DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[Sandisw]

Whats different now was their decision to allow all those points to be banked and extended this year. This could have been part of their plan on how to subtly remove all the excess points from 2020 (2019 and 2018 banked). You wouldnt be able to verify that without a few more years worth of data. Regardless though I dont think what they did during the closure was legal, nor does this seem to be. As history has proven, they dont always care what is legal until they get caught.

What part of the decisions during closure do you believe are not legal?

 

[i<3riviera]

͏

 

[Sandisw]

yes, you're right about them moving around dates in each season, it's very similar between 2021 and 2022 except the did he summer / fall swap and moved mid-Dec back to where it was historically ...

View attachment 546962

but again for the base year analysis, they pushed the spring break prime season as earlier as possible (25 Mar) vs. in 2021 they used 4 Apr

it seems the point chart base year analysis is for the full final resorts points whether they are declared or not, or owned by Disney or not; all the resorts where I have point charts during the for sale / not fully declared periods the base year analysis looks to be done on the full final amount of points (with the exception of SSR in 2008 where the treehouse villas weren't yet added to the points or the point charts)

Thanks. So, with this scenario and a base year that does seem to work, would it not mean as owners we know seem to have a worst case scenario? Making it easier to compare in the future?

As long as what they did falls within the terms of the contract, and using that Gregorian Easter is allowed, and does actually show up a few times, then I’m satisfied that 2022 is okay.

My hope is that these changes the last few years will stabilize and we will see the same charts for years to come like we did in the past.

 

[i<3riviera]

͏

 

[Lorana]

Your ownership is represented by a % of points, out of total points sold.
You can raise the number of points required to book a room, but keep the total points sold the same. Thereby, your ownership is still the same.

You are confusing number of nights with percentage of ownership.

Imagine you own a house that you share with 1 other owner. So you and the other owner, each own 50%. Your co-owner plants a huge garden in the backyard, taking away your space where you did your yoga exercises! Your ownership hasn't been changed.. you still own 50% of the property. You've just lost your yoga space, and you still technically own 50% of the garden planted by your co-owner.

Loss of "days" is not loss of ownership -- You still own the same percentage of the resort.

I’m not actually. What I’m saying is you cannot increase the number of points used to book the entire resort for the year without diluting my ownership. The two are inextricably linked. My % ownership is represented by points. If you increase the number of points the resort has, the number of points I have should increase, because my % ownership is a fixed amount.

That's simply not true. Let's put it this way.... Imagine there is a property with 10 free standing units, and it's owned equally by 100 people. So each person owns 1% of the property. Based on the number of units, each person can get 36 days of use of a unit.
Now, assume that 1 of those units get torn down in order to make room for a swimming pool!
You now have the added benefit of the swimming pool -- Your ownership hasn't been diluted, You still own 1% of the property. But because there are now fewer units, you now only can get 33 days. You lost 3 days, but gained a swimming pool... the value of your ownership didn't necessarily change.

I actually own a % of a unit. You can’t tear down a unit without diluting someone’s ownership.

 

[Bing Showei]

That's simply not true. Let's put it this way.... Imagine there is a property with 10 free standing units, and it's owned equally by 100 people. So each person owns 1% of the property. Based on the number of units, each person can get 36 days of use of a unit.
Now, assume that 1 of those units get torn down in order to make room for a swimming pool!
You now have the added benefit of the swimming pool -- Your ownership hasn't been diluted, You still own 1% of the property. But because there are now fewer units, you now only can get 33 days. You lost 3 days, but gained a swimming pool... the value of your ownership didn't necessarily change.

Same with the DVC.... if the current point allotment doesn't allow for sufficient maintenance, you may be able to book 10 nights in a room with leaking pipes dripping down on to the bed.
By increasing the point chart, letting them take that room out of use for repair... You now may only get 9 nights, but no more leaking pipes dripping down on to your bed!

So your ownership isn't diluted...

