DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[TwoHeartsBeat]

Yes, there are scenarios where a Riviera (direct) buyer could book VGF at 7 months while a VGF (resale) owner could not book Riviera at 7 mos. However, it's also true that the VGF owner could book their Home resort at 11 months. So the Riviera owner isn't taking a room away from the VGF owner.

But it is taking a room away at 7 months from a non VGF owner.

 

[mgarbowski]

Reading the debate as to how much (if at all) the RIV resale prohibition on trading into other resorts affects other owners just reinforces for me my general sense of how Disney has devalued the DVC brand (for me at last) by way of multiple added layers of complication. One of the beauties of DVC used to be it was simple. I do not want to have to think about whether a limitation on some owners at some resort(s) is good or bad for me or others.

The RIV limitations have zero direct affect on me. I own one contract, bought direct, and am unlikely to add any more. But I have given up trying to keep track of all the varying levels of differentiation between Direct and Secondary, minimum purchases, grandfathering, and now different rules for different resorts, and then trying to figure out the secondary effects of those limitations on other owners and resorts.

DVC was once easy to both understand and explain to someone else:

• you bought points tied to a resort
• you could book your resort at 11 months and all other resorts at 7
• different resorts had different point charts but within reason

Sure, no room was guaranteed to be available and the system always rewarded extreme advance planning (and maybe AKL club room e.g., were always near impossible), but for the most part you had a reasonable chance of getting what you want including at 7 months except certain extremely busy weeks like Epcot F&W, and you were effectively certain (if not guaranteed) to get your preference at 11 months, and SSR was almost always an escape valve for late changes or bookings.

But now

• you buy points tied to a resort
• some owners can book the home resort at 11 months and all other resorts at 7; others are limited always to their home resort while yet others can trade into some but never again all other resorts at 7 months and that list will keep changing (always to reduce options) over time
• the point charts for different resorts are so different that owning enough to book a room type at a given time at one resort can mean you're not even close to having enough for another resort the same week
• because they have oversold small contracts there are many studios at certain resorts I cannot ever hope to book any week of the year though I have some theoretical right to do so
• some owners who bought barely enough points to stay in a studio every 2-3 years have a significantly less than decent chance of getting a studio even at their home resort at 11 months

And I could go on. But like everything else at Disney, the trend for the last decade or so has been to overcomplicate everything and impose higher and higher time costs on guests by making it necessary to calculate and plan for basic vacation requirements.

There was a time when my standard advice to anyone who asked about DVC was everyone has their own measures of affordability and value, but that generally if you could afford it without financing and were fairly certain you would travel to WDW at least once every year (with maybe 1 year off) for 7-10 years or more then it's probably a good deal, and to stay away if that's not true. And I could explain the program with the 3 bullet point list above, tell them to do more research for other necessary details, but that covered maybe 80% of what you need to know as a start.

Now, I cannot imagine advising anyone to buy DVC. I have no desire to even try to explain or summarize all the permutations. Apparently the market disagrees with me, and I don't know if that is because I have over-reacted to the changes or if new owners are still buying based on a fading reputation. But DVC is a very, very different and less owner-friendly program and product than even 10 years ago, much less what it was in the 90s and 00s. I'm not saying it has no value, and it probably still stands above most/all other timeshare programs, but it very much is regressing to the mean.

Finally, I don't regret my purchase. It has worked out for me and my family, and I also don't expect to be selling any time soon. Knowing what I know now I would do it again, back then. But I would not do it today.

 

[tjkraz]

But it is taking a room away at 7 months from a non VGF owner.

I'm not entirely clear what you're getting at but here is how I would summarize availability, even with restrictions in place:

1. Everyone can book their home resort at 11 months
2. At 7 months, some resale owners are blocked from some locations.
2a. In almost every case where certain owners are subject to restrictions, there will be many more qualified owners willing to book those locations.

In the end, it provides a very, very modest booking advantage to direct buyers and grandfathered resale owners because they aren't competing with a small subset of resale owners.

 

[tjkraz]

Reading the debate as to how much (if at all) the RIV resale prohibition on trading into other resorts affects other owners just reinforces for me my general sense of how Disney has devalued the DVC brand (for me at last) by way of multiple added layers of complication. One of the beauties of DVC used to be it was simple. I do not want to have to think about whether a limitation on some owners at some resort(s) is good or bad for me or others.

