DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[Tiggerette]

My understanding of the situation is that basically DVC picked the worse definition of base year to create inventory out of nowhere for 2022 and people are upset about it.
... [excise]
I mean, is it really that bad for DVC to massage in some inflated inventory to try to absorb the vastly Inflated points balance? It spreads the pain amongst everybody in a stealthy way that most won’t notice.
... But I’d reserve judgement for a few years to let DVC work off excess inventory, and see if they consistently make the worse base year decision, before calling it a trend. I see their 2022 point chart in doing whatever they can to absorb excess banked points during covid without rocking the boat.

I fear we may end up distilling thoughts to simple difference of opinion, but mine is that this matter is egregious enough to warrant close examination of the contract allowance. The publicized messaging didn't initially come across as a mitigation measure for a specific time, nor describe a circumstance necessary to end those mitigation measures. The actions were a reinterpretation and application of contract language. If the inflation didn't impact ownership valuation, and was solely to "eat up" reservations / point cost for a well-defined period of time, perhaps I could be swayed to a "one time exception." This would rely on DVCM acknowledging they are moving from the standard interpretation in order to benefit membership by explicit, demonstrable efforts. I hear that you're willing to give a few years to see where it goes. I suppose my threshold is much shorter, because I have no basis to think the total points required to reserve or base year calculation, or seasonal point chart costs would ever revert to prior, standard interpretation.

Moreover, I don't know that the assumption of higher point values to reserve= more points eaten up. That relies on the assumption that owners will book within those higher seasons. The points will not be eaten up if they cannot book due to higher points costs, or just prefer not to book in those higher cost seasons in order to maximize their available points. If either of these situations occur to a significant degree, then the points exist unused, and if unused points somehow lead to unused rooms, then breakage becomes more substantial pure income, beyond the 2.5% cost recovery.

 

[drusba]

My understanding of the situation is that basically DVC picked the worse definition of base year to create inventory out of nowhere for 2022 and people are upset about it.

Well they didn’t have to allow extended banking of points due to covid either, based on my understanding of the contracts. I know of other timesshares that basically said too bad.

There is a huge amount of points inventory that had been banked due to covid, totally messing up normal future demand planning. Limiting future borrowing will help reduce some demand but certainly not enough. I mean, is it really that bad for DVC to massage in some inflated inventory to try to absorb the vastly Inflated points balance? It spreads the pain amongst everybody in a stealthy way that most won’t notice.

The great minds here had figured out the manipulation of base year. I know they tried to pull the lock off premium thing in 2020 and so maybe there is a little bit of lost trust. But I’d reserve judgement for a few years to let DVC work off excess inventory, and see if they consistently make the worse base year decision, before calling it a trend. I see their 2022 point chart in doing whatever they can to absorb excess banked points during covid without rocking the boat.

There is a very big difference between modifying the banking rule and creating new point charts purposefully designed to require more total points in a year than any base year. As I have pointed out, the POS documents do not allow DVC to abandon, once it has been created for a resort when it is first sold, the 5-season chart, and do not allow DVC to do any act that makes total points needed to reserve all rooms in any calendar year greater than those in the base year. Total points might be higher in any particular calendar year but the only allowed basis for that happening is, as stated in the POS documents, the "natural changes" that occur from year to year in the calendars and not due to any act done by a DVC entity.

Though the POS documents provide members a basic right to bank points, the POS documents also provide that DVC can suspend banking or modify rules applicable to banking when it is in the best interests of the members as a whole to do so, as DVC believes it has done because of covid events.

The fact that it was perfectly legal under the POS for DVC to modify the banking rules during this covid time does not in any way make it legal for it to create annual point charts that purposefully have total points needed to reserve all rooms for the year greater than those in the base year.

 

[Galun]

There is a very big difference between modifying the banking rule and creating new point charts purposefully designed to require more total points in a year than any base year. As I have pointed out, the POS documents do not allow DVC to abandon, once it has been created for a resort when it is first sold, the 5-season chart, and do not allow DVC to do any act that makes total points needed to reserve all rooms in any calendar year greater than those in the base year. Total points might be higher in any particular calendar year but the only allowed basis for that happening is, as stated in the POS documents, the "natural changes" that occur from to year in the calendars and not due to any act done by a DVC entity.

Though the POS documents provide members a basic right to bank points, the POS documents also provide that DVC can suspend banking or modify rules applicable to banking when it is in the best interests of the members as a whole to do so, as DVC believes it has done because of covid events.