Less nights does not mean dilution of ownership -- You may still own the same percentage of the property.

But thus, the question becomes what is being done with those extra nights being taken out of inventory. If those rooms are simply being sold as Disney cash rooms, beyond the 2.5% breakage point, then it is not to the benefit of the DVC owner, and thereby your ownership is being diluted. But if those extra points are being used in a way that benefits DVC owners, then your ownership is not being diluted.

You can repeat it as many times as you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Read the POS.

No one bought a pool. We bought a deeded real estate interest percentage in a property. Our agreement can’t be any more explicit. We are guaranteed NOTHING but a room.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, offer up all the flawed analogies you want about gardens, but it doesn’t make what you’re insisting true.

Cap res pays for renovations. If more money is needed for repairs, that’s what our dues are for. DVCMC has no legal authority to mask other expenses in point charts. Using point charts to conceal all the things you suggest would be a violation of their fiduciary duties [insert laugh track here].

We should expect transparency from Management, not look for illegal reasons why point charts going up, without the contractually obligated offsets, could be a benefit to members.

Increasing point charts dilutes ownership.

 

[Cabius]

That's simply not true. Let's put it this way.... Imagine there is a property with 10 free standing units, and it's owned equally by 100 people. So each person owns 1% of the property. Based on the number of units, each person can get 36 days of use of a unit.
Now, assume that 1 of those units get torn down in order to make room for a swimming pool!
You now have the added benefit of the swimming pool -- Your ownership hasn't been diluted, You still own 1% of the property. But because there are now fewer units, you now only can get 33 days. You lost 3 days, but gained a swimming pool... the value of your ownership didn't necessarily change.

Same with the DVC.... if the current point allotment doesn't allow for sufficient maintenance, you may be able to book 10 nights in a room with leaking pipes dripping down on to the bed.
By increasing the point chart, letting them take that room out of use for repair... You now may only get 9 nights, but no more leaking pipes dripping down on to your bed!

So your ownership isn't diluted...

Less nights does not mean dilution of ownership -- You may still own the same percentage of the property.

But thus, the question becomes what is being done with those extra nights being taken out of inventory. If those rooms are simply being sold as Disney cash rooms, beyond the 2.5% breakage point, then it is not to the benefit of the DVC owner, and thereby your ownership is being diluted. But if those extra points are being used in a way that benefits DVC owners, then your ownership is not being diluted.

I understand what you're saying, that "you still own X% of the pie, the pie is just smaller now".

You're framing it as if DVD claims rooms for maintenance "off the top" somehow, and then ownership is distributed among the owners based on whatever is left over. In that case, I might own 10% of "the property" which is defined as "whatever is left over after DVD takes what they want." If DVD takes 1 room out of inventory, then I now own 10% of a 9-room property instead of 10% of a 10-room property, but I still own 10%. All that matters is my ownership share relative to other owners (excluding Disney).

But that's fundamentally not how DVC works!

They key here is that maintenance bookings are paid for with points owned by DVD. It's a use of ownership, not a shrinking of the property! When DVD takes a room out for maintenance, they are using points that they own, like I do when I book a room for a vacation.

DVD is an owner too, and their ownership stake competes with that of other owners. Rooms booked for maintenance are booked with the % of points owned by DVD. This doesn't happen "off the top", and it doesn't shrink "the pie". Apart from the terms of Breakage, they cannot book the rooms if they don't have the points.

To go back to your specific example: there are 10 units, and DVD takes one out for maintenance. To do so, they book that room with points that they own, like I would when booking a vacation.

The property is still all 10 units for all 365 nights, and each owner still owns 1% of that. DVD is also an owner and uses the points that it owns to book those rooms. The only way for DVD to increase maintenance bookings is to use more points to book more rooms with more points, using the same point chart as other owners.