I suspect DVC's counterpoint would be that if you buy direct from them, nothing has changed. Same level of access to current and future resorts as in the past.

The other things you mention are factors which have always come into play. There have always been resorts and room types which were in higher demand than others. 20 years ago, getting a room at the Boardwalk at 7 months was almost like winning the lottery. Today it seems to be consistently one of the easier places to book as demand has shifted to other resorts. Even Standard View rooms can be found at 7 months some times of the year.

DVC is like many other products and services in that the more you learn, the more complicated it seems. And the more scrutiny the manager is subject to. But none of this is really a new phenomenon. 15+ years ago, DVC leveraged things like OKW grand villas, BWV standard rooms, AKV Club and Value rooms and SSR treehouses to sell points, knowing there were only enough of those rooms to satisfy a small subset of buyers. They've always marketed the whole program catalog as if to imply that anyone could book BCV at 7 months.

Many of the scenarios where you seem to imply members no longer have a "reasonable chance" of booking a room they once did is a result of members getting more aggressive about scheduling plans and securing rooms.

The most aggressive action DVC has taken recently are the resale restrictions...and they have little reason to care if people decide not to buy resale over that. Heck, if the restrictions weren't working (encouraging more to buy direct) DVC would have reversed them already.

The other things you mention have parallels going back two decades. You just haven't noticed them until more recently. And many members find themselves quite content with the availability they find either at 11 months or within 7. Not everyone went into DVC expecting to be able to routinely book "x" non-Home resort on <7 notice.

 

[mgarbowski]

I suspect DVC's counterpoint would be that if you buy direct from them, nothing has changed. Same level of access to current and future resorts as in the past.

The other things you mention are factors which have always come into play. There have always been resorts and room types which were in higher demand than others. 20 years ago, getting a room at the Boardwalk at 7 months was almost like winning the lottery. Today it seems to be consistently one of the easier places to book as demand has shifted to other resorts. Even Standard View rooms can be found at 7 months some times of the year.

DVC is like many other products and services in that the more you learn, the more complicated it seems. And the more scrutiny the manager is subject to. But none of this is really a new phenomenon. 15+ years ago, DVC leveraged things like OKW grand villas, BWV standard rooms, AKV Club and Value rooms and SSR treehouses to sell points, knowing there were only enough of those rooms to satisfy a small subset of buyers. They've always marketed the whole program catalog as if to imply that anyone could book BCV at 7 months.

Many of the scenarios where you seem to imply members no longer have a "reasonable chance" of booking a room they once did is a result of members getting more aggressive about scheduling plans and securing rooms.

The most aggressive action DVC has taken recently are the resale restrictions...and they have little reason to care if people decide not to buy resale over that. Heck, if the restrictions weren't working (encouraging more to buy direct) DVC would have reversed them already.

The other things you mention have parallels going back two decades. You just haven't noticed them until more recently. And many members find themselves quite content with the availability they find either at 11 months or within 7. Not everyone went into DVC expecting to be able to routinely book "x" non-Home resort on <7 notice.

Sure. DIfferent strokes.
And to be clear. When I say I would not advise anyone to buy DVC now or do it myself, that's not the same as saying nobody should do so.
And I stand by my point is has gotten objectively more complicated. Though simplified, my 3 bullet points worked in the past. Now it would be malpractice to use it as a guide to anything.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Reading the debate as to how much (if at all) the RIV resale prohibition on trading into other resorts affects other owners just reinforces for me my general sense of how Disney has devalued the DVC brand (for me at last) by way of multiple added layers of complication. One of the beauties of DVC used to be it was simple. I do not want to have to think about whether a limitation on some owners at some resort(s) is good or bad for me or others.

The RIV limitations have zero direct affect on me. I own one contract, bought direct, and am unlikely to add any more. But I have given up trying to keep track of all the varying levels of differentiation between Direct and Secondary, minimum purchases, grandfathering, and now different rules for different resorts, and then trying to figure out the secondary effects of those limitations on other owners and resorts.

DVC was once easy to both understand and explain to someone else:

• you bought points tied to a resort
• you could book your resort at 11 months and all other resorts at 7
• different resorts had different point charts but within reason

Sure, no room was guaranteed to be available and the system always rewarded extreme advance planning (and maybe AKL club room e.g., were always near impossible), but for the most part you had a reasonable chance of getting what you want including at 7 months except certain extremely busy weeks like Epcot F&W, and you were effectively certain (if not guaranteed) to get your preference at 11 months, and SSR was almost always an escape valve for late changes or bookings.

