DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[KAT4DISNEY]

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.

Thank you for that detailed outline drusba! Your detailed support of your conclusions is much appreciated.

 

[Bing Showei]

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.

[Cue the counterpoint.]

I’m not disagreeing with this for your benefit, but rather to share with the rest of the community on this thread as to why I’m not okay with this. So please feel free to ignore... and don’t think of a pink elephant.

The only things we can rely on when we enter into any financial arrangement with another party are the terms of that agreement as it has been spelled out in the language used in said agreement. The language clearly states in the POS and again in the Product Understanding Checklist that no points may be raised in use day without that increase being offset elsewhere. It was a concept repeatedly sold by guides and even made its way into marketing materials as a big safety selling point. What it costs for you to travel today will be the same as it will be in 50 years (with the usual caveats). I understand the marketing material is not legally binding, but they do serve to demonstrate the intent on the part of developer to lock owners into a particular cost over the life of the contract.

The problem with any member being okay with the POS, or Product Understanding Checklist being violated, however noble the the asserted intention is, is that it sends the message that Disney does not need to respect the language it laid out to each owner when that owner bought into Disney’s timeshare.

The terms of the contract should not flex based on what any one owner’s comfort level is. Owner A may be comfortable losing an entire year’s worth of points because they trust Disney. Owner B may only be willing to lose 2.3% of a year’s worth of points. While owner C may have a 0% tolerance. While every owner has a right to their opinion, the minimization of Owner C’s assertion of their rights protected by the contract should not be undermined or downplayed. The language in our contracts are the only things we have a right to.

I rail against the resale restrictions because I’m of the opinion that it’s an egregious, anti-owner move by Disney to line their pockets at whatever cost to the ownership, but I will never argue the legalities of it as it clearly states in the contract that monetary value retention is not a reason to buy into Disney.

I also don’t pin the viability of ownership on my ability to rent my points out or trade into the BVTC with my SSR points for the same reasons. I have zero expectations that DME will get my family to the parks, or that APs will be available for me to “save money” on my trips. I enjoy all of those things today, but know they are not protected ownership rights. It’s in the contract I signed and agreed to.

So when Disney violates one of the few protections I do have in the contract that I signed, I’m of the opinion that every owner should care. If they don’t, that’s fine, but it’s a disservice to the ownership as a whole to be comfortable with Disney violating a little bit here or there, because before too long we’re all just a big pot of frogs in a really warm bath that is just slightly less comfortable than the year before.

 

[New Mouse]

Theres a big misunderstanding of fact vs. Opinion these days.

You can be ok with the changes Disney made, but that doesnt mean they were legally allowed to make them. Math is not something that can be disputed with an opinion.

 

[Sandisw]

Theres a big misunderstanding of fact vs. Opinion these days.

You can be ok with the changes Disney made, but that doesnt mean they were legally allowed to make them. Math is not something that can be disputed with an opinion.

I agree. But, unless it has been truly determined that has happened, it’s still not fact,

The points charts have always fluctuated a small percentage. More weekend days, leap year, etc. Even with 5 seasons.

With that, I agree to disagree that the actual charts vs. what is sold and declared...which can not change...can’t vary within limits.

As I said, there is no reason to go into more. I am smart,, did my homework, consulted people with lots of knowledge and have decided the 2022 charts are not in violation. Many posters here have decided differently. I simply don’t agree and isn’t that what is great about discussions..we all don’t have to.

The great thing is that people who want others information have it and can decide.

Okay, now I am going to go back to simply moderating this thread!

 

[DVC Doctor]

Theres a big misunderstanding of fact vs. Opinion these days.

You can be ok with the changes Disney made, but that doesnt mean they were legally allowed to make them. Math is not something that can be disputed with an opinion.

I doubt Disney would make changes that would subject them to a class action lawsuit. In 20+ years as a member, they have been very fair to owners, even with difficult decisions like eliminating valet parking, etc.

 

[New Mouse]

I doubt Disney would make changes that would subject them to a class action lawsuit. In 20+ years as a member, they have been very fair to owners, even with difficult decisions like eliminating valet parking, etc.