Critically, since DVD uses its own points to book rooms for maintenance, increasing the point chart actually decreases how much maintenance DVD can do. Just like other owners, with an inflated point chart DVD can now get fewer nights for the same points. Point chart inflation cannot be to support higher maintenance bookings; it has the opposite effect! With an inflated point chart, DVD has less 'buying power' just like everybody else.

 

[Sandisw]

yes, it's the worst case scenario with the existing (2021 / 2022) point chart structure

using the gregorian easter they did is allowed in terms of the base year analysis; my point is it fails the test of best interests of DVC owners

I went into the analysis thinking there is likely some simple, logical, neutral reason the the discrepancies; but now that I've seen DVCM had five options and intentionally picked the one that generated the most points when there was a neutral option (#3 of five), I am not pleased

it's fine to be satisfied with this, the point discrepancy it's enormous; this new chart may even be better for an individual's situation depending on when you travel and what you book

my lack of satisfaction stems from DVCM being obtuse about this change to people that have called to discuss it; also, it in no way meets the test of in the best interests of DVC members since as @sethschroeder reminded us, the 2.5% breakage cap has always historically been met so the additional points generated by this move only serve the best interests of Disney

again, it's fine for anyone to choose not to get excited about this; my perspective is I'm heavily invested in a system run by others; I expect the folks running the system to be transparent, logical, and neutral ... that doesn't seem to be the case for the 2022 point charts

But does it given all the points that will be in the system? So many extra banked points will be there, as well as returned points, so in the end, I see it as a good thing.

So, for me, if it helps to use up the points, and meets the base year rules, it’s a plus for members, if this is a potential result of what needed to be done with the closure. Again, had 2020 not happened, they may have not gone to this extreme, but since it did, it may have been needed.

I do agree that the info given should be clearer, and accurate, but your analysis does seem to have found a base year that works for 2022, unless I am misunderstanding your posts.

ETA. Breakage has been met, but there has never been a year with DVC resorts closed for 3 months so maybe they are not convinced it will be given the lack of travel on the cash side?

 

[havoc315]

You can repeat it as many times as you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Read the POS.

No one bought a pool. We bought a deeded real estate interest percentage in a property. Our agreement can’t be any more explicit. We are guaranteed NOTHING but a room.

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, offer up all the flawed analogies you want about gardens, but it doesn’t make what you’re insisting true.

Cap res pays for renovations. If more money is needed for repairs, that’s what our dues are for. DVCMC has no legal authority to mask other expenses in point charts. Using point charts to conceal all the things you suggest would be a violation of their fiduciary duties [insert laugh track here].

We should expect transparency from Management, not look for illegal reasons why point charts going up, without the contractually obligated offsets, could be a benefit to members.

Increasing point charts dilutes ownership.

Go read the contract. DVC may increase the points, it's in the contract. You're only guaranteed the % of SOLD points. They can increase number of points that are UNUSED.

You miss the point about maintenance -- Nothing to do with the money needed for repairs. It's having the room empty in order to perform the maintenance!
You can increase the dues to a trillion dollars per point -- If a pipe bursts flooding the room, it's going to need to be empty for at least a day or more.

I'm not saying this is the reason why DVC is increasing points. It's simply a possible reason, and is entirely consistent with DVC policy.

Now, you can disagree with me all you want -- Fact is, DVC point charts HAVE increased. If you really feel that this dilutes your ownership value.. if you are right that any increase in a point chart = illegal dilution of ownership, go start a class-action lawsuit against Disney. You'd have quite a good case if you're right. (hundreds of thousands of owners, each losing some of their ownership interest... that would be a class action lawsuit worth billions of dollars).

 

[Cabius]

But does it given all the points that will be in the system? So many extra banked points will be there, as well as returned points, so in the end, I see it as a good thing.

So, for me, if it helps to use up the points, and meets the base year rules, it’s a plus for members, if this is a potential result of what needed to be done with the closure. Again, had 2020 not happened, they may have not gone to this extreme, but since it did, it may have been needed.

