DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[culli]

I finally got around to calculating the net difference between the 2009, 2010 and 2011 point charts and the impact to me.

I saved about 20 points a year in the 2010 point reallocation, and about another 20 points per year in the 2011 point reallocation.

This, both point reallocations were beneficial to me! I came out a winner both times. It's like I have 40 more points each year.

As a person who goes 9-11 days over two weekends to save vacation time and kids out of school this helps me too. I figured it saved me about 20pts or so from 2010-2011, I assume the same for 2009-2010. This might allow an extra day or so of adult only trip!

 

[shortypots]

I admit I haven't checked all the past pages lately, but have we figured out why AKV seems to be so skewed from 2010 to 2011?

 

[DizDays]

Thanks for keeping this alive, Shortypots. I, too, am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for an answer. I am having difficulty comprehending the overwhelming 2011 points chart increases vs. the decreased side of things.

Mind you, I'm using rudamentary calculations compared to our amazing DISboard geniuses; however, when you compare the 2010 to 2011 weekly total for each of the 65 categories on the points chart (which, in theory, should remain relatively fixed if DVC shifted points around between weekends and weekdays), you find that there are 19 categories with a reduction (equaling 101 points) against 46 categories with an increase (equaling 504 points) (excluding, of course, the new standard GV category which has nothing with which to compare).

When we bought, our guide told us that the points may be moved around the chart, but the chart total never changes. (I know, I know... don't listen to them.) But it made sense (and still does) that all things must remain equal, so I can't quite figure out how there can be 403 extra points (multiply that times 52 weeks of the year and it adds up fast!). I know this is just a slice of the 7 million points, but it should have been an accurate slice in the past so I would think it still would be, shouldn't it?

Even if some rooms were downgraded/recategorized, points come off one place and go to another (but I don't see that happening with 19 subtractions and 46 additions to the plus side of things). I suppose the quantity of each room in each category somehow plays into it, as well.

Thanks to all who are so diligently seeking after an answer. I truly appreciate you!

 

[dismedvc]

Thanks to all who are so diligently seeking after an answer. I truly appreciate you!

I am not one of the diligent workers, but I have been following their work closely.

Theoretically, the points could go up in every category in every season if rooms were reclassified.

For example if a resort had 10 rooms, and in 2010, 8 were preferred view (at 20 points each, so total = 160) and 2 were standard view (at 10 points each, so total = 20) then the resort would have 180 total points.

If in 2011, 3 of the preferred rooms were downgraded to standard view, so that in 2011 the resort had 5 preferred view rooms (changed to 24 points each, so total = 120) and 5 standard views (changed to 12 points each, so total = 60) then the resort would still have 180 total points.

Note: the total remains 180, even though the points for all categories went up by 20%.
(Preferred view from 20 to 24, and standard view from 10 to 12)

Edited to add, This reclassification is the "hidden decrease" Dean talks about in his post below.

Bookwormde has run the numbers for AKV, and IF I interpet his (her?) analysis correctly, the only way the 2011 changes could be "point neutral" is if 42 2-bedroom units were downgraded from savanna view to standard view, along with the 2 GV that are known to have been downgraded from savanna view to standard view for 2011. Bookwormde also calculated that DVD benefited by over $18 million by initially overclassifing those rooms.

Hope, that explanation makes sense, although it might not make you happy.

Click on the blue arrow below to go to Bookwormde's full post.

Interesting as that is if you change 2 GVs and 42 2brs from
Savanna view to standard view it is very close to the same 160,000 points.

I will let everyone draw his or her own conclusions.

bookwormde

 

[Dean]

Thanks for keeping this alive, Shortypots. I, too, am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for an answer. I am having difficulty comprehending the overwhelming 2011 points chart increases vs. the decreased side of things.

Mind you, I'm using rudamentary calculations compared to our amazing DISboard geniuses; however, when you compare the 2010 to 2011 weekly total for each of the 65 categories on the points chart (which, in theory, should remain relatively fixed if DVC shifted points around between weekends and weekdays), you find that there are 19 categories with a reduction (equaling 101 points) against 46 categories with an increase (equaling 504 points) (excluding, of course, the new standard GV category which has nothing with which to compare).

When we bought, our guide told us that the points may be moved around the chart, but the chart total never changes. (I know, I know... don't listen to them.) But it made sense (and still does) that all things must remain equal, so I can't quite figure out how there can be 403 extra points (multiply that times 52 weeks of the year and it adds up fast!). I know this is just a slice of the 7 million points, but it should have been an accurate slice in the past so I would think it still would be, shouldn't it?

Even if some rooms were downgraded/recategorized, points come off one place and go to another (but I don't see that happening with 19 subtractions and 46 additions to the plus side of things). I suppose the quantity of each room in each category somehow plays into it, as well.