But now

• you buy points tied to a resort
• some owners can book the home resort at 11 months and all other resorts at 7; others are limited always to their home resort while yet others can trade into some but never again all other resorts at 7 months and that list will keep changing (always to reduce options) over time
• the point charts for different resorts are so different that owning enough to book a room type at a given time at one resort can mean you're not even close to having enough for another resort the same week
• because they have oversold small contracts there are many studios at certain resorts I cannot ever hope to book any week of the year though I have some theoretical right to do so
• some owners who bought barely enough points to stay in a studio every 2-3 years have a significantly less than decent chance of getting a studio even at their home resort at 11 months

And I could go on. But like everything else at Disney, the trend for the last decade or so has been to overcomplicate everything and impose higher and higher time costs on guests by making it necessary to calculate and plan for basic vacation requirements.

There was a time when my standard advice to anyone who asked about DVC was everyone has their own measures of affordability and value, but that generally if you could afford it without financing and were fairly certain you would travel to WDW at least once every year (with maybe 1 year off) for 7-10 years or more then it's probably a good deal, and to stay away if that's not true. And I could explain the program with the 3 bullet point list above, tell them to do more research for other necessary details, but that covered maybe 80% of what you need to know as a start.

Now, I cannot imagine advising anyone to buy DVC. I have no desire to even try to explain or summarize all the permutations. Apparently the market disagrees with me, and I don't know if that is because I have over-reacted to the changes or if new owners are still buying based on a fading reputation. But DVC is a very, very different and less owner-friendly program and product than even 10 years ago, much less what it was in the 90s and 00s. I'm not saying it has no value, and it probably still stands above most/all other timeshare programs, but it very much is regressing to the mean.

Finally, I don't regret my purchase. It has worked out for me and my family, and I also don't expect to be selling any time soon. Knowing what I know now I would do it again, back then. But I would not do it today.

Cant agree with you more. The constant changes are getting old. Having to worry about point chart changes every year, now how to get to Disney with the cancellation of ME, and the ongoing ticket price increases just makes for stressful trip planning. As a long time owner I am not ready to sell but once I am not able to navigate the Disney planning anymore, well then it will be time. No way my adult children can even begin to comprehend what’s involved in planning a trip.

 

[tjkraz]

Sure. DIfferent strokes.
And to be clear. When I say I would not advise anyone to buy DVC now or do it myself, that's not the same as saying nobody should do so.

Agree. I'm not shy about admitting that I don't recommend DVC like I used to. But that's more about the escalation in point cost than other factors.

And I stand by my point is has gotten objectively more complicated. Though simplified, my 3 bullet points worked in the past. Now it would be malpractice to use it as a guide to anything.

The first two bullet points haven't changed a bit for direct buyers. As for the third, personally I don't see that as much different than in the past either. When I bought in, the same early-December weeknight in a Two Bedroom cost 14 points at HHI, 22 points at OKW/BW Standard and 30 points at BCV. There always was a significant spread across various resorts.

Rebalancing the weekdays and weekends--which was sorely needed--makes it somewhat difficult to have an apples to apples discussion. Fun fact: in the mid '00s most Friday-Saturday nights at BCV cost equal or more points than the same BLT or Riviera dates cost today.

(The dirty little secret of DVC back in the olden days was that too many people were buying for low-cost weekday stays, creating a much more widespread problem than what we have today with Studios.)

DVC has obviously pushed costs upward (although they didn't with Copper Creek, though they could have). But I don't think it's particularly hard to comprehend. As my family sits down to plan a trip, even my teenage kids understand that we don't have the points to book Grand Floridian every time, and that a cheaper location or view means a longer trip.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Is the consensus here that we WILL see new point charts? Since the high point costs of the weeks around Easter will already be well into the 11 month resort priority, doesn’t that mean once again fall and December will be lowered? I am no longer optimistic about getting new charts.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Is the consensus here that we WILL see new point charts? Since the high point costs of the weeks around Easter will already be well into the 11 month resort priority, doesn’t that mean once again fall and December will be lowered? I am no longer optimistic about getting new charts.

Yes, lots of chatter how the new charts will be released in a month. I look to see the fall time frames adjusted up with summers continuing to decrease. Changes for months June 2022 through December 2022.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Yes, lots of chatter how the new charts will be released in a month. I look to see the fall time frames adjusted up with summers continuing to decrease. Changes for months June 2022 through December 2022.

