DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

It appears that there are reasoned arguments here that the base year points must remain constant. Owners are reporting that the management states the base year points are fluid. When neither party can agree to interpretation of a term(s) in the agreement/contract, it seems that the discrepancy may be resolved through third-party arbitration, whether by a court, or some other means. Sometimes an agreement needs to have the clarity of a neutral entity to clarify how both parties are to proceed. (Although it's hard to say who would represent the membership in an arbitration or court filing, since the body that would normally represent the members, is the one that some members consider significantly questionable.)

By the way, there is a price increase for direct sales Feb 6. It's possible a number of the DVC member admin team are getting contracts finalized before the Feb 6 deadline. I wouldn't assume the deferral to Feb 8 is to come to a new understanding of their point charts, neither, however would I assume the delay due to the price increase. I just wanted to pass it along, in case it's of interest.
 
It appears that there are reasoned arguments here that the base year points must remain constant. Owners are reporting that the management states the base year points are fluid. When neither party can agree to interpretation of a term(s) in the agreement/contract, it seems that the discrepancy may be resolved through third-party arbitration, whether by a court, or some other means. Sometimes an agreement needs to have the clarity of a neutral entity to clarify how both parties are to proceed. (Although it's hard to say who would represent the membership in an arbitration or court filing, since the body that would normally represent the members, is the one that some members consider significantly questionable.)

By the way, there is a price increase for direct sales Feb 6. It's possible a number of the DVC member admin team are getting contracts finalized before the Feb 6 deadline. I wouldn't assume the deferral to Feb 8 is to come to a new understanding of their point charts, neither, however would I assume the delay due to the price increase. I just wanted to pass it along, in case it's of interest.

I would agree with your stance except for the fact that the one side (dvc) has never really taken this interpretation until recently....actually, quite the opposite. Do we have to go through this every time dvc has a leadership change and a new interpretation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cm8
Please mark your calendars for Dec 9,2021 to attend the Yearly Condo Association Meeting.
If we all raise our hands when the open floor questions are “welcomed” and we cheer the one person that gets to stand to ask the question we all want answered... plus the guides are also in attendance to Discuss Disney.

That's not how the annual meetings work. People don't raise hands and wait to be chosen. Attendees are invited to step up to a microphone to ask their question. Usually only 4 or 5 people bother...often fewer than that.

This is a rather convoluted topic to address. The Q&A is ostensibly for budget related issues so they could refuse to discuss entirely. It cannot be explained in a couple sentences, certainly not in a manner that will rouse support from the audience as a whole. They won't engage in a 20 minute debate of the charts' validity. After some pleasantries, the response is likely to be "let's get your name and we can schedule a time to discuss this personally."

These phone calls are probably the most effective way to have back-and-forth with DVC. I cannot really envision a scenario where you would publicly corner DVC execs in a "gotcha" moment.
 

That's not how the annual meetings work. People don't raise hands and wait to be chosen. Attendees are invited to step up to a microphone to ask their question. Usually only 4 or 5 people bother...often fewer than that.

This is a rather convoluted topic to address. The Q&A is ostensibly for budget related issues so they could refuse to discuss entirely. It cannot be explained in a couple sentences, certainly not in a manner that will rouse support from the audience as a whole. They won't engage in a 20 minute debate of the charts' validity. After some pleasantries, the response is likely to be "let's get your name and we can schedule a time to discuss this personally."

These phone calls are probably the most effective way to have back-and-forth with DVC. I cannot really envision a scenario where you would publicly corner DVC execs in a "gotcha" moment.
Right no argument but Yes everybody is raising their hands to get the attention of the person with the microphone... and having a casual discussion with a guide standing around waiting to be approached before & after the Call to attention is the reason for their attendance. We are actually reminded to meet the guides and they arrive early and are very friendly .
I certainly do not expect any lengthy legal discussion but would like the Board to know we do have the appearance of community .

Do you have a better suggestion ? Because the discussion is getting to be very lengthy but the seriousness is growing.
 