Thanks to all who are so diligently seeking after an answer. I truly appreciate you!

At least one person has done the calculations and they come out within reason, within 1%. I haven't done the calculations myself in that manner. Realize several factors. That much of the changes is reflected in the weekday/weekend rebalancing. Also, if your're counting the studio and 1 BR units, your counting each unit 3 times for the lockoff 2 BR units. In addition the points costs for the lockoff portions aren't bound by the balancing rules and can't be included in the balancing calculations technically. Finally, some units have been reclassified as Standard view that were previously Savannah view creating a hidden decrease in some areas that won't show up on the points charts otherwise.

 

[Shamus]

WDRL and I have been sharing a few PMs back and forth on the BWV SV points.

There are a number of items that I think some of you may find helpful or at least a little interesting, so I thought I would share them here with you.

I know WDRL is still working on a few related items and I hope he doesn't mind me sharing what we have found so far.

I know you are working hard on the BWV points and just thought I would share what I found so far.


PART 1
Unit 7-A is 3rd Flr Standard View and is comprised of two(2) 2-br units. I found a 7-A deed for 200pts or .5767 so that's total unit points of 34,680 as you would expect for your 17,340 per 2-br. So that appears to show that there was no change between PV and SV for points declared.

PART 2
Taking your allocation base numbers (34700, 17340, 11530, and 5815) for total of each room type (7, 149, 130, and 97) you get total resort points of 4,889,515.
Continuing on, when you look at individual room points required for a full-year you find that for the Studios and 1-br the SV's are lower than allocation and PV's are higher. Both SV and PV points are below the allocated number for 2-brs, and the GV is above. But calculated out the total resort is (within the tollerance of) 4,889,515

In Summary I believe this shows the following:
1) Since there was no change to the PV points with the introduction of the SV points chart AND since there is no difference between SV and PV unit points allocated and declared, It appears that SV rooms were indeed in the DVC plans for BWV all along (Well at least since the first BWV points charts were released).

2) Points can moved anywhere on the points chart irregardless of DAY, SEASON, ROOM SIZE or VIEW as long as the total points for the total resort for the total year, do not change.

Let me know if your findings agree.

Shamus

Yes, I agree with both your findings and conclusions.

My Unit 7A numbers agree with yours, and I have about 20 other Units in which my allocation formula has held true. I might tweak the accommodation formula slightly, like raising a two-bedroom from 17,340 to 17,345, but the basic premise still holds.

As I delve more into the DVC point system, I'm thinking there are two hard-and-fast "laws" that are never violated:

1. The total points for a Resort remains constant. This means that DVD can't create or take away points when it changes a Resort's point charts. And, like you say, DVD has complete flexibility in changing day, season, room size, and view as long as the total points remain the same.

2. Once a Resort's accommodation formula is declared, the formula cannot change. This means that once the BWV Master Declaration showed that 17,340 points were allotted to a two-bedroom accommodation, all subsequent accommodations in that Resort have to adhere to the same point allotment. For BLT, this means that all of the undeclared Units will be allotted 19,640 for a two-bedroom and 34,975 for a GV; at AKV, the undeclared Units will have to adhere to the formula of 16,290 of a two-bedroom and 36,130 for a GV.

wdrl

Just thought this may be useful now given these last few recent posts about AKV points in this thread.

Shamus

 

[dismedvc]

Once a Resort's accommodation formula is declared, the formula cannot change.

Shamus: Does that mean if DVD adds an additional building to an existing resort (an additional building that was not in the original resort plans), if that building has inferior views compared to the existing resort buildings, DVD has to effectively "overclassify" the new addition to stay within formula?

 

[tgropp]

It seems to me that Disney seems to be upsetting quite a few people with their constant DVC changes. It does not really bother me but I find it annoying when you never know from year to year what has changed and make sure that you read all the changes before you go... as in losing the appetizer and tip with the meal plan.....valet parking......changing of points.....ete,etc,etc

 

[wdrl]

Shamus: Does that mean if DVD adds an additional building to an existing resort (an additional building that was not in the original resort plans), if that building has inferior views compared to the existing resort buildings, DVD has to effectively "overclassify" the new addition to stay within formula?

I would not use the term "overclassify", but you are on the right track in wondering how new accommodations must be absorbed into a Resort's point structure. I'll expand on this in a later post, but I hope to finish my BWV project first.

 

[Dean]

I would not use the term "overclassify", but you are on the right track in wondering how new accommodations must be absorbed into a Resort's point structure. I'll expand on this in a later post, but I hope to finish my BWV project first.

There is no requirement that future phases conform to the current system. It makes sense that a given unit type would but it doesn't have to necessarily. The requirement is they can't over sell the resort in general. They could create a second "resort" or system within a given structure, they could add unit types that were different such as a step down or step up or even concierge and thus alter the total ponts if they did so.

