DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[EM Lawrence]

Can the next person who has a call find out why they arent substantially reducing the cost of the Poly Bungalows, seeing how they arent overly popular and they are apparently allowed to fix this without raising the studio prices, which we all assumed wasnt allowed?

If they are acting in members best interests that should be a thing, no?

Oh no. We would not want those rooms to become too popular. We have to balance against that.

 

[Leight19]

I had my conference call today with two DVC managers, from Regulatory Affairs and Club Strategy (the department responsible for creating the point charts). It confirmed my impression from my last call with Chang, that these phone meetings are merely surveys with uncompensated volunteers.

I was pleasantly surprised that someone from Club Strategy was participating. Unfortunately, the conversation yielded no more information than others have reported.

Club Strategy (CS) opened with "the point charts were designed for member's benefit", with the reasonings -
1. The point increase is a mere "rounding error" compared with traded points and breakage points. DVCM isn't trying to get more breakage.

2. Nevertheless this minor increase will creating a "vast improvement" to availability; a net benefit to members.

3. DVCM is working for members' benefits. Members agreed to let DVCM decide and vote for our interest.

4. DVCM is legally obliged to balance demand.

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability. By 2023 we will see the benefit of the improved availability.

Regarding the Base Year, Regulatory Affairs (RA) offered -
- It's a common misunderstanding.
- Base year is only used to determine the number of points that can be sold. After which there is no further selection of Base Year as such.
- Point charts are created in a way that best balances demand
- The total points will differ each year base on normal calendar changes
- 2035 is not important, just a year that the total points will happen to match declared points.

This was a similar explanation given to @zavandor, with the post-audience tested, tweaked emphasis on "the point increase is all for your benefit".

I asked if the stated intention of balancing demand is the goal of the point chart creation, why not further reduce point requirement in September, for example? Why couldn't demand balancing be achieved, while keeping total points as close to declared points as possible?

CS offered several explanations -

1. Offsetting the increase by reducing point requirement in certain categories/seasons, would make those rooms too popular.

2. They also want to balance across across all the resorts, not making certain PVB rooms too cheap compared to other resorts, for example.

3. He reiterated that the increase is so minor, they couldn't allocate "fractional points" to balance demand.

4. Members complaining costs more than what those points are worth. (Sorry guys, you'll be billed for that hour!)

While CS went on about why points couldn't be fully offset, RA chimed in with the standard lines: "points will change due to normal seasonal variations, but an increase is always offset by decrease elsewhere". Err, excuse me? Are you hearing what your colleague is saying? Luckily DVC staff have impeccable manners that encourages politeness in kind... I might have used some colourful language in my pandemic-induced curmudgeonly state otherwise.

CS did concede that DVCM has heard member feedback, and that in 2023 the total points will "head back in the right direction". I thanked them for taking my feedback, even if I didn't accept the justification offered.

Thank you for sharing this. It’s clear to me whoever is responsible for point charts is either incompetent to point of negligence on DVCMs part or are intentionally deceptive. Throughout this thread, everyone that calls seems to get different answer. The initial response was that people were wrong and the points increase was balanced with decrease. Once challenged with numbers they changed to saying despite there being increase with no decrease this was needed based on base year and time share laws. Now as we continue to push we are hearing base year isn’t involved but the increase was not offset by decrease to prevent other season from being too attractive and we shouldn’t care because it’s rounding error? If this is their reason it means they intentionally broke the law to increase points in all dvc properties by ~0.5% because the math to balance was too hard for them to figure out? Why has this not been an issue in the 30 years to date as shown by point differential chart year to year with 2022 being clear outlier increase?

To me, we can’t give them free pass on this answer. I think it’s clear they are not acting in best interest of members and find it incredible they tried to bury further challenges by threatening it would cost more for us to complain then to just let them have the extra points. I wish I found comfort in them saying it will “head back in right direction” in 2023 but if they really couldn’t balance 2022 how can they balance 2023? I take this line as admission they added points to chart because they didn’t think it was large enough for us to notice and now that they got caught they may fix in 2023.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I think it’s clear they are not acting in best interest of members and find it incredible they tried to bury further challenges by threatening it would cost more for us to complain then to just let them have the extra points.

