Speaking of reselling...

[Tracy2014]

If I buy at SSR now in order to try out all the different resorts over the next 5-7 years, with the plan of reselling later to buy at favorite resort (if I find I'm not getting want I want trading around), is 150 points small enough to likely resell pretty quickly? Any reason to think it could later be difficult to resell? I'm not trying to make money of course, and even if I lose some that's fine. But it's pretty unlikely I wouldn't be able to resell at all, right?

 

[disneynutz]

150 is a okay number. For many years the minimum direct buy was 160 points from Disney. 50 points would sell faster but I feel that you will be alright with 150.

Bill

 

[jasonv1]

As someone who bought in last year 150 points (aftermarket) was a number I could swing without having to a get a formal loan.

The way I see it is with aftermarket once you pass about 12K (total) you are talking new car money, which is hard for the average person to come up with. So while 150 points is still a lot of money, it allows for a nice yearly vacation and is easier to sell than a 200+ point contracts. I'd rather grow to 200+ when the wallet allows than all at once.

 

[Dean]

If I buy at SSR now in order to try out all the different resorts over the next 5-7 years, with the plan of reselling later to buy at favorite resort (if I find I'm not getting want I want trading around), is 150 points small enough to likely resell pretty quickly? Any reason to think it could later be difficult to resell? I'm not trying to make money of course, and even if I lose some that's fine. But it's pretty unlikely I wouldn't be able to resell at all, right?

I wouldn't go in with the idea of reselling and I certainly wouldn't let that question dictate the number of points, UY or anything else. My suggestion would be to determine how many points you likely need per year if you're fairly successful. If that's under 150, I'd up it to 150-170 but for larger numbers I'd suggest underbuying by maybe 10-20% for most situations. Looking at 2 extremes say one is looking at a studio adventure season for a week, that puts your needs at around 100-120 but there's no wiggle room other than shorter stays or less frequent stays. And if DVC reallocates against you, it could put a big damper on plans. As compared to say a 2 BR during magic or premier where you have far less risk and far more flexibility. In that situation one might have a "need" of 350 but maybe go for 250-300 OR take a different route such as buying even less, maybe 200 and then planning an add on later (? at a higher demand resort) once they have more info.

 

[Tracy2014]

I wouldn't go in with the idea of reselling and I certainly wouldn't let that question dictate the number of points, UY or anything else. My suggestion would be to determine how many points you likely need per year if you're fairly successful. If that's under 150, I'd up it to 150-170 but for larger numbers I'd suggest underbuying by maybe 10-20% for most situations. Looking at 2 extremes say one is looking at a studio adventure season for a week, that puts your needs at around 100-120 but there's no wiggle room other than shorter stays or less frequent stays. And if DVC reallocates against you, it could put a big damper on plans. As compared to say a 2 BR during magic or premier where you have far less risk and far more flexibility. In that situation one might have a "need" of 350 but maybe go for 250-300 OR take a different route such as buying even less, maybe 200 and then planning an add on later (? at a higher demand resort) once they have more info.

What do you mean by: "if Disney reallocates against you"?

 

[Syndrome]

What do you mean by: "if Disney reallocates against you"?

Occasionally, Disney can (and has) "reallocate" the point structure at any given resort.
What they cant do, is just raise every category to whatever points they want. There is a total point spread between at room categories that must remain constant.
What they can do , is shift those points required for any given room category . In other words, if they find a VERY high demand for studios at a particular resort (in your case SSR), they could raise the points required for studios ..........but it must come OUT of something else , like 1 or 2 bedrooms .

So if you purchase barely enough points for a week in a studio, and they reallocate the studio points and make them higher ..........you could be in trouble. On the flip side ...........at that same resort, another room category will be less points. It will always hurt someone, and benefit someone else.

You may be safe with SSR right now. I fear that VWL will be the next reallocation . Those new studios are in high demand right now , an the 1 bedrooms are not as attractive vs the studios.

 

[MountainMouse]

Occasionally, Disney can (and has) "reallocate" the point structure at any given resort. What they cant do, is just raise every category to whatever points they want. There is a total point spread between at room categories that must remain constant. What they can do , is shift those points required for any given room category . In other words, if they find a VERY high demand for studios at a particular resort (in your case SSR), they could raise the points required for studios ..........but it must come OUT of something else , like 1 or 2 bedrooms . So if you purchase barely enough points for a week in a studio, and they reallocate the studio points and make them higher ..........you could be in trouble. On the flip side ...........somewhere an other room category will be less points. You may be safe with SSR right now. I fear that VWL will be the next reallocation . Those new studios are in high demand right now , an the 1 bedrooms are not as attractive vs the studios.