The fact that it was perfectly legal under the POS for DVC to modify the banking rules during this covid time does not in any way make it legal for it to create annual point charts that purposefully have total points needed to reserve all rooms for the year greater than those in the base year.

I only got through the first 10 pages or so but I read the summaray on dvc fan webpage. In fact that’s how I found this thread. I thought it was legal for them to define the base year, and they picked the worse day (for members) in the year to start the use year to create the excess points. I believe I read there were 4 or 5 options and they picked the worse one.

If my understanding is correct, then it gets to my point about them using discretion to “make more points available”, so to speak. If they continue to do this - i.e they never correct it when inventory becomes more normal again (I will take going back to 100% borrow from future yers as that sign), then I’d agree they don’t have member’s best interest in mind.

In fact, one can argue that what they are doing have the general member’s best interest in mind, in that they created more booking opportunities so more people can use their points. As for theoretical devaluation of the points, the resale contracts I bought in March / April of 2020 had appreciated more than 50%. Resale prices at all resorts are basically at all time highs.

I guess I am just playing devils’ advocate a bit. I think Disney cares about their reputation far more than the incremental gain they can make from breakage. But again, I understand that trust is lower after what they tried to pull in 2020. I am still giving them the benefit of the doubt now, but if they hadn’t done what they tried in 2020 with the lockoffs, I’d be even more willing to do so.

 

[pkrieger2287]

I had my call with Yvonne today and the tone was encouraging. I will also put in the disclaimer that this is my recollection of the phone conversation.

I kept the discussion simple and just voiced my concern with the large increase in annual points when going from the 5 Season to 7 Travel Period charts. I stuck to PVB, since that is my Home Resort, and brought up the fact that reallocation in the 5 Seasons were always balanced within 100’s of points of the Declared Resort points, and now we are seeing 1,000’s and in 2022 tens of 1.000’s of point increases.

Yvonne mentioned that DVCM has heard this concern from many Members, and they are listening and want to make the member experiences satisfying. She did say that they are working on revising the 2022 charts to reduce the total annual points back down to an acceptable level. She also asked for patience due to the complexity of revising all the charts throughout the 15 resorts at Walt Disney World.

Yvonne also mentioned that their goal was to reduce the large variation of points in future years, I asked if that meant we could expect to see future variations in the 100’s of points (PVB) rather than 1,000’s and she said yes, that is their goal.

Glad to hear she was still positive today after the article...

 

[mdembko]

I had my call with Yvonne today and the tone was encouraging. I will also put in the disclaimer that this is my recollection of the phone conversation.

I kept the discussion simple and just voiced my concern with the large increase in annual points when going from the 5 Season to 7 Travel Period charts. I stuck to PVB, since that is my Home Resort, and brought up the fact that reallocation in the 5 Seasons were always balanced within 100’s of points of the Declared Resort points, and now we are seeing 1,000’s and in 2022 tens of 1.000’s of point increases.

Yvonne mentioned that DVCM has heard this concern from many Members, and they are listening and want to make the member experiences satisfying. She did say that they are working on revising the 2022 charts to reduce the total annual points back down to an acceptable level. She also asked for patience due to the complexity of revising all the charts throughout the 15 resorts at Walt Disney World.

Yvonne also mentioned that their goal was to reduce the large variation of points in future years, I asked if that meant we could expect to see future variations in the 100’s of points (PVB) rather than 1,000’s and she said yes, that is their goal.

Ha! Ya, I think she has heard worse from many upset members.

 

[Evita_W]

I fear we may end up distilling thoughts to simple difference of opinion, but mine is that this matter is egregious enough to warrant close examination of the contract allowance. The publicized messaging didn't initially come across as a mitigation measure for a specific time, nor describe a circumstance necessary to end those mitigation measures. The actions were a reinterpretation and application of contract language. If the inflation didn't impact ownership valuation, and was solely to "eat up" reservations / point cost for a well-defined period of time, perhaps I could be swayed to a "one time exception." This would rely on DVCM acknowledging they are moving from the standard interpretation in order to benefit membership by explicit, demonstrable efforts. I hear that you're willing to give a few years to see where it goes. I suppose my threshold is much shorter, because I have no basis to think the total points required to reserve or base year calculation, or seasonal point chart costs would ever revert to prior, standard interpretation.

Moreover, I don't know that the assumption of higher point values to reserve= more points eaten up. That relies on the assumption that owners will book within those higher seasons. The points will not be eaten up if they cannot book due to higher points costs, or just prefer not to book in those higher cost seasons in order to maximize their available points. If either of these situations occur to a significant degree, then the points exist unused, and if unused points somehow lead to unused rooms, then breakage becomes more substantial pure income, beyond the 2.5% cost recovery.