Last edited:
I have attended some very successful open houses a long time ago at the BLT .
It became pretty apparent that the most successful DVC group of members seemed to be the original OKW imembers. It was interesting to witness because they were so very friendly & helpful and enthusiastic but also knew how to utilize the meeting and their membership to keep the best interests for OKW. Can’t dispute that success story By just studying their testament .
 
Perhaps we need someone to file a complaint with the Florida regulator!
You need to do something, that is for sure. If Disney is allowed to get away with this, they will never stop with such tactics. I have no dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean I like to see them screw over their DVC owners.
 
I would agree with your stance except for the fact that the one side (dvc) has never really taken this interpretation until recently....actually, quite the opposite. Do we have to go through this every time dvc has a leadership change and a new interpretation?

I'm not sure if you were looking for a reply from me, or just asking the question in general. My initial thought in response is that this thread is about the point balancing (or lack thereof) in the 2022 chart. I don't want to digress into future "what-if" scenarios beyond the scope of this thread, especially when the current circumstance needs immediate attention.
But so as to not evade an answer if you were looking for one, if there is egregious mismanagement maintained by those who have performed well-reasoned analysis, and current management also maintains their actions are allowable according their interpretations of the documents, then yes, each time we need to have a type of arbitration to define what is legal and allowable according to the terms. Otherwise, until one party accepts the interpretation (and ensuing actions based on the interpretation), we will be talking at one another without resolution.

I personally think that inaction by the owners (membership) can be viewed as acceptance of the maangement's interpretation. So, I'm grateful for all of our owners who are reaching out to have conversations and expressing their concerns. Thank you!
 
Please mark your calendars for Dec 9,2021 to attend the Yearly Condo Association Meeting.
If we all raise our hands when the open floor questions are “welcomed” and we cheer the one person that gets to stand to ask the question we all want answered... plus the guides are also in attendance to Discuss Disney.

Remember they need our loyalty and Discontent does not sell memberships

P.S. perhaps we should all have a paper copy of the specific wording to discuss the important question. It would help to stay focused and validate our presence.
We just want one answer to our question.
I like an "I am Spartacus" moment as much as the next guy, but I would instead encourage anyone reading this who doesn’t feel the point chart inflation is right, who appreciates the efforts of those members who have talked with Disney, who value the legal and regulatory research people have put into this issue; I would implore you to call Disney. Please email Disney. Take time to reach out and have a conversation about how you don't want your ownership interest diluted.

It’s all good and well to hit the like button on a post, to be upset enough to post about selling (you won't), or to stop proselytizing the virtues of a Disney timeshare, but Disney needs to hear you’re not ok with Management not acting in your best interest. Absent this, Disney will assume they are fine doing what they have done.

Please reach out.

Email
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.go.com/contact/email/
Member Services
(800) 800-9800
(407) 566-3800 - option 1

Fax Number
(407) 938-4151

Snail Mail:
Disney Vacation Club
Member Services
1390 Celebration Boulevard Celebration, FL 34747
 
I have attended some very successful open houses a long time ago at the BLT .
It became pretty apparent that the most successful DVC group of members seemed to be the original OKW imembers. It was interesting to witness because they were so very friendly & helpful and enthusiastic but also knew how to utilize the meeting and their membership to keep the best interests for OKW. Can’t dispute that success story By just studying their testament .
This is an interesting post. I think there are 2 elements to it.

First, I believe OKW owners are the "most successful" in part because Disney took a while to figure out how to maximize DVC for its own purposes. The combined low point price and low point charts allowed those owners to have a by-in price significantly lower than owners of later resorts, even accounting both for regular inflation and Disney inflation. No one will ever have that deal again no matter how well owners organize or advance their group interests.

But second, you also point out that OKW owners do seem uniquely active and successful at pursuing their interests as a group. I'm guessing this is not just a function of being the most experienced, but having gone through the OKW extension process, which required significant attention from all OKW owners, both to protect their interests individually and as a group, that other DVC owners have not experienced.

I don't know f it will be possible to galvanize the ownership as a whole they way I believe the extension process did for OKW. I think it is worth trying. but I'm prepared to be disappointed.
 