This can happen, but it's not the end of the world. Most likely the point adjustment would not be drastic and you could use banked or borrowed points to make up the difference. If you've got 150 points and they up the room cost by 10 points/year then you've got 15 years where you could borrow from the next year. This assumes you didn't have any banked points, if you did then you would go through those before borrowing. Whenever you run out of borrowed/banked points you've got to take a year off or go on a cash reservation. The above you can do at 11 months, at 7 months you can buy up to 24 points (I think) from Disney, current price of $15 per point. Point is that there are a lot of options with points and I wouldn't overbuy because I was worried about a allocation change.

 

[disneynutz]

Occasionally, Disney can (and has) "reallocate" the point structure at any given resort.
What they cant do, is just raise every category to whatever points they want. There is a total point spread between at room categories that must remain constant.
What they can do , is shift those points required for any given room category . In other words, if they find a VERY high demand for studios at a particular resort (in your case SSR), they could raise the points required for studios ..........but it must come OUT of something else , like 1 or 2 bedrooms .

So if you purchase barely enough points for a week in a studio, and they reallocate the studio points and make them higher ..........you could be in trouble. On the flip side ...........at that same resort, another room category will be less points. It will always hurt someone, and benefit someone else.

You may be safe with SSR right now. I fear that VWL will be the next reallocation . Those new studios are in high demand right now , an the 1 bedrooms are not as attractive vs the studios.

I still don't get the reallocation reasoning. Some post that it's Disney's responsibility to maintain the "system" and even out the bookings with reallocation. The reallocations that I have seen have been Disney fixing their errors and correcting a savanna view to a standard view or increasing the points for 3 bedroom THV after they sold the contracts as a 3 bedroom for the cost of a 2 bedroom.

The rooms will be booked no matter what the point price. If they aren't that means that the member either banked the points or let them expire. The banked points will need to be used next year so in my mind it doesn't matter.

What am I missing?

Bill

 

[Syndrome]

The rooms will be booked no matter what the point price. If they aren't that means that the member either banked the points or let them expire. The banked points will need to be used next year so in my mind it doesn't matter.

What am I missing?

Bill

AHH yes, but there is a bigger picture here. Full resorts and rooms = $$$ for the Disney Co.
I am sure there is a formula of how much $$$ an empty room actually costs Disney, and that plays into it (its much more than just the room cost on paper).
If certain room types have a very high demand, while other ones at the same resort have less demand ...........Disney may want to shift the point totals around to try and sway some owners to book at the lesser desirable rooms because they are less points. By raising the high demand rooms a few points will not alter the demand much because they will fill anyway, but this will help fill up the low demand rooms.

Just my take on it ..........
But you are correct ..........who really knows Disneys reasoning for what they do .

 

[Dean]

Occasionally, Disney can (and has) "reallocate" the point structure at any given resort.
What they cant do, is just raise every category to whatever points they want. There is a total point spread between at room categories that must remain constant.
What they can do , is shift those points required for any given room category . In other words, if they find a VERY high demand for studios at a particular resort (in your case SSR), they could raise the points required for studios ..........but it must come OUT of something else , like 1 or 2 bedrooms .

So if you purchase barely enough points for a week in a studio, and they reallocate the studio points and make them higher ..........you could be in trouble. On the flip side ...........at that same resort, another room category will be less points. It will always hurt someone, and benefit someone else.

You may be safe with SSR right now. I fear that VWL will be the next reallocation . Those new studios are in high demand right now , an the 1 bedrooms are not as attractive vs the studios.

Other than maybe for the THV, DVC hasn't shown much interest in adjusting a single resort related to a category. It might happen but I'm doubting it. They have done so for view issues at BWV & AKV.

I still don't get the reallocation reasoning. Some post that it's Disney's responsibility to maintain the "system" and even out the bookings with reallocation. The reallocations that I have seen have been Disney fixing their errors and correcting a savanna view to a standard view or increasing the points for 3 bedroom THV after they sold the contracts as a 3 bedroom for the cost of a 2 bedroom.

