DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[bobbiwoz]

That PR stance took a little bit of time although it more or less follows what they'd been stating and they already publish the vehicle they used to do it. The extra points created provide a lot of money of course and writing an article to assure members that it all is fine is well worth the expense.

I still do not think it is correct because of the extra points in the charts. This does not address the fundamental problems it causes members.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I still do not think it is correct because of the extra points in the charts. This does not address the fundamental problems it causes members.

I agree Bobbi. They only address part of the story in the article - the part that makes sense in shifting season to season to rebalance. I recently was emailed the opportunity to participate in a survey. One of the questions was pretty telling to me in that it asked if greater availability at the time of booking was important. There's the right way to help with that in reallocating across seasons although I don't believe they can really alleviate the popularity of certain times. And then there's also the wrong/illegal way of increasing point requirements. They unfortunately keep presenting the latter along with the former.

 

[mdembko]

Just wanted to update on my call with Yvonne. The meeting was scheduled for tomorrow 03/31, but I got a call that she will be out of the office for the next couple of weeks and they will reschedule with me when she gets back. I have her assistants name and number so I can check in if I do not hear back.

 

[dismedvc]

Just wanted to update on my call with Yvonne. The meeting was scheduled for tomorrow 03/31, but I got a call that she will be out of the office for the next couple of weeks and they will reschedule with me when she gets back. I have her assistants name and number so I can check in if I do not hear back.

Previously in this thread,
In post #606, you indicated that you first contacted DVC on December 12th.
In post #609 @drusba posted he believes DVC could correct the issue if they act before April 11th.
Seems to me Yvonne is trying to "run out the clock" by being "out of the office for the next couple of weeks".

 

[Minniemoo15]

The person who wrote the article in Disney Files was the same person who told me in my first call that there was NO legal limit to how high PVBs point chart could go. In our second call he admitted he was mistaken and was now trying to figure out exactly how much it could rise. Either way it sounds like DVC itself is not clear on this - even though it is very clearly spelled out in the POS itself.

 

[mdembko]

You stated in an earlier post that you first contacted DVC on December 12th. @drusba posted in this thread in post #609 that he believes DVC could correct the issue if they act before April 11th. Seems to me Yvonne is trying to "run out the clock" by being "out of the office for the next couple of weeks".

Ya, I don't see them making any changes to the 2022 charts, but hoping we can all continue to push for legitimate reallocations in the future.

 

[dismedvc]

Ya, I don't see them making any changes to the 2022 charts, but hoping we can all continue to push for legitimate reallocations in the future.

Thinking about it further, rather than postponing your call in order to run out the clock, a more hopeful reason is that DVC is planning on making changes to the 2022 points charts, and is postponing your call until after those changes are made. Although I am not holding my breath on that being the case.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Rather than postponing your call in order to run out the clock, a more hopeful reason is that DVC is planning on making changes to the 2022 points charts, and is postponing your call until after those changes are made. Although I am not holding my breath on that being the case.

I don’t see them turning around after the article came out. I know you were just putting it out there.
After we never got a reply for the regular letter we mailed, we emailed Terry and never got a reply. They cannot justify the extra points in the system, so they ignore them, and tell us they have made it easier to book certain periods.
Still, I wish you would be correct.

 

[New Mouse]

As our thread recommended previously, it looks like DVC decided to remark on the point charts in the DVC Files Magazine. On page 21, the Listening Post article, "Feedback: The initial points charts I received for my home resort have changed multiple times since I became a member. Why do the charts change?" by Sajjad Naqvi, Club Strategy and Development. Additionally, there is a note for the December 9th condominium association meeting.