I think ANY change merits a close examination to see if it is allowable or not. So many people often assume that because big companies, like Disney have so many good lawyers that everything they do must be 100% legal and the big companies often bank on everyone believing that and not checking up. So, if it is a change, it should be investigated. Most will likely be legal, but you may find some that are not.

 

[dismedvc]

@pkrieger2287
To simplify the impact of the initially published 2022 points charts, I think it would be interesting/beneficial to compare the total points required to book one unit for each of the following at BCV for all 365 days under the 2011 point chart, and compare that to the total points required to book one unit for each of the following at BCV for all 365 days under the 2022 point charts.
One could then multiply each of those 3 numbers by the 36 for studios, 20 for 1BR and 152 for 2BR to get total points required to book every room for all 365 days assuming all 2BR lockoffs were booked as 2 BR.

I picked BCV because there is only 1 view category, so the analysis would seem to be the simplest.
I picked 2011 and 2022 because both are non leap years where January 1st is a Saturday.
Note: Easter was on April 24th in 2011 and will be on April 17th in 2022, but that would have made the 2011 points higher than 2022 if the current 7 season point charts had been in place in 2011.
Also, Thanksgiving was/will be on November 24th both years, Christmas on a Sunday both years etc.

I am certain such an analysis will show points are far higher in 2022 than in 2011, even though both years have the same number of weekend days and weekday days and those days all fall on the exact same date in both years.

With this relatively simple analysis it could be shown that the changes DVC has made over the past 11 years are not "point neutral" and DVC cannot point to any "normal calendar changes" when comparing these 2 years.

Beach Club Villas Villa Types & Sizes
-36 Dedicated Studios
-20 Dedicated 1BR Villas
-78 Dedicated 2BR Villas
-74 Lockoff 2BR Villas
-0 Grand Villas
Total = 208 VIllas / 282 Max. Available

ETA: I would do this, but I do not have access to the 2011 BCV point chart.
Also, Just returned from 5 nights at WDW, and did not look at any of the DVC forums, so as not to ruin our vacation, but it seems like I missed some potential good news.
Finally I agree with @Bing Showei we should wait to see what the revised point charts look like before pushing DVC further

 

[mustinjourney]

The point creation appendix I posted previously shows how point creation works. Disney does define "seasons" in the "base year" that determine how many points each day/unit/room is worth for the purpose of calculating total resort points. The management company is allowed to change the number of points any day requires; within the parameters that another day is offset by the same amount. In fact, they are unilaterally allowed to flatten all of the days to the same amount of points if they wanted to. The fact that they alter "groups" of days and happen to call them "seasons" is marketing puffery.




If we want to talk about points: Members keep referencing Easter in this thread; and I think people are incorrectly relating what holidays mean to the value of a day. When the resort is created, holidays do attribute value (since that TIME of the year in your "timeshare" has more value). Later though, holidays come and go. People come for different reasons. The Easter conversation I think takes away from the core concern that an increase in one day requires a decrease in the other. The only allowance for points to increase above declared value is due to normal calendar shifts: leap-year. Leap years create more time on the clock; a holiday does not.

If we want to talk about the real underlying issue: Points and holidays don't matter. You didn't buy points when you bought into DVC. You bought a percentage of a unit in a resort. That unit is made up of one or more rooms; which DVD assigned an intrinsic value (called "demand factor" in the POS) for it's location, view, square footage, room types and quantities that make up the unit, among other things. I should note that all this calculation was done BEFORE DVD assigned a single point to the unit; the point creation appendix has an order of operation. (I talk about this more in the email below).

The problem in my mind is that DVD sold 100% of the unit. All of the units in the resort make up 100% of the resort. I think we can all agree on that.

Your points are a representation of the value DVD put on the percentage of ownership you purchased for your unit. That is to say, someone might own 0.01% of a unit that is made up of three 2-bedrooms with a theme park view; and someone else might own 0.01% of a unit made up for 3 studios with a parking lot view. The former may have only 50 points assigned to them while the latter may have 400 points assigned to them - because while the owners both own the same percentage of the unit; the units have a different intrinsic value. DVC points are a way to normalize value and make for easy accounting across the ownership in the resort.

The thing is; the sale of a percentage of a unit (instead of XXXX number of DVC points) is based on all the intrinsic value and all the time value (365 days) of that specific unit as listed on your deed. If DVCMC tried to increase the intrinsic value or the time value of a unit, the owners of that unit still own a percentage and would be entitled to the enjoyment of that increase since percentages are not finite values.