To be fair, I took his comment to mean "the headache wasn't worth the petty change", rather than a threat to charge us for the inquiries.

The POS does allow DVCM to fund legal challenge with MF. But I doubt TWDC will want to go that route.

 

[zavandor]

. I wish I found comfort in them saying it will “head back in right direction” in 2023 but if they really couldn’t balance 2022 how can they balance 2023? I take this line as admission they added points to chart because they didn’t think it was large enough for us to notice and now that they got caught they may fix in 2023.

I think they mean in 2023 the extra points added by the holiday shift will be less than in 2022.

 

[zavandor]

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability. By 2023 we will see the benefit of the improved availability.

I am astonished they've told you this.
The have admitted they have inflated the point charts on purpose, with the aim of increasing availability.
This is plain illegal, there is no other word to describe it.

 

[Heather07438]

I am astonished they've told you this.
The have admitted they have inflated the point charts on purpose, with the aim of increasing availability.
This is plain illegal, there is no other word to describe it.

Could they have been referring to the 7 seasons change and not inflating points on purpose?

It kinda sounded to me like they're blaming the need to balance changes in seasonal demand by expanding to 7 seasons and it was so challenging to do because they couldn't figure out how to redistribute fractions of points that were left over... so what? they rounded them all up? lol

 

[Mumof4mice]

I think they mean in 2023 the extra points added by the holiday shift will be less than in 2022.

I agree. They are counting on members who are unaware of the issues with the 2022 charts (the majority) to take a look at 2023 and be pleased with the "reduction".

I am astonished they've told you this.
The have admitted they have inflated the point charts on purpose, with the aim of increasing availability.
This is plain illegal, there is no other word to describe it.

All the excuses offered were astonishingly illogical.

ETA:
"Benefit to the membership" in the way of improved availability (as determined by DVCM using vague, undisclosed algorithms) is subjective and a matter of opinion. While the increase in total points is an objective, mathematical fact. Stick to measurable facts, DVCM. Simple.

 

[zavandor]

I just received an unsolicited call asking if I wanted to join a class action suit against DVC management. The basis of the suit is that DVC management is not acting in the best interest of the members. They said there are meetings scheduled in Austin Texas this weekend to provide the details.

At this point, I am not inclined to join the class action, but I might attend the meeting out of curiosity.

It would be an interesting development. However there have been in the past reports of scam by companies who find the DVC owners names on the OC website. Not saying this is it, but I'd recommend to be cautious.

 

[Minniemoo15]

One possible option or path forward may be to file a complaint with the BBB. https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/celebration/profile/vacation-timeshare/disney-vacation-club-0733-102655

I noticed on the BBB website that DVC is extremely responsive at responding to complaints and finding a positive resolution to clear the complaint. I would think that this would be a site that potential buyers research when considering DVC and it is in DVC’s best interest to resolve any complaints quickly. If potential buyers are being told by guides and promotional materials (as we were) that total points cannot increase, then they should know that DVCM no longer believes this to be the case before they make an informed decision as to whether or not they buy in.

Truly I am not sure if we would have bought in knowing all of this, which makes me very very sad. But one of the big comforts to us was that if the points required for our week increased than it would be decreased elsewhere in the year; total points would not increase. I looked at it as “it would be a bummer for us, but another member would benefit by their week going down”. And for 30 years, the point chart stayed very steady. I feel like my husband and I did our due diligence in researching extensively and that we understood the product we bought into. I still love DVC, I love our home resort and have no intention on selling our contract. But had I stumbled upon this information prior to purchase I am not sure if we would have still jumped in. We have close family members who are considering a purchase and for the first time I am hesitating to recommend rather than giving my usual glowing endorsement.

 

[drusba]

To be fair, I took his comment to mean "the headache wasn't worth the petty change", rather than a threat to charge us for the inquiries.