I do agree that the info given should be clearer, and accurate, but your analysis does seem to have found a base year that works for 2022, unless I am misunderstanding your posts.

ETA. Breakage has been met, but there has never been a year with DVC resorts closed for 3 months so maybe they are not convinced it will be given the lack of travel on the cash side?

Yeah, tbh once I saw i<3riviera's amazing analysis, I'm much less upset about the changes. If it technically complies with the rules, and was done in an attempt to address the glut of points due to closures, I can see it as a good-faith effort to serve DVC owners.

Now if they keep this chart permanently...

 

[havoc315]

I understand what you're saying, that "you still own X% of the pie, the pie is just smaller now".

You're framing it as if DVD claims rooms for maintenance "off the top" somehow, and then ownership is distributed among the owners based on whatever is left over. In that case, I might own 10% of "the property" which is defined as "whatever is left over after DVD takes what they want." If DVD takes 1 room out of inventory, then I now own 10% of a 9-room property instead of 10% of a 10-room property, but I still own 10%. All that matters is my ownership share relative to other owners (excluding Disney).

But that's fundamentally not how DVC works!

They key here is that maintenance bookings are paid for with points owned by DVD. It's a use of ownership, not a shrinking of the property! When DVD takes a room out for maintenance, they are using points that they own, like I do when I book a room for a vacation.

DVD is an owner too, and their ownership stake competes with that of other owners. Rooms booked for maintenance are booked with the % of points owned by DVD. This doesn't happen "off the top", and it doesn't shrink "the pie". Apart from the terms of Breakage, they cannot book the rooms if they don't have the points.

But that's NOT how it works. Because of the lock-off premium, 100% of owners do not book 100% of the rooms/days, unless every 2-br-lockoff is booked as a 2 bedroom. The moment you break up a lockoff, there are going to be more chart-points than sold-points.

I'd have to go through the contract to get the exact number, but I believe (IIRC) Disney sells 94% of the points for any resort, keeping 6% for themselves, as "fully sold."
For simplicity sake -- Assume a resort only has 1000 points, when the 2 BR lock-offs treated as a 2 bedroom. Disney sells 940 points.. keeps 60 points.

So does that mean only 6% of the room/days go unused by owners?! NO... it's actually much more than that..

Because of the lock-off premium, as soon as you break up a 2BR-lockoff unit, it's no longer a 1000 point resort. It may become an 1100 point resort. Disney owns 60 points. Owners own 940 points. But there are essentially 100 phantom points unowned by anybody.
As a result... Instead of 94% of the days/rooms in use by owners, now only 85% of the days/rooms are booked by owners. Leaving 15% vacant -- And yes, DVC/Disney can do maintenance/rehab/refurb of vacant unbooked room!

So by adjusting the lock-off premium, DVC can increase/decrease vacancy needs.

By your logic, the lock-off premium is illegal and doesn't exist. It would mean that Disney can't touch the vacant rooms created by the lock-off.. they can't rent the rooms to cash guests, they can't perform maintenance. They just have to let those rooms sit empty....
So then, why does the lock-off premium exist? And if it is illegal, then why hasn't Disney faced a massive class action lawsuit for this illegal practice?!?

https://www.whatswrongwithdvc.com/post/the-lockoff-effect-explained-for-the-grand-floridian

 

[Lorana]

But that's NOT how it works. Because of the lock-off premium, 100% of owners do not book 100% of the rooms/days, unless every 2-br-lockoff is booked as a 2 bedroom. The moment you break up a lockoff, there are going to be more chart-points than sold-points.

I'd have to go through the contract to get the exact number, but I believe (IIRC) Disney sells 94% of the points for any resort, keeping 6% for themselves, as "fully sold."
For simplicity sake -- Assume a resort only has 1000 points, when the 2 BR lock-offs treated as a 2 bedroom. Disney sells 940 points.. keeps 60 points.

So does that mean only 6% of the room/days go unused by owners?! NO... it's actually much more than that..