I encourage members concerned about the topics raised in this thread to read the one page article. Take note of what is said, and what is left unsaid.
- What's Said (in part): "Increasing vacation point requirements for some fall dates and off setting those increases by lowering requirements for some summer dates"
- What's Not Said : The overall points required to reserve throughout the year have significantly increased for some resorts. These higher points dilute the overall ownership when comparing the points required to rent now, then when declared at initial resort offering. The higher overall points lead to breakage of unreserved rooms. The ownership dilution and minimal amount of breakage returning to condo association for maintenance and usage demonstrate that this management choice to increase point requirements throughout the year for some resorts primarily benefits the corporation rather than the ownership. Lastly, the inflation of overall point requirements for some resorts demonstrate that the charts are not "point neutral," and instead mark a type of inflation which may be in breach of contract, as determined by a neutral party such as a Florida Regulator.

These are just my thoughts as I read the article. I appreciate that DVC management is concerned about perception of its fiduciary stewardship through point chart adjustments. I greatly appreciate that DVC tries to instill a sense of community beyond the "time share" or "just a room" experience. While I am concerned about how management has chosen to create more points required to stay during the year by maneuvering seasonal dates, and no amount of "extras" can make whole a breach of contract on the point-value reservation mechanism, I do appreciate that management does offer other extras in service to membership. (Recent examples include the waive of RCI transfer fee, extension of points in a use year during the pandemic.) It isn't lost on me as a member. Overall, I appreciate the time DVC took make a PR stance on this thread/matter.

So basically, they know its a problem, get out in front of it and hope most will just not pay attention after that basic info. Unfortunately many Disney fans have blinders on and will pay no attention.

 

[yitbos96bb]

So basically, they know its a problem, get out in front of it and hope most will just not pay attention after that basic info. Unfortunately many Disney fans have blinders on and will pay no attention.

This seems like a class action suit waiting to happen

 

[Bing Showei]

Thinking about it further, rather than postponing your call in order to run out the clock, a more hopeful reason is that DVC is planning on making changes to the 2022 points charts, and is postponing your call until after those changes are made. Although I am not holding my breath on that being the case.

After a late February call with Yvonne on this topic, I scheduled a late March followup to resume the conversation so that she had time to "look into the issue" more. Due to some shuffling of schedules, I had to push my call out further, but her schedule was available to speak prior to April 11, late last week.

That's not to say there won't be a reverse course, only that the rescheduling may not be indicative of that.

This seems like a class action suit waiting to happen

Maybe.

At the time I did speak to her, Yvonne seemed to genuinely have less "in-the-weeds" details around the shuffle of the charts and the implications of the 7-season change. She did however maintain that points can never go below the sold points. Of course, with that as a baseline for the 7 season point chart configuration they chose, 48 of the next 50 years will be above what the ownership bought. Disney's perspective is that the fluctuations fall within the shifts cause by "natural holiday fluctuations" from year to year."

What isn't being acknowledged is that Management manufactured this "natural fluctuation" by going from 5 seasons to 7 and its treatment of April days.

The point Drusba has raised is whether or not Management has the legal right to make the aforementioned seasonal change after the declaration of a resort and points to be sold are established by the Developer.

Disney will argue they have the right to make the change; that they have a fiduciary obligation to make changes on behalf of ownership to address demand changes in membership usage. I think few owners would take issue with the latter. Whether they have a right to do the former is debatable.

But even if we accept that they have the legal right to change the chart seasons, which I don't believe they do, the question becomes: Does this change satisfy Management's fiduciary obligations to the ownership? Does the change benefit members more than harms them?

And even allowing for the change, I don't think they do. My position is that the change harms owners more than helps the ownership, whatever availability may be increased based on the excess points now required to book the resort.

Based on the POS, my conversations will focus on the agreement that states no change may be made to the point charts that will violate the one-to-one use right, and the 7 season chart invariably does exactly that.

Could this be deliberate choice to generate additional income for DVCMC? Maybe?

I'm not one to shy away from the tinfoil hat, but I think it's more likely this really was just a ham-fisted way of actually trying to address demand changes. Deliberate or not, it doesn't change the fact that in the end, it harms the ownership and needs to be corrected. My hope is that they fix this in the interest of avoiding any unnecessary arbitration/lawsuits. Who among us has the stomach for that?