The POS does not provide that DVCM can use annual maintenance fees to fund its defense in a legal action brought by members. What the DVC Membership Agreement does provide is that in legal actions between DVCM and any members based on the alleged failure to comply with the terms of the membership agreement, the prevailing party may be awarded by the court its costs and reasonable attorney's fees for the action. That has nothing to do with the use of maintenance fees. It also works both ways: a court could award the "prevailing party" members all of their their costs and attorney's fees for pursuing an action against DVCM for failure to comply with the Membership Agreement.

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

As to your call with DVC, it is becoming more and more apparent that DVC is just trying to come up with new excuses to justify its wrongful actions when it is obvious it likely did no valid legal analysis before doing what it did. As I have noted, DVCM cannot do anything more than what is actually allowed by the relevant POS provisions (including the membership agreement) and nowhere does the POS say DVCM can create new point charts with new seasons that result in greatly increasing the total annual points in many calendar years. This is the same type of problem that existed with the original 2020 point charts that were later withdrawn. The modern DVC acts on the false premise that it can do anything it wants to do to cause harm to members as long it cannot find something in the POS that expressly says it cannot do it. The actual legal presumptions are the opposite. When dealing with documents all drafted by Disney and the acts of DVCM, a designated fiduciary of the members, DVCM cannot do more than that which is expressly allowed by the applicable documents.
One thing you mention that is interesting to me is the DVCM management fee being fixed at 12% of non property tax budget. If this is the case, wouldn’t this mean their revenue goes up when dues increase? Wouldn’t this give DVCM direct financial incentive to not work in the owners best interest to efficiently run the resorts and minimize dues (e.g. if they find ways to waste money such as bad supplier deals they actually make more)?
 
One thing you mention that is interesting to me is the DVCM management fee being fixed at 12% of non property tax budget. If this is the case, wouldn’t this mean their revenue goes up when dues increase? Wouldn’t this give DVCM direct financial incentive to not work in the owners best interest to efficiently run the resorts and minimize dues (e.g. if they find ways to waste money such as bad supplier deals they actually make more)?
My question would be, what non-Disney suppliers does DVC Use? Disney is the supplier in every case I can think of that deals with resort operations.
 
[
One thing you mention that is interesting to me is the DVCM management fee being fixed at 12% of non property tax budget. If this is the case, wouldn’t this mean their revenue goes up when dues increase? Wouldn’t this give DVCM direct financial incentive to not work in the owners best interest to efficiently run the resorts and minimize dues (e.g. if they find ways to waste money such as bad supplier deals they actually make more)?

The 12% is fixed, but obviously the actual dollars increase annually as the rest of the budget increases annually and thus the greater the other budget items, the greater amount DVCM receives. The annual dues budget is legally required to be based on the estimated costs of all the items in the budget absent profit, but that does not necessarily exclude all profit. It is a matter of how the program is set up to be run, and in the DVC system, there are actually various "profit" incentives built into the system (one of which you have already mentioned):

1. All those people who work at the resorts in housekeeping, bell services, maintenance, front desk, etc., are employees of the Disney Parks and Resorts entity, not the DVC associations or any DVC entity. DVCM has an agreement with that Parks entity, called the Property Management Subcontract (mentioned din your annual dues) under which that Parks entity provides those employees to work at the the DVC Resorts and DVCM (and the associations) pay the equitable share of all the employee costs (wages, benefits, etc.) determined mainly by the total services to be provided for DVC reservations in relation to overall services. The Parks entity seem to have a lot of discretion in determining what that share should be, and even if DVCM pays the "costs" in the amounts billed to it that does not necessarily preclude Disney Parks from building in some extra profit, i.e, DVCM and the associations are still just paying the "costs" charged to DVC even if those "costs" have profit built into them by a a non-DVC entity.

2. Transportation is similar in that DVC is to pay tits share of the transpotation, including system and employee costs, based on likely percentage of use in relation to the whole, and again Disney itself is not necessarily prohibited from building in a profit into the amounts charged to DVCM and the associations.