The POS does allow DVCM to fund legal challenge with MF. But I doubt TWDC will want to go that route.

The POS does not provide that DVCM can use annual maintenance fees to fund its defense in a legal action brought by members. What the DVC Membership Agreement does provide is that in legal actions between DVCM and any members based on the alleged failure to comply with the terms of the membership agreement, the prevailing party may be awarded by the court its costs and reasonable attorney's fees for the action. That has nothing to do with the use of maintenance fees. It also works both ways: a court could award the "prevailing party" members all of their their costs and attorney's fees for pursuing an action against DVCM for failure to comply with the Membership Agreement.

Also, you are correct that there can be no charges to members for the phone meetings to discuss the members' concerns with the actions taken by DVCM. The only possible source in the dues that could be used to pay for DVCM's time in dealing with these calls is money out of the annual Management Fee which equals 12% of the rest of annual budget, not counting property taxes. The 12% never changes. If DVCM were to spend nothing on these calls or many millions of dollars on these calls, the amount you pay in dues would remain exactly the same. -- 12% of the annual budget.

As to your call with DVC, it is becoming more and more apparent that DVC is just trying to come up with new excuses to justify its wrongful actions when it is obvious it likely did no valid legal analysis before doing what it did. As I have noted, DVCM cannot do anything more than what is actually allowed by the relevant POS provisions (including the membership agreement) and nowhere does the POS say DVCM can create new point charts with new seasons that result in greatly increasing the total annual points in many calendar years. This is the same type of problem that existed with the original 2020 point charts that were later withdrawn. The modern DVC acts on the false premise that it can do anything it wants to do to cause harm to members as long it cannot find something in the POS that expressly says it cannot do it. The actual legal presumptions are the opposite. When dealing with documents all drafted by Disney and the acts of DVCM, a designated fiduciary of the members, DVCM cannot do more than that which is expressly allowed by the applicable documents.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

So I'm confused. Their position seems to be that the point increases are both so minor as to only be a "rounding error" and yet significant enough that availability will be vastly improved to the point of causing an increase in member satisfaction. Makes total sense.

It is interesting that member satisfaction is decreasing.

That is what I thought, too. If it’s insignificant enough to be categorized (by them) to be akin to “rounding error”, why will it have such a huge effect on availability? That makes zero sense. Of course they are not going to admit that increasing breakage factored into this decision.

 

[Matty B13]

Also, they shouldn't be worrying about "balancing" studio/1B/2B/GV point costs across different Resorts. Each resort point chart should be balanced individually, not across all of the "DVC Membership Resorts", especially with Riviera have the restrictions. They are putting the "Whole" Membership Interests above the owners of each specific Resort.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Could they have been referring to the 7 seasons change and not inflating points on purpose?

It kinda sounded to me like they're blaming the need to balance changes in seasonal demand by expanding to 7 seasons and it was so challenging to do because they couldn't figure out how to redistribute fractions of points that were left over... so what? they rounded them all up? lol

If this is true, then they shouldn’t have gone to 7 seasons. If they couldn’t keep the total points from going up by going to 7 seasons, then don’t go to 7 seasons.

 

[New Mouse]

Also, they shouldn't be worrying about "balancing" studio/1B/2B/GV point costs across different Resorts. Each resort point chart should be balanced individually, not across all of the "DVC Membership Resorts", especially with Riviera have the restrictions. They are putting the "Whole" Membership Interests above the owners of each specific Resort.

Well this is akin to...we decided to jack up the points and costs on all the newest resorts and all the older resorts look out of whack because the admin back then actually believed what they were supposed to be selling... we want to fix that.

I noticed this year more so than most as I was trying to piece together some stays with distressed points.... studios are a steal, 1 br are a rip off, 2br are overpriced, but not as bad as 1br. I also noticed that okw is so far below other resorts that anyone looking for the best value should stay there. The costs for bw and bc were also along that line of getting a premium for your points. No scientific evaluation, just that across all resorts there is definitely inequity... which speaks more to their point inflation than anything else.