Why does Aulani have a subset of owners that have subsidized dues?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I doubt Disney would make changes that would subject them to a class action lawsuit. In 20+ years as a member, they have been very fair to owners, even with difficult decisions like eliminating valet parking, etc.

Funny that you bring up that perk elimination. It was done overnight, no notice, and suddenly the next day owners who had used valet were getting charged. Of course that wouldn't cause a legal action because it was a perk that could be eliminated and they could reverse the charge for those who didn't agree with parking their car under one condition and having that condition change. Such a simple thing really that was not handled well on the owners behalf.

However there have been decisions that bordered on or could have led to legal actions.

Prior to that was the strong arming of the OKW extension. Pay us, sign the quit claim deed, or get your account locked. And nothing in the POS that allowed them to levy an extension against an owner which is what they more or less attempted. It was also mentioned that an owner or two might have at least involved legal which might have led to DVC stopping locking accounts for non payment of an extension that they couldn't legally levy for.

Then there was Aulani. That same issue had been coming up about FL resort before then concerning DVC suppressing the real costs and thus dues to attract sales. FL didn't know or didn't care. HI did care. That is the one lesson I've noticed that the current DVC learned from the past not to do anymore because it had consequences.

And we've been there with point charts before, just in a different way. At that time they stated they had been in the right but that essentially since people didn't understand they were reversing the decision. That sounds rather familiar to the story they just published.

 

[Bing Showei]

I doubt Disney would make changes that would subject them to a class action lawsuit. In 20+ years as a member, they have been very fair to owners, even with difficult decisions like eliminating valet parking, etc.

The Walt Disney Company is a publicly held company that is beholden to the shareholder. This is true more so today than 29 years ago. I would argue this is more true today than just 5 years ago. As such, Disney has a responsibility to its shareholder to increase shareholder value and increase bottom line as much as possible without damaging the brand.

When this is done legally, we as owners we can vote with our wallets. We can choose not to buy Riviera. We can choose to sell our ownership. But when it is done outside the legal terms of our agreement, we do ourselves a disservice when we turn a blind eye, or give the benefit of the doubt, because our sensibilities tell us Disney has "been very fair to owners" in the past.

Prior to 2013, when a contract was bought on the resale market, the new owner who assumed all the rights and responsibilities of that ownership was refunded the overpayment for taxes paid by the previous owners. If there was a deficit in tax payment, the new owners were charged for those underestimations. This was a right and responsibility of the current title holder.

Very suddenly, in 2014, Disney changed gears and decided that resale owners are no longer entitled to those monies. Their logic was that since the new owners didn't pay those dues, they don't get the refund credit. But interestingly, the owners who did pay those dues were not entitled to the refund credit either, as it was they were no longer owners.

For 6 years this went on. Over the tens of millions of points that changed hands, any overage (which over that period was the majority of resorts over the majority of years) that was paid, Disney held onto the money.

Owners who bought resale and contacted Disney Membership around this credit were consistently told, "You didn't pay those dues, you are not entitled to a refund." This was policy that was disseminated to lower level cast members to convey to any owner who calls in inquiring about this. As it is many owners were new to the system, this is just the way it was done.

Very suddenly, in 2020 that changed back. Not only did new resale members in 2020 receive the tax credit, but the change happened in time that any overages paid in Annual Dues due to the closure were also returned to the owner holding the title.

This was not a generous courtesy. This was money Disney was simply not entitled to keep for themselves.

More importantly, this didn't suddenly happen because Disney, internally, realized "Oh, hey. Yeah, this is an über sketchy practice to keep monies to which we are not entitled." For years there were audits that clearly would've seen this "discrepancy" and for years, front line cast members who are not of decision-level pay grades parroted the same response when members enquired about this.

The change happened because the ownership started asking questions. People on these very boards collectively questioned why guidance from Disney around the tax credits stopped suddenly in 2013. This reverse course happened after it was posited to Disney that this sort of action was likely unlawful.