The rooms will be booked no matter what the point price. If they aren't that means that the member either banked the points or let them expire. The banked points will need to be used next year so in my mind it doesn't matter.

What am I missing?

Bill

The obligation to manage the resorts for the benefit of the membership as a whole.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I still don't get the reallocation reasoning. Some post that it's Disney's responsibility to maintain the "system" and even out the bookings with reallocation. The reallocations that I have seen have been Disney fixing their errors and correcting a savanna view to a standard view or increasing the points for 3 bedroom THV after they sold the contracts as a 3 bedroom for the cost of a 2 bedroom.

The rooms will be booked no matter what the point price. If they aren't that means that the member either banked the points or let them expire. The banked points will need to be used next year so in my mind it doesn't matter.

What am I missing?

Bill

For awhile weekends were much easier to get than weekdays so if you wanted to go for a whole week or more and weren't booking at 11 months it was getting to be an odd mix. The reallocation which did more shifting of points to weekdays from the weekends helped a lot with that from my casual observation. In that way I've found it of great benefit but we were not ones to try and maximize with only weekday stays and we are often having to reschedule stays at less than 11 months. But even at 11 months the really popular times like early Dec would have weekdays taken and weekends left - it was bothersome to say the least. I still don't understand the VWL allocation of more points for 1BR's and that's where we were stung a bit but I actually do think the reallocation helped overall.

I don't know if the THV points were initially set to encourage sales or just that they didn't know how popular they would be and I kind of think they overreacted a bit with the reallocation - that the initial popularity was due to the newness but it's probably very few people that know the reality behind the original point establishments.

The poorest IMO was the the BLT reallocation before they even opened.

 

[Tracy2014]

For awhile weekends were much easier to get than weekdays so if you wanted to go for a whole week or more and weren't booking at 11 months it was getting to be an odd mix. The reallocation which did more shifting of points to weekdays from the weekends helped a lot with that from my casual observation. In that way I've found it of great benefit but we were not ones to try and maximize with only weekday stays and we are often having to reschedule stays at less than 11 months. But even at 11 months the really popular times like early Dec would have weekdays taken and weekends left - it was bothersome to say the least. I still don't understand the VWL allocation of more points for 1BR's and that's where we were stung a bit but I actually do think the reallocation helped overall. I don't know if the THV points were initially set to encourage sales or just that they didn't know how popular they would be and I kind of think they overreacted a bit with the reallocation - that the initial popularity was due to the newness but it's probably very few people that know the reality behind the original point establishments. The poorest IMO was the the BLT reallocation before they even opened.

What was the BLT reallocation?

 

[disneynutz]

For awhile weekends were much easier to get than weekdays so if you wanted to go for a whole week or more and weren't booking at 11 months it was getting to be an odd mix. The reallocation which did more shifting of points to weekdays from the weekends helped a lot with that from my casual observation. In that way I've found it of great benefit but we were not ones to try and maximize with only weekday stays and we are often having to reschedule stays at less than 11 months. But even at 11 months the really popular times like early Dec would have weekdays taken and weekends left - it was bothersome to say the least. I still don't understand the VWL allocation of more points for 1BR's and that's where we were stung a bit but I actually do think the reallocation helped overall.

I don't know if the THV points were initially set to encourage sales or just that they didn't know how popular they would be and I kind of think they overreacted a bit with the reallocation - that the initial popularity was due to the newness but it's probably very few people that know the reality behind the original point establishments.

The poorest IMO was the the BLT reallocation before they even opened.

Still don't get it.

Disney takes a new resort, decides how many points to stay there in every room for a year. They then sell that many points for that resort.

If all of the owners use there points every year, all resorts would be filled first come first booked.

Owners who exchange out would be replaced with outsiders who exchange in.

Rooms not booked 60 days prior to check in are sent to Disney for cash bookings.

2% of the rooms are in maintenance or sent to Disney for cash bookings.

Based on this info, all rooms are filled all year long with a 98% occupancy rate.

The exception would be points forfeited and not used by owners but at 60 days before any given date, Disney could rent any vacant room for cash.

Why reallocate?

Bill

 

[supersnoop]

Still don't get it.

You have to remember that the organization's responsibility is to the membership. The entire purpose of the points chart, and the different seasons, is to balance out demand. If there's more demand for weekdays than weekends, they need to raise the point requirement for weekdays and lower it for weekends. If one season has more demand, then they should raise the points required and balance it out with a reduction in a different season.