Ok...thanks for view. I hope the chatter is right. So, summer could decrease more?

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Only resale owners who purchased after January 2019 are ineligible to book Riviera.

Personally, I think you're vastly overstating the impact on the system. Tens of millions of points will be usable at Riviera: those purchased resale before the January '19 deadline and every point ever purchased direct. If you're suggesting that the imbalance will be significant enough for Riviera rooms to routinely go unbooked by all eligible members, such that it increases DVC's breakage revenue, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Yes, there are scenarios where a Riviera (direct) buyer could book VGF at 7 months while a VGF (resale) owner could not book Riviera at 7 mos. However, it's also true that the VGF owner could book their Home resort at 11 months. So the Riviera owner isn't taking a room away from the VGF owner.

Every resort that DVC builds shifts demand to subtle degrees. Are the restrictions entirely "fair" to all owners? No, not really. But I would propose that Riviera is attractive enough to routinely fill with a combination of owners and non-owners who have the rights to book.

I don't think it will routinely block all owners, but it could cetainly have an impact on some, especially in the future as every contract resold from now on loses eligiblility to book at future resorts.

And I agree, even those with restricted points can book their home resort at 11 months. The people most likely to be impacted are those that don't plan as far in advance. If they're just getting around to booking their home resort at 7 months (of course, as many have said in the past, DVC may not be the best model for people who regularly book late), they could run into trouble in the future if the only thing left is Riviera or some future resort.

Think about 2043 after a bunch of resorts that they currently CAN trade have expired. The number of resale owners with restricted points will continue to rise year after year, and their booking options will continue to shrink. Eventually, this may put a much bigger squeeze on availability at 7 months.

ETA: I realized that I neglected to take into account that in 2043 the number of owners will go down (at least temporarily) as those resorts expire. So that might balance any impacts to availability.

 

[glamdring269]

Wow what a situation. Again! So we bought in mid/late 2013 and sold our contract during early covid. It was a 2042 and figured we might just buy another after the dust settled. (Of course the market is nuts right now so no rush)

Anyway, still listen to the DVC podcast and holy crap... I just listened to this week's episode today and couldn't believe it. ANOTHER point chart situation? I know that somewhere in this megathread someone else has already said this but DVC management/finance are definitely looking for a shady way to inflate the heck out of the points so they can sell off the unused rooms for cash. Either that or they are just incompetent and I seriously doubt they're incompetent.

Definitely not in a hurry to buy back in at this point. Thanks DVC overlords! If they can go maybe 2-3 years without another one of these maybe I'll look into it again.

 

[Sandisw]

Ok...thanks for view. I hope the chatter is right. So, summer could decrease more?

I am definitely thinking any changes that come out at this points will reduce summer and then in 2023, I wonder if they will no longer include any weeks around Easter as premium.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think it will routinely block all owners, but it could cetainly have an impact on some, especially in the future as every contract resold from now on loses eligiblility to book at future resorts.

And I agree, even those with restricted points can book their home resort at 11 months. The people most likely to be impacted are those that don't plan as far in advance. If they're just getting around to booking their home resort at 7 months (of course, as many have said in the past, DVC may not be the best model for people who regularly book late), they could run into trouble in the future if the only thing left is Riviera or some future resort.

Think about 2043 after a bunch of resorts that they currently CAN trade have expired. The number of resale owners with restricted points will continue to rise year after year, and their booking options will continue to shrink. Eventually, this may put a much bigger squeeze on availability at 7 months.

ETA: I realized that I neglected to take into account that in 2043 the number of owners will go down (at least temporarily) as those resorts expire. So that might balance any impacts to availability.

I also think that any of the new resorts from here on out, including those built when 2042 expire, will be restricted to their own resorts so i don’t think we will really see an issue.

And, I simply can’t see a situation where the only resort left is RIV. SSR, OKW snd AKV are large enough, IMO, to absorb those that wait.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I also think that any of the new resorts from here on out, including those built when 2042 expire, will be restricted to their own resorts so i don’t think we will really see an issue.

And, I simply can’t see a situation where the only resort left is RIV. SSR, OKW snd AKV are large enough, IMO, to absorb those that wait.

Removing the ability to trade into ANY other resort for future resales fundamentally changes DVC (except for those who pay the premium to buy direct).