For years this happened riding on the likely assumption of many that "I doubt Disney would make changes that would subject them to a class action lawsuit."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?

If we assume that Disney is altruistic, we do so to our own detriment. We ignore the nature of what the Walt Disney Company is; a publicly traded entity that is beholden to the shareholders. They are that first and foremost.

We play along on when we're welcomed home. We suspend disbelief when we vacation because it's no fun complaining about corporate negligence in the middle of Spaceship Earth. But as owners, we owe it to ourselves and our families to hold the company accountable for decisions made that compromises our ownership and affects our ability to suspend disbelief as we thank those Phoenicians.

 

[dismedvc]

As I said, there is no reason to go into more. I am smart,, did my homework, consulted people with lots of knowledge and have decided the 2022 charts are not in violation. Many posters here have decided differently. I simply don’t agree and isn’t that what is great about discussions..we all don’t have to.

I really wish you would share what questions you asked DVC, and what answers you received so I could factor that information into my conclusion. You appear to have asked some questions and received some facts that others have not.

You have previously suggested all members contact DVC and ask the questions they want answered. However, with close to 500,000 members, imagine what that would do to wait times.
I personally appreciate members who have contacted DVC and posted here the questions they asked and the responses they received. Those posts have covered almost all the questions I would ask, so it seems like a waste of DVC's resources for me to call, ask the same questions only to get the same answers.
(Although there have been some posts that indicate DVC's answers to the same question have changed over time.)

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The Walt Disney Company is a publicly held company that is beholden to the shareholder. This is true more so today than 29 years ago. I would argue this is more true today than just 5 years ago. As such, Disney has a responsibility to its shareholder to increase shareholder value and increase bottom line as much as possible without damaging the brand.

When this is done legally, we as owners we can vote with our wallets. We can choose not to buy Riviera. We can choose to sell our ownership. But when it is done outside the legal terms of our agreement, we do ourselves a disservice when we turn a blind eye, or give the benefit of the doubt, because our sensibilities tell us Disney has "been very fair to owners" in the past.

Prior to 2013, when a contract was bought on the resale market, the new owner who assumed all the rights and responsibilities of that ownership was refunded the overpayment for taxes paid by the previous owners. If there was a deficit in tax payment, the new owners were charged for those underestimations. This was a right and responsibility of the current title holder.

Very suddenly, in 2014, Disney changed gears and decided that resale owners are no longer entitled to those monies. Their logic was that since the new owners didn't pay those dues, they don't get the refund credit. But interestingly, the owners who did pay those dues were not entitled to the refund credit either, as it was they were no longer owners.

For 6 years this went on. Over the tens of millions of points that changed hands, any overage (which over that period was the majority of resorts over the majority of years) that was paid, Disney held onto the money.

Owners who bought resale and contacted Disney Membership around this credit were consistently told, "You didn't pay those dues, you are not entitled to a refund." This was policy that was disseminated to lower level cast members to convey to any owner who calls in inquiring about this. As it is many owners were new to the system, this is just the way it was done.

Very suddenly, in 2020 that changed back. Not only did new resale members in 2020 receive the tax credit, but the change happened in time that any overages paid in Annual Dues due to the closure were also returned to the owner holding the title.

This was not a generous courtesy. This was money Disney was simply not entitled to keep for themselves.

More importantly, this didn't suddenly happen because Disney, internally, realized "Oh, hey. Yeah, this is an über sketchy practice to keep monies to which we are not entitled." For years there were audits that clearly would've seen this "discrepancy" and for years, front line cast members who are not of decision-level pay grades parroted the same response when members enquired about this.

The change happened because the ownership started asking questions.

And thank you for that Bing Showei!

Clearly outlined in the POS and they stopped following it. Not any room for interpretation yet they still choose to "interpret it". And it went unnoticed or if noticed by owners then the explanation was accepted by those who asked. I'll be watching for my $19.12!!

 

[drusba]

In 20+ years as a member, they have been very fair to owners, even with difficult decisions like eliminating valet parking, etc.