Paul, I have some of the data that was posted and later removed here - specifically a PDF that outlines all of the points differences by day for every room type and every resort across all of DVC; and outlines the specific areas where points were added/removed. If you're interested in this data, please DM me. Happy to share whatever I can.

There are some posts here that I've expressed my analysis; specifically in an email I referenced in this post but I think it got lost when I quoted it in later posts:



This is the response I received from DVC after that communication:

thanks for all the work and summary!

My cynical side, based on her comments that their analyst team has grown, merely means that if they aren’t going to get us with point inflation, they’re just going to find other ways to run up their management fees, which I don’t believe are capped in any significant way.

 

[drusba]

thanks for all the work and summary!

My cynical side, based on her comments that their analyst team has grown, merely means that if they aren’t going to get us with point inflation, they’re just going to find other ways to run up their management fees, which I don’t believe are capped in any significant way.

Actually, DVC's cost in dealing with the current point chart issue is not one of concern to members. .Any payment of those persons involved in creating the point charts and dealing with the current issue with members are payments that come out of the 12% management fee in our dues. The management fee is always 12% of of the total of most of the other items in the annual budget, and the 12% cannot be raised (or lowered). The amount of the management fee can increase annually as dues for other budget items increase annually, but if DVC had no one dealing with this current issue concerning the point charts or had a thousand officers and employees dealing with the issue, your annual dues would not go down or up, but instead would remain the same at 12% of most of the other items in the budget.

 

[mustinjourney]

Actually, DVC's cost in dealing with the current point chart issue is not one of concern to members. .Any payment of those persons involved in creating the point charts and dealing with the current issue with members are payments that come out of the 12% management fee in our dues. The management fee is always 12% of of the total of most of the other items in the annual budget, and the 12% cannot be raised (or lowered). The amount of the management fee can increase annually as dues for other budget items increase annually, but if DVC had no one dealing with this current issue concerning the point charts or had a thousand officers and employees dealing with the issue, your annual dues would not go down or up, but instead would remain the same at 12% of most of the other items in the budget.

well that actually makes me feel better.

Thanks for correcting my ignorance!

 

[Tinkermom]

I've never understood the basis of the lock-off premium to begin with (or, if you prefer, the combine-units discount). Other systems with which I am familiar are set up so that the cost of booking lock-off units is exactly equal to the cost of booking the constituent rooms separately. In these systems, it is also often the case that the dedicated 2BRs cost less than the lockout 2BRs, but they are also arguably "less valuable" because they don't have a second kitchen/separate entrance and are usually smaller as well.

One example is Wyndham Smoky Mountains. The unit designations, sizes, and point values are:

1BR/partial kitchen (small half of lockout, sleeps 4): ~560 sq ft. 84K pts/wk in prime season
1BR/full kitchen (large half of lockout, sleeps 4): ~900-975 sq ft. 105K pts
2BR Dedicated (sleeps 8): ~1175-1250 sq. ft.: 166K pts
2BR Lockout (sleeps 8): ~1525-1550 sq. ft.: 189K pts

There are a bunch of differences here. One, there are no studios. Even the smallest unit separates the two sleep surfaces with a door, and the partial kitchen is quite a bit more functional than a kitchenette (includes a stovetop and a dishwasher). Two, there are no extreme points differences going between "levels": there is a 25% premium to go from a small 1BR to a large one. It is a ~60% premium to go from a 1BR to a 2BR. Compare that with DVC, in which a 1BR is roughly double the cost of a studio. Three: even If there *were* studios, and they cost 1/2 of a "full" 1BR, the two would collectively be about the same cost as a dedicated 2BR--actually, a little less. (157.5K).

But, most importantly, it is always the case that the points required to fully book the resort is the same, no matter how it is done.

Thank you for being so explicit

 

[fumanchu2488]

This has probably been addressed in this thread but I haven't read through everything. Yesterday when I was looking through the website I noticed a message on my account that says "Now through the end of July 2021, you can bank up to 100% of your annual allotment of Vacation Points.". Has there been any confirmation that banking was going to change?

 

[Matty B13]

This has probably been addressed in this thread but I haven't read through everything. Yesterday when I was looking through the website I noticed a message on my account that says "Now through the end of July 2021, you can bank up to 100% of your annual allotment of Vacation Points.". Has there been any confirmation that banking was going to change?

I'm pretty sure that is standard language if you have a November UY??? I know I get it to remind me off banking my points for my UY's.

