . I look forward to read you after your chat with DVCM .

 

[Minniemoo15]

I was supposed to have a call with DVC today, however the person(s) I was scheduled to meet with had an emergency and needed to reschedule.

My plan is basically to walk through Exhibit A which defines how points are created and valued. This one is from AKV:
View attachment 553051

There are a few takeaways for me here:

For real-estate interest formulation "demand days" (this is representative of a unit you own, by a percentage on your deed):
1. It clearly says "points" don't matter. The percentage of ownership does, and this is reiterated in this exhibit, in the POS, and in the deeds. Points are for a convenience of calculation - but you could say just as easy that a week stay costs "1%" of Unit 115C.
2. During initial point creation for the resort, DVC created initial "seasons". We don't know how many, and to be honest it doesn't matter (which to me becomes a realization later).
3. Each vacation home has a demand factor applied to it - this considers the type of vacation home (studio, one-bedroom, ext), if it contains a lock-off, and the view it has (standard, pool, ext). Note: that this is only a DESIRE ranking, not a SIZE ranking. Size of the home is accounted for later.
4. The demand factor is multiplied by the number of days in each season to give a studio, a one bedroom, and a two bedroom total number of "demand days" for each season.
5. Total "demand days" for all seasons of each vacation home type are totaled giving a total for the year.

Note before proceeding, that a "unit" is not a vacation home. There may (will?) be multiple vacation homes in a defined unit. For example, you may have a plex of one bedroom, two bedroom, and multiple studios within a single unit. The combination within each unit doesn't matter, since we're going to figure out the value of the unit based on the vacation homes it contains next. It is entirely possible that someone with 200 points owns 3% of unit 110A but another person with 200 points owns 1% of unit 110B because of the types and quantities of vacation homes within the unit, as well as their views.

5. For each vacation home in a unit (studio, one bedroom, two bedroom) - the quantity of each vacation home type is multiplied by "demand days" for the year - then added together to represent a total number of "demand days" in the entire unit.
6. When you are sold a deed, you are sold a percentage relative to the number of "demand" days in that unit, which are already weighted based on initially defined seasons, views, unit types, and other factors that represent the value of that unit.

Converting "demand days" to "points":
1. Again, this section says "points" don't matter and are only an easier way to account for the percentage of ownership against the "demand days" you purchased.
2. The percentage of "demand days" purchased are multiplied by the square footage in the unit to determine the total square footage owned relative to the unit's total space.
3. The owned square footage is then multiplied by some "constant number" (across the entire resort?) to determine the number of vacation points your "percentage of demand days" for a specific unit are worth.

The page goes on to say that the initial points for each home, on each day will be determined by projected demand and that they are allowed to reallocate them per the MSA which I've put below. I think most people have seen this before.

What the kicker is for me, is in the very last sentence of the last paragraph in exhibit A (above): "In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

View attachment 553054

Exhibit A reads to me that regardless of anything in the MSA to the contrary, total points year to year can *never* increase. It doesn't matter if it's for holidays, seasons or anything - all of this would have to be done via reallocation. Your points were created by measuring a unit's value based on the number of days it can be used, projected demand (including holidays, seasons), view, vacation home type and quantity, as well as unit square footage. The only exception would be a leap year since you are creating additional "demand days" for each unit.

I know we've said a lot about "moving Easter" and things like that in this thread - but my own opinion is it just doesn't matter. Once the ownership interest is created, it's tied to the demand factor they used on those holidays and in those seasons forever, before points are even created. The only thing they can do is move points around. In order to create more points, they would have to increase one of the variables. Besides leap year, you don't get more than 365 days in a year. You can't go back and increase the demand factor against a unit, because it's a factor against ownership interest ("demand days", not "points"), and you purchased a percentage of a unit's total "demand days" - not a fixed quantity. Increasing the demand factor by 2x would just translate into you owning the same percentage of that increase.

Thank you for this analysis. It is excellent and gets to the heart of our concern - total points cannot and should not increase under any circumstances besides for normal calendar variations. For 30 years they were able to accomplish this. Why not in 2022?

I too was supposed to have a call today but it needed to be rescheduled. I am worried we are running out of time as members are getting further and further into booking 2022.

Have to be honest, I think it’s comments like this that have forced some posters away from this thread because unless you believe that DVCM is the devil, it’s not really a welcoming place any longer. I’ll leave it at that..

As an aside, I do want to say for the record - I do not believe DVCM to be the devil. I love Disney, I love our home resort, I love many things about the product including the flexibility and amenities. In the same breath, I do need to protect my interests and the significant amount of money we put into our ownership. I simply wish for the basic tenants of the contract that we entered to be followed. We shouldn’t have to study the point charts with a fine tooth comb each year, but here we are.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

This is how I feel. I don’t think DVC or Disney is “evil”. They’re not. They are a business and sometimes really hard decisions have to be made in business. If anyone thinks they are evil, why do you own DVC? If I thought a company had sinister motives I wouldn’t do business with that company.

I do wish, however, to hear an actual good answer that makes sense as to how this change benefits owners. It appears that is doesn’t benefit owners, but I am ready to listen.

I agree, not evil. I personally think the people making these decisions are just not very intelligent, which is also disturbing. But it doesn’t really matter how they “explain” this is in the interest of the members. They are not legally allowed to create more points. Period.