As can be seen from the above posts, there are probably many members today that might disagree with that "very fair," view. Consider, for example, some of the actions DVC has taken in the last 11 years:

1. DVC/DVD has continuously taken steps to eliminate rights and privileges of resale purchasers. Moreover, all those steps taken have also acted to lower the ownership value of DVC to members who purchased from DVC by lowering their ability to get full value via resale. Also, Riviera is a class action waiting to happen since the POS documents of all the pre-Riviera resorts have provisions that give the owners of those resorts, including resale purchasers, the right to be able to reserve any DVC Resort added to the program. In adding Riviera as a DVC Resort with its new resale purchaser restrictions, DVC just ignored those prior POS terms.

2. DVC created the Treehouses at SSR and then sold them to new purchasers with the promo that you could purchase and then reserve a 3BR for the same point cost as a 2BR at SSR. That equal nightly point cost remained, along with the continuing sales promo, just until the treehouses reached sell-out stage, at which time DVC increased the nightly points needed to reserve a treehouse by 16% year round.

3. DVD, in the last ten years, has continuously taken steps that have resulted in the oversell of ownership interests to those who purchase to get studios and thus resulted in many studios now being difficult to get even at 11-months out. Early during the Great Recession, DVD did away with the 160-point purchase minimum for new purchasers, lowering it to 100 and at many times 75 or 50, an activity that even continues today and assures that a large percentage of new purchasers are those buying only enough points to get studios. Shortly after lowering the point purchase requirements, it began raising purchase prices astronomically, to the point that in a 10 year period purchase prices have risen over 100%, despite that for most of that 10-year period, wages were stagnant, and inflation very low. A number of resorts have been added with not only much higher per-point prices but also signifcantly higher per-point nightly reservation requirements, making the increase in purchase prices even higher than the purchase price increases indicate. DVD also created many ridiculously point-expensive bungalows and cabins, selling most of the applicable points to purchasers who could afford only smaller rooms, particularly studios. DVC also changed the studios at BWV, BCV and BRV to sleep and allow 5 from the previous limit of 4, further adding to the demand for studios. It is thus no accident that it is now difficult to get studios at many resorts at 7-months out and several categories of studios at 11-months out.

4. DVC tried to fix the excess studio demand, not by changing any of it sales practices that result in the oversell of studios, but instead by creating new point charts for 2020 that signifcantly increased the nightly points needed almost year round for studios and 1BRs, while incorrectly claiming it needed to do so as to 1BRs because of excess demand for them. Members mounted an objection, which included pointing out to DVC that it had previously represented in writing that it would make point changes only to address changes in seasonal demand and that any increase in the points needed for a vacation home done in one season had to met by a decrease in the points needed in the vacation home in other seasons. In response to that assertion that it was violating prior written representations made to purchasers, DVC asserted, among other tings, that it was not bound by its prior representations. DVC ultimately gave in and replaced those point charts, while continuing to claim it had every right to do what it had done.

The result is that many now have the view that DVC has developed into a typical timeshare company that considers its ability to increase profits with new sales to be paramount over anything else, including the interests of existing members.

 

[DVC Doctor]

I have owned dozens of timeshares over the past 25 years and ONLY DVC has held its value and even increased in value where I can sell them for a profit. No other timeshare can offer that.

Will this hold for RIV or Poly, and the answer is probably, but will require a longer hold time. Besides, most DVC members dont sell and some huge percentage (like 90%) are still original owners.

Do I agree with every little change...of course not, but then again, Westage, WorldMark, Hyatt, Hilton, Vistana timeshare owners are treated much worse than DVC has ever treated us.

We members look at it from out perspective, and Disney looks at it from theirs. Does Disney make a tremendous profit off DVC and the answer is yes. But seriously, I am VERY HAPPY with my DVC ownership and the fact that is has gone up in value is a huge bonus for me and most others.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

The result is that many now have the view that DVC has developed into a typical timeshare company that considers its ability to increase profits with new sales to be paramount over anything else, including the interests of existing members.