Im thinking if dvc could go back in time they would have let all okw points expire and then redo the point charts for the new generation. Id imagine they will do this as the next contracts come due.

 

[mgarbowski]

4. Member satisfaction has been dropping. The charts will improve availability.

I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt, but this is starting to turn me. Availability is down because

1. They dropped the purchase minimum (to sell more points to a wider consumer base) to a level that many owners now have enough that they can only stay in studios even with banking and borrowing.
2. At the same time they built Bungalows at the Poly and Cabins at CCV with massive point requirements they had to know would almost never get rented, allowing them to ... sell more points with essentially no corresponding benefits to members at those resorts or system-wide.
3. Also at the same time, the point requirements for every new resort tends to be higher than the ones before - maybe not a straight line but the overall direction is very clear.
4. They have priced one bedrooms and set up guest-per-unit maximums system wide in a way that too few people see the benefit of ever staying in 1-bedrooms.
5. They built 3 offsite resorts that by all accounts are lovely but which many owners are using (especially after resale) to stay as much or more at WDW as they are at those sites.

Point rebalancing among seasons, even with point inflation, addresses none of these issues. I say that realizing that all of these problems are difficult to fix and the best way to have handled them was not to have created the problem in the first place, but we cannot go back in time and just undo them.

I also understand that the people with small contracts are happy they could buy in that way, but really, this was extremely bad for the membership as a whole, and if the price of buying in to DVC is too expensive to sell sufficient contracts with reasonable minimums that can support reasonable stays in 1-bedrooms under recent resort point charts, then Disney either has to (1) accept that they have a product which is even more exclusive than they have been pretending it to be and treat it appropriately, or (2) lower the cost per point (and/or point per rental) to buy in. I know the odds of them picking the second option are so low as to be effectively zero, but they seem unwilling to accept the reality of option one. So Disney has instead chosen to "compensate" for inflating prices by dropping the minimum and building unusable units, which generates a completely predictable availability crunch.

Then their fix is to inflate point charts above what should be permitted (or possibly legal), which fixes exactly none of problems 1-5, but arguably creates some small increase in availability at the expense mostly of the low point contract owners, while simultaneously -- checks notes -- benefitting Disney by giving all members an incentive to purchase small direct add-on contracts.

 

[Bing Showei]

2. They also want to balance across across all the resorts, not making certain PVB rooms too cheap compared to other resorts, for example.

This is by far one of the most egregious assertions from your phone call.

If Disney's timeshare developers have made any one thing abundantly clear since January 6, 2019, it is that as an owner at one resort, one has no equity stake in another property.

The suggestion that they need to make sure VGF/Riviera doesn't seem too pricey by making sure PVB isn't too cheap is asinine (and illegal) on its own, but given that a post-2018 resale owner at PVB cannot even book into Riviera, that's just next-level crotch kicking.

 

[EM Lawrence]

Do several members still have calls coming up on 2/8?

 

[Minniemoo15]

Do several members still have calls coming up on 2/8?

I do.

 

[cm8]

This is by far one of the most egregious assertions from your phone call.

If Disney's timeshare developers have made any one thing abundantly clear since January 6, 2019, it is that as an owner at one resort, one has no equity stake in another property.

The suggestion that they need to make sure VGF/Riviera doesn't seem too pricey by making sure PVB isn't too cheap is asinine (and illegal) on its own, but given that a post-2018 resale owner at PVB cannot even book into Riviera, that's just next-level crotch kicking.

Which is exactly why no one will ever get these responses recorded in writing.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Please mark your calendars for Dec 9,2021 to attend the Yearly Condo Association Meeting.
If we all raise our hands when the open floor questions are “welcomed” and we cheer the one person that gets to stand to ask the question we all want answered... plus the guides are also in attendance to Discuss Disney.

Remember they need our loyalty and Discontent does not sell memberships

P.S. perhaps we should all have a paper copy of the specific wording to discuss the important question. It would help to stay focused and validate our presence.
We just want one answer to our question.