Because of the lock-off premium, as soon as you break up a 2BR-lockoff unit, it's no longer a 1000 point resort. It may become an 1100 point resort. Disney owns 60 points. Owners own 940 points. But there are essentially 100 phantom points unowned by anybody.
As a result... Instead of 94% of the days/rooms in use by owners, now only 85% of the days/rooms are booked by owners. Leaving 15% vacant -- And yes, DVC/Disney can do maintenance/rehab/refurb of vacant unbooked room!

So by adjusting the lock-off premium, DVC can increase/decrease vacancy needs.

By your logic, the lock-off premium is illegal and doesn't exist. It would mean that Disney can't touch the vacant rooms created by the lock-off.. they can't rent the rooms to cash guests, they can't perform maintenance. They just have to let those rooms sit empty....
So then, why does the lock-off premium exist? And if it is illegal, then why hasn't Disney faced a massive class action lawsuit for this illegal practice?!?

https://www.whatswrongwithdvc.com/post/the-lockoff-effect-explained-for-the-grand-floridian

While this is true, the base assumptions above I believe were on base year calculations, which assumes lock-offs are booked as 2 BRs.

That said, and admittedly I’m no lawyer, I feel that you can’t go too crazy with lock-off premiums because my ownership is still a % of a unit, which may include lock-offs. Resorts like VGF with no dedicated studios or 1BR may be a “loophole” that Disney can exploit in terms of increasing points costs so long as 2 BRs add up correctly; resorts with dedicated studios and 1BRs still therefore need their total points needed to book the resort to faithfully represent the % of ownership.

 

[havoc315]

While this is true, the base assumptions above I believe were on base year calculations, which assumes lock-offs are booked as 2 BRs.

That said, and admittedly I’m no lawyer, I feel that you can’t go too crazy with lock-off premiums because my ownership is still a % of a unit, which may include lock-offs. Resorts like VGF with no dedicated studios or 1BR may be a “loophole” that Disney can exploit in terms of increasing points costs so long as 2 BRs add up correctly; resorts with dedicated studios and 1BRs still therefore need their total points needed to book the resort to faithfully represent the % of ownership.

Well, I am a lawyer... but not a real estate lawyer.

But no... the lock-off premium has the exact same effect that you are railing against. Most of the resorts utilize 2BR lockoffs, and they can use that to increase the points. But even if they don't increase the points FURTHER, the lock-off premium is already diluting your ownership -- They know that most of the lockoffs are not booked as 2 bedrooms. Thus, while you may own 00.002% of a 2-bedroom unit.... when the lock-offs get broken up, you actually only the equivalent of 00.0018% of a studio and 00.0016% of a 1 bedroom. It's the exact dilution that you're claiming they can't do -- and they are already doing it.

 

[i<3riviera]

͏

 

[Lorana]

Well, I am a lawyer... but not a real estate lawyer.

But no... the lock-off premium has the exact same effect that you are railing against. Most of the resorts utilize 2BR lockoffs, and they can use that to increase the points. But even if they don't increase the points FURTHER, the lock-off premium is already diluting your ownership -- They know that most of the lockoffs are not booked as 2 bedrooms. Thus, while you may own 00.002% of a 2-bedroom unit.... when the lock-offs get broken up, you actually only the equivalent of 00.0018% of a studio and 00.0016% of a 1 bedroom. It's the exact dilution that you're claiming they can't do -- and they are already doing it.

But with the exception of resorts with no dedicated studios or 1BRs, there’s only so much they can do in terms of total points mathematically, unless those lockoffs (and their studio and 1BR components) become a separate bookable category that they can further manipulate. Meaning all studios + 1BRs + 2 BRs must equal the total points for the resort.

Resorts with no dedicated studios or 1BRs, Disney can indeed get away with raising studios and 1 BR costs so long as the total 2 BR costs equal correctly.