I would say this is true for Disney in general. Disney has always been an expensive product, but you were paying a lot for a "premium" product. So while it cost a lot, it could be justified with the magic and pixie dust. That's been going away for a while now and it extends to all areas, including DVC. I know Disney is a public company and needs to answer to shareholders, but at least before they were better at masking their intentions through a great product. Now they just keep making cuts and pushing the envelope and make it pretty clear what their intentions are.

I know magic and pixie dust don't matter in terms of the POS and contracts, but I think the general directive to increase value by any means necessary throughout Disney is why we're seeing some "creative" things happening with DVC.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I have owned dozens of timeshares over the past 25 years and ONLY DVC has held its value and even increased in value where I can sell them for a profit. No other timeshare can offer that.

Will this hold for RIV or Poly, and the answer is probably, but will require a longer hold time. Besides, most DVC members dont sell and some huge percentage (like 90%) are still original owners.

Do I agree with every little change...of course not, but then again, Westage, WorldMark, Hyatt, Hilton, Vistana timeshare owners are treated much worse than DVC has ever treated us.

We members look at it from out perspective, and Disney looks at it from theirs. Does Disney make a tremendous profit off DVC and the answer is yes. But seriously, I am VERY HAPPY with my DVC ownership and the fact that is has gone up in value is a huge bonus for me and most others.

That is a great aspect of DVC and frankly it's one they get simply because of their connection to having so many locations next to Disney theme parks. It shouldn't and doesn't give them a pass to violating agreements with owners. And I'll point out that these are agreements that they had complete control over crafting and the marketing material and sales pitches really did support a particular interpretation where there is anything to interpret.

The saddest part to me is their dip into the "typical timeshare" realm. I don't believe they ever had to.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I would say this is true for Disney in general. Disney has always been an expensive product, but you were paying a lot for a "premium" product. So while it cost a lot, it could be justified with the magic and pixie dust. That's been going away for a while now and it extends to all areas, including DVC. I know Disney is a public company and needs to answer to shareholders, but at least before they were better at masking their intentions through a great product. Now they just keep making cuts and pushing the envelope and make it pretty clear what their intentions are.

I know magic and pixie dust don't matter in terms of the POS and contracts, but I think the general directive to increase value by any means necessary throughout Disney is why we're seeing some "creative" things happening with DVC.

True. However Disney theme parks didn't sign a contract with me and several thousand others to follow certain terms. DVC did.

 

[DVC Doctor]

That is a great aspect of DVC and frankly it's one they get simply because of their connection to having so many locations next to Disney theme parks. It shouldn't and doesn't give them a pass to violating agreements with owners. And I'll point out that these are agreements that they had complete control over crafting and the marketing material and sales pitches really did support a particular interpretation where there is anything to interpret.

The saddest part to me is their dip into the "typical timeshare" realm. I don't believe they ever had to.

I am not taking Disney's side, especially when my membership could be perceived as being diluted, however, in the larger picture, DVC is doing a great job for their members and shareholders. I am a happy customer on both sides.

Are you still "glad to be a test subject" for DVC then???

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I am not taking Disney's side, especially when my membership could be perceived as being diluted, however, in the larger picture, DVC is doing a great job for their members and shareholders. I am a happy customer on both sides.

Are you still "glad to be a test subject" for DVC then???

That actually was regarding the World of Color debut at DL that the Tag Fairy picked out.

 

[New Mouse]

I am not taking Disney's side, especially when my membership could be perceived as being diluted, however, in the larger picture, DVC is doing a great job for their members and shareholders. I am a happy customer on both sides.

Are you still "glad to be a test subject" for DVC then???

How is DVC doing a great job for their members?

 

[DVC Doctor]

How is DVC doing a great job for their members?

I guess if you have to ask this question, then as the Seinfeld Soup Nazi would say...."no DVC for you!!!"

 

[dismedvc]

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.

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.

Do either of you now have a date for your rescheduled call?
The April 11th date cited by @drusba is rapidly approaching.