On a final note, I suspect this is not deliberate given how much money Disney generates from owners destroying their ownership value on their own absent any point chart shenanigans. Most owners will jump at securing a studio, even if it's part of a lockoff. Sharing the wall with that owner are people like my family that stay almost exclusively in 1BR units. Points are traded into DLC or Concierge. Points are even allowed to expire unused (I'm certain this figure would dumbfound anyone who visits these boards).

Collectively, we likely generate a point premium income from breakage that dwarfs any potential Management "sleight of hand" maneuver by way of the point charts. So from their perspective, we're on the Titanic, complaining that the faucet in our stateroom is leaky.

That said, I still want the faucet fixed. And hopefully Disney will rather fix the faucet than draw attention to the water rushing in through the porthole.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Just wanted to update on my call with Yvonne. The meeting was scheduled for tomorrow 03/31, but I got a call that she will be out of the office for the next couple of weeks and they will reschedule with me when she gets back. I have her assistants name and number so I can check in if I do not hear back.

I do look forward to hearing what she says. Thank you for sticking with this. It’s very important.

 

[drusba]

As our thread recommended previously, it looks like DVC decided to remark on the point charts in the DVC Files Magazine. On page 21, the Listening Post article, "Feedback: The initial points charts I received for my home resort have changed multiple times since I became a member. Why do the charts change?" by Sajjad Naqvi, Club Strategy and Development. Additionally, there is a note for the December 9th condominium association meeting.

I encourage members concerned about the topics raised in this thread to read the one page article. Take note of what is said, and what is left unsaid.
- What's Said (in part): "Increasing vacation point requirements for some fall dates and off setting those increases by lowering requirements for some summer dates"
- What's Not Said : The overall points required to reserve throughout the year have significantly increased for some resorts. These higher points dilute the overall ownership when comparing the points required to rent now, then when declared at initial resort offering. The higher overall points lead to breakage of unreserved rooms. The ownership dilution and minimal amount of breakage returning to condo association for maintenance and usage demonstrate that this management choice to increase point requirements throughout the year for some resorts primarily benefits the corporation rather than the ownership. Lastly, the inflation of overall point requirements for some resorts demonstrate that the charts are not "point neutral," and instead mark a type of inflation which may be in breach of contract, as determined by a neutral party such as a Florida Regulator.

These are just my thoughts as I read the article. I appreciate that DVC management is concerned about perception of its fiduciary stewardship through point chart adjustments. I greatly appreciate that DVC tries to instill a sense of community beyond the "time share" or "just a room" experience. While I am concerned about how management has chosen to create more points required to stay during the year by maneuvering seasonal dates, and no amount of "extras" can make whole a breach of contract on the point-value reservation mechanism, I do appreciate that management does offer other extras in service to membership. (Recent examples include the waive of RCI transfer fee, extension of points in a use year during the pandemic.) It isn't lost on me as a member. Overall, I appreciate the time DVC took make a PR stance on this thread/matter.

The only thing they actually say in the article is what they are allowed to do: raise points in one season while lowering them by an equal amount in another, an activity that itself does not result in any increase of total points.

That is not what is causing the major point-increase problem that now exists. The real problem of increased annual points is being caused by DVC's intentional choice to make the change in the annual Easter date a major cause of increased points. In the next 50 years, the earliest Easter can occur is March 25 and that will occur only twice in 2035 and 2046. DVC chose to allocate total membership points based on a calendar year in which Easter falls on March 25, year 2035. All points from March 18 (the earliest the two high point Easter weeks can begin) to April 30 that are outside of the two Easter weeks are in season 6 when they occur before the two Easter weeks and season 5 when they occur after the two Easter weeks. That means total annual points will be higher than the 2035 base year 48 of the next 50 years when Easter occurs after March 25. Example comparison, when Easter is March 25 all 30 days of April are in season 5; when Easter is at its latest, April 25, which will occur in 2038, all 30 days from March 18 to April 30 that are not in the two Easter weeks will be in season 6 and season 5 will disappear entirely. Thus, total points in a year can change per resort by the many thousands per year just because DVC purposefully chose the annual movement of the Easter date to be a controlling factor in determining total points.