Reduced resale values as a result (fewer people who will want to buy to stay at only one resort when they can buy direct to stay at ALL of them) increases DVC's ability to ROFR at lower prices and then resell those points for full price.

It seems clear that the resale restrictions have one purpose and that is to make resale a less appealing product, thus steering more customers to buying direct.

 

[tjkraz]

Reduced resale values as a result (fewer people who will want to buy to stay at only one resort when they can buy direct to stay at ALL of them) increases DVC's ability to ROFR at lower prices and then resell those points for full price.

Pricing will find some equilibrium, no matter the restrictions. When buyers get hit by ROFR, many will offer a bit more. There won't be enough direct demand for DVC to ROFR the majority of points. Pricing is bound to be lower if contracts are restricted to a single location, but there will still be buyers.

It seems clear that the resale restrictions have one purpose and that is to make resale a less appealing product, thus steering more customers to buying direct.

That has always been the case.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Pricing is bound to be lower if contracts are restricted to a single location, but there will still be buyers.

I agree. There will still be buyers, but it will likely be fewer since they are not getting a membership to stay at ALL the resorts at that point (we're talking many years from now, when current resorts have expired and all resorts have the restrictions), but at only a single resort. And Disney will be touting that you CAN stay at ALL the resorts if you buy from them.

 

[Sandisw]

Removing the ability to trade into ANY other resort for future resales fundamentally changes DVC (except for those who pay the premium to buy direct).

Reduced resale values as a result (fewer people who will want to buy to stay at only one resort when they can buy direct to stay at ALL of them) increases DVC's ability to ROFR at lower prices and then resell those points for full price.

It seems clear that the resale restrictions have one purpose and that is to make resale a less appealing product, thus steering more customers to buying direct.

Exactly. It definitely is changing the current product. But, I think guiding people to purchase direct as always been a goal. They have just found a way to make it a harder decision on buyers to choose resale. But, there will always be people who don't care and be comfortable with buying at one location.

 

[CSLucas]

I agree. There will still be buyers, but it will likely be fewer since they are not getting a membership to stay at ALL the resorts at that point (we're talking many years from now, when current resorts have expired and all resorts have the restrictions), but at only a single resort.

This I think is the problem as far as whether they have acted in their fiduciary duty when allowing RIV to trade in to the original - the resale restrictions aren't an issue for DVC 2.0 (RIV and beyond) because those owners all buy into the product understanding the restrictions. And they aren't a problem right now because there is only one resort with this special "I can trade in but you can't trade out to me" status. The issue is that starting in 2042, we are going to see people who bought into the old system who still have 20+ years on their contract and are possibly constrained to their home resort and needing to book at 11 months. Sure, RIV has the appeal now that a lot of direct buyers will probably trade in and so there will be rooms available at 7 months at other original resorts. But does it still have the appeal in 20 years? Will the new resorts have the same appeal? Absolutely new resorts always shift demand at all current resorts, but in this case the demand is being shifted in a much more drastic way as far as I see it. Maybe all the new resorts will be amazing and it won't be a problem. But even if it works out in the end, I can't see any scenario in which it is still in the "best interests" of owners to allow a new resort to trade in to the system without that new resort allowing the members access to its rooms. Of course it is great for Disney, and it is great for direct owners (new shiny resort!), but it is definitely bad (even if just to a small degree) for existing resale owners and that violates their fiduciary duty when making these decisions IMO. As I said above, I don't think this is an issue with RIV because they grandfathered people in to avoid a fuss and people who have bought resale since have specifically been told about RIV restrictions. The issue is that if they keep adding new resorts, eventually resale owners at original resorts are going to be increasingly constrained to their home resorts (would have happened anyways - don't think this would be a violation since resale at this point all knows they don't have access to future resorts before they buy) and ALSO face more competition at their home resort when that 7 month window hits.

Anyways, that's just my two cents on the matter. It doesn't bother me enough to complain to Disney about it, but it bothers me enough that we have decided only to buy direct from here on out. So I guess their strategy is pretty effective, even if I do find it a bit insalubrious (similar to the point inflation, which isn't really something I am fired up about, but is definitely something I would point to as an example of DVC looking out for itself and Disney over the clear interests of members)

 

[Lorana]

Come on, this is high school level math. The delay is very curious at this point.

My suspicion is that they're waiting until AFTER the Easter 2022 holiday time period, since that was the largest increase of point costs, and Spring Break/Easter is a very popular time of year to travel to Disney, whereas the Summer - which they might further reduce - is not.