 

[Lorana]

if the majority feel comfortable with this 2022 point chart, DVCM has found that a ~1.3% increase in points relative to declared points causes an uproar but if you can keep it to ~0.5%, you can get away with it

I certainly don’t and will be emailing DVC to inquire about this.

 

[havoc315]

I don't personally believe this is an altruistic attempt to consume additional points in the system because (focusing solely on Walt Disney World resorts) ...

• the points Disney gifted folks to offset expired points already expired (30 Nov 2020)
• points allowed to be unborrowed / banked late were already in the system that could handle those base case scenarios
• availability hasn't been tremendously different for 2021 besides the 50th anniversary of Magic Kingdom

another alternative to help consume points is to re-increase the lock-off premium like was done initially in 2020; there was a base year chart for each resort with the initial 2020 chart where base year points = declared points; something tells me that wouldn't sit well with folks though ...

the additional points added via the 2022 mechanism are ~40% of what was added during the 2020 lock-off premium increase of the initial charts

if the majority feel comfortable with this 2022 point chart, DVCM has found that a ~1.3% increase in points relative to declared points causes an uproar but if you can keep it to ~0.5%, you can get away with it

1 -- Ignore 2021 availability. You have two competing factors, and you don't know the extent to which they each influence the final picture: You have extended points, that people have to use in 2021 or they will expire. But then you also have people afraid to book because of Covid, or simply who aren't interested in the abnormal Disney experience. So you have extended 2018-2020 points that must be booked in 2021. But you also have plenty of 2020-2021 points that people are banking and delaying into 2022.

2-- You're final point is right on. The original 2020 point chart was likely "legal" but it caused too much of an uproar. So they are likely trying to implement that original 2020 point chart... step by step. Instead of 1.3% increase all at once, go 0.2%-0.5% per year for a few years and gradually get to that point.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't personally believe this is an altruistic attempt to consume additional points in the system because (focusing solely on Walt Disney World resorts) ...

• the points Disney gifted folks to offset expired points already expired (30 Nov 2020)
• points allowed to be unborrowed / banked late were already in the system that could handle those base case scenarios
• availability hasn't been tremendously different for 2021 besides the 50th anniversary of Magic Kingdom

another alternative to help consume points is to re-increase the lock-off premium like was done initially in 2020; there was a base year chart for each resort with the initial 2020 chart where base year points = declared points; something tells me that wouldn't sit well with folks though ...

the additional points added via the 2022 mechanism are ~40% of what was added during the 2020 lock-off premium increase of the initial charts

if the majority feel comfortable with this 2022 point chart, DVCM has found that a ~1.3% increase in points relative to declared points causes an uproar but if you can keep it to ~0.5%, you can get away with it

There are more points going into 2022 than normal though as long as 2021 travel remains low. And, so far, other than fall, 2021 is still showing a lot of availability.

Now, could they have chosen a different base year than worst case? Yes, but maybe then they would have had to limit banking, so that less points would be available than a typical year. Not sure that would have been received as better?

Also, with VGC remaining closed, they are allowing those points to be used elsewhere and that will also add more than one to one for trading at 7 months potentially.

I mean I had over 100 Aug 2021 borrowed points returned to the system, that will now be used in 2022..so, I think as long as that is still happening, and DVCM is allowing it for people who can’t travel in 2021, this makes sense to me as a strategy.

Obviously I am speculating that the reason may have been a way to help with what has happened this year and long term changes to how many extra points are in the system..the 50% borrowing rule helps some..

 

[New Mouse]

What part of the decisions during closure do you believe are not legal?

Arbitrarily allowing some owners extensions, while telling others to pound sand.

 

[Sandisw]

Arbitrarily allowing some owners extensions, while telling others to pound sand.

Well, home resort rules and regulations are at their discretions but, for the most part, they seem to have been applied to points consistently

I do agree there were a few exceptions..which I don’t agree with...and I think they should have done more for VGC owners.

They have always had discretion to give pixie dust..late banking, etc,,,