As I have said, I believe the POS documents do not allow DVC to switch from the 5-season chart to the 7-season chart. Nevertheless, to eliminate the effect of its wrongful conduct, all DVC needs to do is change the 7-season point charts to place all days from March 18 to April 30, that are outside of the two Easter weeks, into Season 5. If DVC does that, the total points will always be close to the base 2035 year. And DVC has no valid reason for doing what it did with the Easter issue, e.g., in correcting the seasonal demand issues that actually existed, DVC has no real justification to explain why in some years most of April is in season 5 and other years season 6.

Despite knowing how it has changed the points calendar so that points will be higher than any base year for most of the next 50 years, DVC ignores that real problem with the 7-season charts, which members have repeatedly brought to its attention, and makes it sound like in the article that all it did was what it is allowed to do -- raise points in one or more seasons while lowering them in other seasons. I seriously question the decision that was made to publish an article likely to be read by many who are unaware of the the Easter problem, which makes it sound like DVC did nothing to raise total points in many years.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As I have said, I believe the POS documents do not allow DVC to switch from the 5-season chart to the 7-season chart.

I need to review the POS with this point in mind. As we all have read there are references in the POS to being able to adjust points across the seasons but to add more seasons? I had not zoned in on that aspect. It did make comparisons much more difficult though and seems to have obscured the Easter issue for quite awhile.

 

[Sandisw]

I need to review the POS with this point in mind. As we all have read there are references in the POS to being able to adjust points across the seasons but to add more seasons? I had not zoned in on that aspect. It did make comparisons much more difficult though and seems to have obscured the Easter issue for quite awhile.

The documents mention initial seasons when it went on sale for DVD. You can find that in Exhibit A. The membership agreement says the point charts can go all the way down to no seasons.

In my research and discussions with friends well versed in legal and contracts, they believe DVC can create more seasons.

However, as with any contract, interpretation can be different.

 

[New Mouse]

The documents mention initial seasons when it went on sale for DVD. You can find that in Exhibit A. The membership agreement says the point charts can go all the way down to no seasons.

In my research and discussions with friends well versed in legal and contracts, they believe DVC can create more seasons.

However, as with any contract, interpretation can be different.

The seasons are not the issue. They can have 0 or 365 seasons, so long as at the end of the day the point charts balance aside from factoring in leap year.

Id also argue that the ability to generate income from a lock off is probably not kosher in court either.

 

[drusba]

I need to review the POS with this point in mind. As we all have read there are references in the POS to being able to adjust points across the seasons but to add more seasons? I had not zoned in on that aspect. It did make comparisons much more difficult though and seems to have obscured the Easter issue for quite awhile.

The key documents are Exhibit A to the Master Cotenancy Agreement, the DVC Membership Agreement, and the Product Understanding Checklist, all of which are included in the POS. That Exhibit A provides how "DVD," not DVCM or the association, shall "initially" create all the seasons and days of the year that go into each season and apply weighting factors relating to probable demand during the various seasons and comes up with total points applicable to reserving all rooms in all seasons that have been created.

It then provides that DVCM finishes the creation of the initial point chart (the base year chart) by applying a formula for spreading all those home resort points throughout all the rooms in the seasons that have already been created by DVD. It then provides that DVCM may later reallocate points as allowed by the terms of the DVC Membership Agreement.

The DVC Membership Agreement repeats that DVCM is to create a base year that spreads all the home resort vacation points throughout the year. The base year must have the total points applicable to the ownership interests equal the total point needed to reserve all rooms in a 365-day year. Thereafter, in future years, DVCM, in response to fluctuations in use day demand, may raise (or lower) points for a vacation home in any given use day, but, if it does so, it must counter that change by lowering (or raising) points needed for other use days, so that total [oints remain the same.