As I mentioned some time ago, the other approach they could take to this issue is simply sell a smaller percentage of points. They could likely handle the difference simply in their 4% usual unsold portion.

 

[hakepb]

It seems to me that Disney seems to be upsetting quite a few people with their constant DVC changes. It does not really bother me but I find it annoying when you never know from year to year what has changed and make sure that you read all the changes before you go... as in losing the appetizer and tip with the meal plan.....valet parking......changing of points.....ete,etc,etc

Disney has never been static, you just can't do that in the entertainment world. I wonder how many visitors were disapointed when DL went from e-tickets to all-day tickets...Attractions have been removed/replaced or changed too much. Dining plans have changed over time, and that is not a DVC issue.

In the grand scope of things, DVC has not been continually changing the point charts, we just happen to be living through one such cycle. I do think all of us would appreciate better and more timely communication vs what actually happened with the Valet and 2010/2011 point chart changes. It would be even better if DVC would/could announce now the 2012 charts would remain the same or if any more tweaking was needed..

 

[bluenosemickey]

Besides the weekends, what other notable categories have gone down in points?

 

[pilferk]

It looks like weekdays once again took the increases, plus adventure season took a good jump.

My 6 night adventure season BWV 1 bedroom trip went from 158 to 171, +8.2%, choice season (food & wine) from 175 to 179, +2.3%

Our standard Adventure Season, 6 night, 1 BR, SV view at AKV trip has seen a 10.6% increase over the past 2 years. In 2009, that room "cost" us 160 points (Sat - Fri). In 2011,that trip will cost us 177 points. We bought 200, figuring to "bank" the 40 points every year so, as the kids get bigger, we could use those points to "step up" to a 2 BR. Looks like we'll either be adding 50 - 100 points on NEXT year (for 2012) or sticking to a 1BR for the foreseeable future. That sorta stinks, ya know?

Based on WEEKLY "costs": I see that Premier season got "cheaper" but it looks like almost everything else got bumped up, in every other season. And the grand villas REALLY jumped. I obviously haven't done the math to ensure "equality" in points per year, but this reallocation at AKV is pretty substantial. Substantial enough to make it significantly harder to use our points as we had previously without adding on.

I'm not angry, per se, but I'm not thrilled. Last year's adjustment felt warrented. This years feels a bit like overkill.

 

[pilferk]

Besides the weekends, what other notable categories have gone down in points?

At AKV, Premier season dropped considerably.

 

[dmoore22]

The short answer is that the DVC Points re-allocations have been consistently inconsistent. But, in my myopic shortsighted view, the 2011 points charts work in our benefit. We lost points in the 2010 charts but seem to have more than made up for that loss in the recent incarnation. "That being said. . ." if we were to change the seasons/accomodations we normally use/visit we would be at a disadvantage. It's all relative.

 

[wdrl]

What started off as a discussion of AKV's point charts for 2010 and 2011 slowly evolved into a discussion of how DVD introduced BWV's Standard View category. Many DVC veterans remembered that when the cheaper Standard View was introduced, the remaining accommodations (which were relabeled as "Preferred/Boardwalk") saw no change in their booking costs. Thus, some opined that BWV's total resort points must have been reduced to handle the change. One way for DVD to handle this change would be to allot fewer points to the BWV Units declared subsequent to the introduction of the Standard View category.

However, my research of the point structures at VWL, AKV, and BLT has led me to believe that the relative total points for a resort CANNOT be altered once the initial Master Declaration of Condominium is recorded. Furthermore, each resort has a points-to-size/accommodation formula that CANNOT be altered.

Due to these "laws", I could not understand how BWV's total points could be reduced with the introduction of the Standard View category.

To test whether DVD reduced BWV's total resort points, I looked at all 123 Units that were declared into BWV. What I found is that all BWV units adhere to a specific points-to-size/accommodation formula:

Grand Villa = 34,700 points
Two-Bedroom (L/O & Dedicated) = 17,340 points
One-Bedroom (Dedicated) = 11,530 points
Studio (Dedicated) = 5,815 points

If you know the composition of a BWV Unit, you can predict its point total. Also, if you know the Unit's point total, you can determine number and type of accommodations in the Unit. For example, BWV Unit #01A, which was one of the first Unit's declared, is composed of a GV, a 1BR, and 2 Studios. The formula yields a point total of 57,860 points. If you look at a deed recorded at the OCC website for BWV Unit #01A, you will find that it agrees with that number of points.

If DVD lowered BWV's total resort points to handle the reduction due to the Standard Views, then one would expect that later Units would have a different formula. However, ALL BWV Units adhere to the same formula. The last BWV Units to be declared (on 6/25/2003), #47C, #47D, and #47E, have the same point formula as the first Units.