3. Technically, central Member Services employees and the reservation systems are divided between two DVC companies, DVCM which its charge of all services relating to home resort reservations and BVTC which is in charge of non-home resort DVC reservations and all trade outs under the "DVC Reservation Component." Reality is that the employees and actual reservation computer and phione systems of the two companies are the same. The costs of all those MS services, offices, computer systems, etc. are paid from the following sources: (a) a $1 per member annual fee called the Disney Reservation Component in the budget, which amount goes to BVTC; (b) the fees charged by BVTC for trade-outs to non-DVC resorts; (c) breakage income (rental income of rooms still open 60-days or fewer out) which is divided as follows: first to offset annual dues up to 2.5% of the annual budget (excluding taxes); next to BVTC to cover all its costs plus 5% of those costs (a built-in profit); and third, all the remainder goes to DVCM to keep as profit or use for some of its costs; (d) the 12% of the total budget fee that goes to DVCM,

You should notice from that system of payment a few things. The annual budget dues do not vary according to the costs of central MS and the reservation systems. The $1 fee is always the same. The members always get no more than the amount of breakage income that equals 2.5% of the annual budget, while DVC entities get all the rest. The 12% management fee is always 12%. In other words, if the DVC entities spent only $100,000 total per year on central MS services and the reseveration systems, or spent $100 million, your total annual dues would still be the same.

The incentive created by the DVC system is that the less money DVC spends on central MS and reservation services, the more money the Disney entities get to keep as profit from breakage income and the 12% annual fee.
 
Last edited:
[


The 12% is fixed, but obviously the actual dollars increase annually as the rest of the budget increases annually and thus the greater the other budget items, the greater amount DVCM receives. The annual dues budget is legally required to be based on the estimated costs of all the items in the budget absent profit, but that does not necessarily exclude all profit. It is a matter of how the program is set up to be run, and in the DVC system, there are actually various "profit" incentives built into the system (one of which you have already mentioned):

1. All those people who work at the resorts in housekeeping, bell services, maintenance, front desk, etc., are employees of the Disney Parks and Resorts entity, not the DVC associations or any DVC entity. DVCM has an agreement with that Parks entity, called the Property Management Subcontract (mentioned din your annual dues) under which that Parks entity provides those employees to work at the the DVC Resorts and DVCM (and the associations) pay the equitable share of all the employee costs (wages, benefits, etc.) determined mainly by the total services to be provided for DVC reservations in relation to overall services. The Parks entity seem to have a lot of discretion in determining what that share should be, and even if DVCM pays the "costs" in the amounts billed to it that does not necessarily preclude Disney Parks from building in some extra profit, i.e, DVCM and the associations are still just paying the "costs" charged to DVC even if those "costs" have profit built into them by a a non-DVC entity.

2. Transportation is similar in that DVC is to pay tits share of the transpotation, including system and employee costs, based on likely percentage of use in relation to the whole, and again Disney itself is not necessarily prohibited from building in a profit into the amounts charged to DVCM and the associations.

3. Technically, central Member Services employees and the reservation systems are divided between two DVC companies, DVCM which its charge of all services relating to home resort reservations and BVTC which is in charge of non-home resort DVC reservations and all trade outs under the "DVC Reservation Component." Reality is that the employees and actual reservation computer and phione systems of the two companies are the same. The costs of all those MS services, offices, computer systems, etc. are paid from the following sources: (a) a $1 per member annual fee called the Disney Reservation Component in the budget, which amount goes to BVTC; (b) the fees charged by BVTC for trade-outs to non-DVC resorts; (c) breakage income (rental income of rooms still open 60-days or fewer out) which is divided as follows: first to offset annual dues up to 2.5% of the annual budget (excluding taxes); next to BVTC to cover all its costs plus 5% of those costs (a built-in profit); and third, all the remainder goes to DVCM to keep as profit or use for some of its costs; (d) the 12% of the total budget fee that goes to DVCM,

You should notice from that system of payment a few things. The annual budget dues do not vary according to the costs of central MS and the reservation systems. The $1 fee is always the same. The members always get no more than the amount of breakage income that equals 2.5% of the annual budget, while DVC entities get all the rest. The 12% management fee is always 12%. In other words, if the DVC entities spent only $100,000 total per year on central MS services and the reseveration systems, or spent $100 million, your total annual dues would still be the same.