The Product Understanding Checklist then explains that total points needed to reserve all rooms in any year can never change except due solely to changes that result from the natural changes in annual calendars.

So the conclusion is this:

1. The only party that can create seasons and days within the seasons is DVD, and it does that when the resort is initially created. There is no provision anywhere that says DVD, DVCM, or the association can ever change the seasons and days in each season that are intitially created. There is a logical reason for that -- it is the seasons and days within the seasons that were initially created which are used to determine total points applicable to the resort and thus total ownership interests.

2. DVCM creates the intial base year when the resort is created by spreading those home resort points among rooms in all 365 days of the year. It can thereafter reallocate points only by raising points for a room in one season while lowering them an equal amount in another. There is no clause anywhere that says that DVCM can create a new chart with different seasons than the original seasons created by DVD. Its only power to change points needed from year to year is to raise them in one season while lowering them by an equal in another for any given vacation home. Doing that may ultimately result in a complete reallocation where every night of the year has the same points but nothing allows it to create any new seasons. Moreover, even after a complete reallocation demand patterns may change rewqwuiring reallocation again that changes points among the 5 seasons.

3. To emphasize that DVCM has absolutely no right to do any act that would raise total points beyond those in the base year, the Product Understanding Checklist provides that the only way total points needed to reserve all rooms can increase from one year to another is an increase that results from the natural change in the calendars, e.g., with a 365-day base year, points can be added for Feb 29 in leap years; also some years have an additional weekend night night over other years or may have an additional weekend night in a high point season which may affect total points. But all those increases are not via any act actually taken by DVCM.

What DVCM did with the 7-season point charts is thus wrong as it violates the POS prohibition against changing the number of seasons. Moreover, by its intentional choice to use the changing Easter date as a means to raise total points from year to year, it again violated the POS which prohibits it from doing any act that raises total points in any year above those provided in the base year.

 

[Sandisw]

The seasons are not the issue. They can have 0 or 365 seasons, so long as at the end of the day the point charts balance aside from factoring in leap year.

Id also argue that the ability to generate income from a lock off is probably not kosher in court either.

Simply responding to where to find the information regarding seasons that was mentioned not necessarily being allowed.

Again, we all make our own decisions and just sharing what information I got from friends. I know others have come to different conclusion but I am comfortable with the advice I have gotten.

 

[Bing Showei]

I need to review the POS with this point in mind. As we all have read there are references in the POS to being able to adjust points across the seasons but to add more seasons? I had not zoned in on that aspect. It did make comparisons much more difficult though and seems to have obscured the Easter issue for quite awhile.

Everyone who speaks with Disney will get the push back that the fluctuations in points from year to year will revolve around the change in Easter. That this is simply a holiday fluctuation that is outlined in the POS.

This is a red herring.

What Disney is actively choosing to ignore is the fact that for the last 29 years has not seen this sort of “fluctuation” until the 7-season charts were created. In the past, Easter shifted, there were leap years, Christmas moved around; none of this resulted in the point inflation we are seeing now. This only happened after the active decision was made to put the remainder of April outside of the two Easter weeks into a higher category without offsetting it elsewhere, all the meanwhile blaming “holiday fluctuations” as the reason why this is now suddenly happening.

The documents mention initial seasons when it went on sale for DVD. You can find that in Exhibit A. The membership agreement says the point charts can go all the way down to no seasons.

In my research and discussions with friends well versed in legal and contracts, they believe DVC can create more seasons.

However, as with any contract, interpretation can be different.

You’ve repeatedly defended these new charts and their legitimacy (and more recently their legality), but even if you accept their ability to make these changes, I still don’t understand how you see these changes as benefiting the membership as a whole. What exactly is happening that is a benefit? How does whatever benefit you’re seeing outweigh the excess breakage that is part and parcel to the new season shifts built around the March/April days outside of the two Easter weeks? And how do you reconcile that with the one-to-one use right that is Florida statute around timeshares?

Early in this thread, you initially just encouraged people to call, suggesting you were privy to information from Disney after your call that justified the changes, but didn’t want to share what that was.