 

[fumanchu2488]

I'm pretty sure that is standard language if you have a November UY??? I know I get it to remind me off banking my points for my UY's.

Odd because I have a December UY.

 

[Matty B13]

Odd because I have a December UY.

That is why I put the ???? in there, it's for your December UY.

 

[fumanchu2488]

That is why I put the ???? in there, it's for your December UY.

Thanks! I just realized that was my deadline.

 

[drusba]

Thanks! I just realized that was my deadline.

The DVC website gives notice to members of their banking deadline. The deadline is always the end of the eighth month of your use year, and to get to 8, count you first month as one. That makes end of July the banking deadline for a Dec use year; there is no Nov use year.

 

[dismedvc]

ETA: I would do this, but I do not have access to the 2011 BCV point chart.

I found the 2011 BCV point chart online and ran the numbers. Below are the results.



The point inflation might not look like much, but over the 21 years remaining for BCV it is just over $1.6 million, and BCV is one of the smaller resorts that has the earliest expiration date. @i<3riviera had previously posted that the total for all DVC resorts for all remaining years is $72 million.
The point inflation also seems to violate what all of us were told by DVC when we purchased that "Total points required to book every unit at a resort for every night of the year can never go up except for normal calendar changes, or if additional units are built."
I understand the title of this thread is not DVC point balancing 2011 vs 2022, however comparing those two years for BCV eliminates the main reasons DVC has previously provided for why total points can change year to year. Specifically:

• There are a different number of weekend days and weekend days can fall in different seasons in different years. (Not when comparing 2011 to 2022. Every day of the year is on the same day of the week and all holidays fall on the same day of the month and same day of the week, except for Easter which is one week later in 2011 vs 2022)
• Members do not know specifically how many units are in each view category for a particular resort. (We do for BCV since there is only one view category)

I am glad DVC appears to be revising the 2022 point charts, and plan on re-running my analysis once the revised charts are available. In the meantime I agree with those who encourage us to let DVC "voluntarily" revise the 2022 point charts and not turn this into any more of an adversarial issue at this time.

 

[drusba]

I found the 2011 BCV point chart online and ran the numbers. Below are the results.
View attachment 571793

The point inflation might not look like much, but over the 21 years remaining for BCV it is just over $2.5 million, and BCV is one of the smaller resorts that has the earliest expiration date. @i<3riviera had previously posted that the total for all DVC resorts for all remaining years is $72 million.
The point inflation also seems to violate what all of us were told by DVC when we purchased that "Total points required to book every unit at a resort for every night of the year can never go up except for normal calendar changes, or if additional units are built."
I understand the title of this thread is not DVC point balancing 2011 vs 2022, however comparing those two years for BCV eliminates the main reasons DVC has previously provided for why total points can change year to year. Specifically:

• There are a different number of weekend days and weekend days can fall in different seasons in different years. (Not when comparing 2011 to 2022. Every day of the year is on the same day of the week and all holidays fall on the same day of the month and same day of the week, except for Easter which is one week later in 2011 vs 2022)
• Members do not know specifically how many units are in each view category for a particular resort. (We do for BCV since there is only one view category)

I am glad DVC appears to be revising the 2022 point charts, and plan on re-running my analysis once the revised charts are available. In the meantime I agree with those who encourage us to let DVC "voluntarily" revise the 2022 point charts and not turn this into any more of an adversarial issue at this time.

I appreciate the effort, but I think you need to redo it somewhat. There are 36 dedicated studios and 20 dedicated 1BRs at BCV. The chart reversed those numbers. Also, are the studio "1 unit is 365 days" numbers reversed for the two years? It just seems odd that the totals could be less in 2022 than 2011, i.e., would the modern DVC really lower the total points needed for studios per year?

 

[dismedvc]

I appreciate the effort, but I think you need to redo it somewhat. There are 36 dedicated studios and 20 dedicated 1BRs at BCV. The chart reversed those numbers. Also, are the studio "1 unit is 365 days" numbers reversed for the two years? It just seems odd that the totals could be less in 2022 than 2011, i.e., would the modern DVC really lower the total points needed for studios per year?

Thanks for the catch on my flipping of the number of dedicated Studios and Dedicated 1BRs. I have updated the chart in my post above. Note: that reduces the amount of point inflation, since studios actually went down.
I was surprised that the total cost of studios went down, since those are usually the ones that go first. I rechecked my numbers for studios several times, and that does seem to be the case. Attached are the point charts and a pdf of my excel sheet if someone else wants to make sure I did not make a mistake related to studios.