The incentive created by the DVC system is that the less money DVC spends on central MS and reservation services, the more money the Disney entities get to keep as profit from breakage income and the 12% annual fee.

Thank you for this, there is a lot of great information here. But to follow on my point, dvcm has no financial incentive to minimize annual dues year over year through fiscal responsibility. As example, if Disney parks increased a service cost by 50% this cost gets passed to DVC members and the DVCM revenue increases by 12% of this increase to budget. With this structure, DVCM has no financial driver to negotiate prices down as them spending more means we spend more and they make more.

Financial incentives is also an issue with breakage income. Since the 2.5% is fixed limit, DVC profits from making changes that maximize breakage rather then maximizing DVC members ability to use points. With this structure, it’s no surprise we find ourselves having to constantly monitor their behavior.

The only driver DVCM has to act in our best interest seems to be customer satisfaction and impact on future sales. However, their yearly financials appear to be directly at odds with DVC members best interests. How can they be expected to work in our best interest when they are incentivized not to?
 
It would be an interesting development. However there have been in the past reports of scam by companies who find the DVC owners names on the OC website. Not saying this is it, but I'd recommend to be cautious.
I received more information and will not be attending. They are not dealing with the point inflation issue.

It appears the basis of their claim is that DVC units are being made available to non members at rates they claim is less than the cost members pay. They mentioned that non members can book DVC units on Expedia very inexpensively. I was surprised DVC units can be booked on Expedia, but found it is true. However, the DVC availability on Expedia is exactly the same as the availability for cash from Disney, so I conclude Disney is just using Expedia as another outlet for booking DVC rooms that are available for cash under breakage or trade outs.

FYI: I looked up the prices for a BWV studio BW/GP view for March and the "rack rate" from Disney is $699 per night (plus tax) but it is currently 35% off for those dates if you book through Disney, so the actual price is $454 per night (plus tax). If you look on Expedia the price shows as $699 per night (plus tax) for those same nights (I did not actually try to book). The point cost for members averages about 20 points per night (19 points Sun-Thur and 22 points Fri & Sat). That is about $156 per night based on dues at BWV of $7.81 per point (tax included).
 
I received more information and will not be attending. They are not dealing with the point inflation issue.

It appears the basis of their claim is that DVC units are being made available to non members at rates they claim is less than the cost members pay. They mentioned that non members can book DVC units on Expedia very inexpensively. I was surprised DVC units can be booked on Expedia, but found it is true. However, the DVC availability on Expedia is exactly the same as the availability for cash from Disney, so I conclude Disney is just using Expedia as another outlet for booking DVC rooms that are available for cash under breakage or trade outs.

FYI: I looked up the prices for a BWV studio BW/GP view for March and the "rack rate" from Disney is $699 per night (plus tax) but it is currently 35% off for those dates if you book through Disney, so the actual price is $454 per night (plus tax). If you look on Expedia the price shows as $699 per night (plus tax) for those same nights (I did not actually try to book). The point cost for members averages about 20 points per night (19 points Sun-Thur and 22 points Fri & Sat). That is about $156 per night based on dues at BWV of $7.81 per point (tax included).
Really? Of all the things one could build a class action on, they pick this?
:rotfl2:
 
The modern DVC acts on the false premise that it can do anything it wants to do to cause harm to members as long it cannot find something in the POS that expressly says it cannot do it. The actual legal presumptions are the opposite. When dealing with documents all drafted by Disney and the acts of DVCM, a designated fiduciary of the members, DVCM cannot do more than that which is expressly allowed by the applicable documents.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

This is interesting. We had assumed that anything not expressly disallowed would be difficult for the members to block without legal action. That the best path of action was to argue the point increase works against the membership interest, and hope DVCM behaves reasonably.

Frankly I was surprised and impressed the 2020 charts were withdrawn.

If what you are saying is correct (not questioning, I just have no qualification to comment on Florida laws), we were completely wrong in our assumption. DVCM could have rolled back the 2020 charts because they knew they were legally on shaky ground.

Which makes it interesting that DVCM's refined pitch focuses on intangible "benefits to membership", rather than DVCM's perfect legal right to create the 2022 charts. 🤔
 


















DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top