When people did call and reported back the misleading and false statements that Disney made (and would later retract), it turns out you were told some of those same things, but just chose not to question it.

More recently, you’ve talked about lawyer friends who concur with Disney about their right to do this, but never address how those rights don’t conflict with their fiduciary responsibilities to the ownership, or how they don’t conflict with Florida statute pertaining to one-to-one use rights.

Given the respect people have for your perspective on these boards, it would be helpful to better understand why you keep defending Disney here. Because your suggestion that people simply “reach out to Disney” for an explanation is akin to asking banks to regulate themselves, and then receiving an A+ report of how awesome they’re doing circa 2006.

 

[Sandisw]

Everyone who speaks with Disney will get the push back that the fluctuations in points from year to year will revolve around the change in Easter. That this is simply a holiday fluctuation that is outlined in the POS.

This is a red herring.

What Disney is actively choosing to ignore is the fact that for the last 29 years has not seen this sort of “fluctuation” until the 7-season charts were created. In the past, Easter shifted, there were leap years, Christmas moved around; none of this resulted in the point inflation we are seeing now. This only happened after the active decision was made to put the remainder of April outside of the two Easter weeks into a higher category without offsetting it elsewhere, all the meanwhile blaming “holiday fluctuations” as the reason why this is now suddenly happening.

You’ve repeatedly defended these new charts and their legitimacy (and more recently their legality), but even if you accept their ability to make these changes, I still don’t understand how you see these changes as benefiting the membership as a whole. What exactly is happening that is a benefit? How does whatever benefit you’re seeing outweigh the excess breakage that is part and parcel to the new season shifts built around the March/April days outside of the two Easter weeks? And how do you reconcile that with the one-to-one use right that is Florida statute around timeshares?

Early in this thread, you initially just encouraged people to call, suggesting you were privy to information from Disney after your call that justified the changes, but didn’t want to share what that was.

When people did call and reported back the misleading and false statements that Disney made (and would later retract), it turns out you were told some of those same things, but just chose not to question it.

More recently, you’ve talked about lawyer friends who concur with Disney about their right to do this, but never address how those rights don’t conflict with their fiduciary responsibilities to the ownership, or how they don’t conflict with Florida statute pertaining to one-to-one use rights.

Given the respect people have for your perspective on these boards, it would be helpful to better understand why you keep defending Disney here. Because your suggestion that people simply “reach out to Disney” for an explanation is akin to asking banks to regulate themselves, and then receiving an A+ report of how awesome they’re doing circa 2006.

I am not defending Disney in the sense that I have come to the conclusion that they have not overstepped their bounds based on advice I have gotten. I do believe that making Easter swing between 3 seasons instead of two, which caused fluctuations, when done for reasons to support supply and demand does benefit the membership as a whole. I want that as an owner. Yes, it created fluctuations more than before but I am comfortable with its impact. ...and there is no need for anyone to counterpoint this because it’s simply my opinion.

So why do I not share more? Because my opinion differs from most here and I realize that any information I post is basically met with why I am wrong in my view of things. My encouragement of others to seek information was because honestly, i dont think it is wise for any owner to read something on a forum that says DVCMC has done something illegal as though that has been confirmed as fact when everything here is still peoples opinions.

People asked why I came to the conclusion I did and i wanted to at least share it is not because I blindly follow and defend a Disney, which is what keeps being implied, but because I have done a lot of research, talked to a lot of people, and some who have the experience I dont.

As I ended the last post, things are open to interpretation and somethings are not as simple as they seem and that sometimes there are different ways to see things.

Again, contracts and the POS are complicated and as someone who is not in the legal world I reached out to people I trust to get their take on things. After all I have done, I simply have concluded in this instance that what was done is within the parameters allowed. Could I be wrong? Sure. Could others who disagree with me? Yup.

I try my best to walk the line between moderating and sharing my opinion and to be fair, for this thread it’s probable better to continue to post less.