While I was compiling this data, Webmaster Doc obtained some of BWV's early point charts (Thanks, DVC92!). These charts indicate that DVD anticipated the affect of the Standard View category on BWV's total points before it opened the resort. Thus, the cost of a Preferred/Boardwalk view was already set at a higher rate than Standard View, even though the Standard View accommodations were not available for booking until several months after BWV opened.

In conclusion, these findings about BWV are not inconsistent with my belief that a Resort's relative total points cannot be changed once the Master Declaration is made; and that once a Resort's points-to-size/accommodation formula is set, it cannot be altered.

How does this information shed light on AKV's situation? For one, it tells me that AKV will have about 7,400,190 points when it is completed. It also tells me that AKV's point-to-size/accommodation formula is set as follows:

Grand Villa = 36,130 points
Two-Bedroom (L/O & Dedicated) = 16,290 points
Studio (Dedicated) = 5,483 points

Since Jambo and Kidani are one resort, all accommodations at either building must adhere to this formula.

Note that the formula does not consider the view category of an accommodation. Whether an accommodation is Standard View or Concierge View is irrelevant when DVD allots points to a Unit.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

 

[RobDoc]

Thanks for that analysis. It does make sense and is reassuring to see the formula used. It's also nice to see that the recent changes have kept total points consistent with the total actually sold.

 

[dismedvc]

Since Jambo and Kidani are one resort, all accommodations at either building must adhere to this formula.

Note that the formula does not consider the view category of an accommodation. Whether an accommodation is Standard View or Concierge View is irrelevant when DVD allots points to a Unit.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks for all your digging, and a very informative analysis. I am not worthy of asking, but

Without implying it actually happened, or if it did that it was DVD's premeditated intent at AKV; THEORETICALLY, if DVD wanted to add an addition to a resort, an addition that was not originally planned, and the only remaining area on which to build that addition would result in it having a far greater percentage of lesser views than the rest of the resort, what, if anything, could DVD do to address that issue, short of making it a completely different resort?

It seems that assigning, and selling, the same number of points per unit as were used for the original resort would not be "fair". However, if DVD had to adhere to the formula, it seems to me the only option would be to originally classify those new rooms using the same percentage of views as the rest of the existing rooms in the resort, and then later downgrade the classification on many of those new rooms. At the time of that downgrading, the point charts would need to be adjusted, but adjusted in such a way as to keep the total points in the resort the same.

Effectively, having to adhere to the formula would mean the rooms in the unplanned addition would have to be originally assigned more points than they were actually worth, and when they were later downgraded, those extra points would remain in the overall resort total.

I know you had stated in a reply to one of my previous posts that my term "over-classification" was not fully correct, but it seems to me the effect would be the same in this theoretical example.

Note: if I understand your analysis of BW correctly, the above did not happen at BW because the SV rooms were in the plan all along.

Thanks again for all your work, and if any, or all, of what I stated above is in error, I would appreciate your explaination of my errors.

 

[Dean]

Thanks for all your digging, and a very informative analysis. I am not worthy of asking, but

Without implying it actually happened, or if it did that it was DVD's premeditated intent at AKV; THEORETICALLY, if DVD wanted to add an addition to a resort, an addition that was not originally planned, and the only remaining area on which to build that addition would result in it having a far greater percentage of lesser views than the rest of the resort, what, if anything, could DVD do to address that issue, short of making it a completely different resort?

It seems that assigning, and selling, the same number of points per unit as were used for the original resort would not be "fair". However, if DVD had to adhere to the formula, it seems to me the only option would be to originally classify those new rooms using the same percentage of views as the rest of the existing rooms in the resort, and then later downgrade the classification on many of those new rooms. At the time of that downgrading, the point charts would need to be adjusted, but adjusted in such a way as to keep the total points in the resort the same.

Effectively, having to adhere to the formula would mean the rooms in the unplanned addition would have to be originally assigned more points than they were actually worth, and when they were later downgraded, those extra points would remain in the overall resort total. I know you had stated in a reply to one of my previous posts that my term "over-classification" was not fully correct, but it seems to me the effect would be the same in this theoretical example.

There is really no requirement they do so other than simplicity. They would either account for it with a different formula, or they could simply sell on a certain number of points to keep within parameters. Assuming the same unit types as already on the books, those are the only options that come to mind. They could also make them a different unit type.

 

[dismedvc]

There is really no requirement they do so other than simplicity. They would either account for it with a different formula, or they could simply sell on a certain number of points to keep within parameters. Assuming the same unit types as already on the books, those are the only options that come to mind. They could also make them a different unit type.

Not following your logic. I think, wrdl has concluded they can not use a different formula, or sell a different number of points for a given unit type. Making them a different unit type (other than studio, 1 bedroom etc) might be an option, but I do not know if they have ever done that except for the THV at SSR.

However, I probably should wait for wrdl's response, before I put any more words in his mouth.