 

[Dean]

Why reallocate?

Bill

I understand the argument that the points will be used (or not) and that one approach is to simply let it sit and the usage be what it may. They did that for a long time. However, it is my belief that they have a responsibility to the membership to even out demand IF it gets too far off base but not to micromanage the process, apparently DVCMC current has the same opinion. For the THV I believe it should have been a separate resort.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

What was the BLT reallocation?

BLT began sales in Sept of 2008 with an opening in late 2009 (actually opened in August 2009). So those early sales were based on 2009 charts. There hadn't been any reallocations since one for BWV that I believe was done because of adding the standard view category and OKW was the only other resort to have a reallocation but that dated back way back - overall it just wasn't done.

Then, in late Jan 2009 the 2010 points were released and BLT's were changed (and it hadn't even opened nor started taking bookings yet) so that while people had been buying based on what they considered virtually fixed charts was going to change just 4 months after opening. And to top it all off the reallocation was announced just after they decided to eliminated small point add ons for BLT and make it a 100 points minimum to add on. There were quite a few that had purchased to go a specific number of days each year and now were coming up short and the only option to rectify was to buy 100 points. (They also did not have the one time use points then).

The reallocation should have been based on actual demand but BLT didn't have any of that and yet they changed the points. Timing was really poor. It wasn't long before the removed the 100 point requirement and they might have allowed a few to adjust what they had purchased but it just wasn't handled well.

Still don't get it.

Disney takes a new resort, decides how many points to stay there in every room for a year. They then sell that many points for that resort.

If all of the owners use there points every year, all resorts would be filled first come first booked.

Owners who exchange out would be replaced with outsiders who exchange in.

Rooms not booked 60 days prior to check in are sent to Disney for cash bookings.

2% of the rooms are in maintenance or sent to Disney for cash bookings.

Based on this info, all rooms are filled all year long with a 98% occupancy rate.

The exception would be points forfeited and not used by owners but at 60 days before any given date, Disney could rent any vacant room for cash.

Why reallocate?

Bill

Those are all reasons for DVC not to bother with reallocations - no gain to them.

But from an owners use perspective in a point system all times (and room categories actually) should be as close to equally appealing as possible and they weren't. In some cases weekends were close to double the points vs weekdays and post after post was about how owners maximized and only stayed Sun-Thur. And when trying to book it would be far easier to get weekends and perhaps not possible to get the surrounding weekdays because they were that much of a better value and people were maximizing. There also seemed to be rooms sitting open on the weekends and owners having to move around in order to try and get a longer stay which came with it's own costs both $$$'s and frustration.

Some gained, some lost but it did address some of the things that had gotten out of whack. What they didn't do was address the shift in some season popularity - early Dec is the biggest example but even Oct and Nov are following the same route. Will they though? That will take a bit of resolve to step up to that responsibility.

 

[disneynutz]

You have to remember that the organization's responsibility is to the membership. The entire purpose of the points chart, and the different seasons, is to balance out demand. If there's more demand for weekdays than weekends, they need to raise the point requirement for weekdays and lower it for weekends. If one season has more demand, then they should raise the points required and balance it out with a reduction in a different season.

I understand the reason for different seasons but the members do not have a choice, they either use their points or loose them. That would force a 98% occupancy rate year round. It doesn't matter if it's low season or high season, 30 points per night or 2, all of the purchased points have to be used each year. The resort owners book between 11 and 7 months, others less than 7 months but in the end all resort nights are booked 98% of the time.

I hate to be a hard head but unless hundreds of thousands of points are being forfeited, I don't see why any of this makes much of a difference.

Bill

 

[disneynutz]

What was the BLT reallocation?

AKV had a reallocation when they changed some savanna view rooms to standard, BLT theme park views to standard, and THV/SSR when they raised the points per night for THV.

Doesn't seem like a big deal but for our usual stays/dates, we needed an additional 30 points per year.

DVC tried to lesson the negative by offering point transfers for $15 per point.

Bill

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

AKV had a reallocation when they changed some savanna view rooms to standard, BLT theme park views to standard, and THV/SSR when they raised the points per night for THV.

Doesn't seem like a big deal but for our usual stays/dates, we needed an additional 30 points per year.

DVC tried to lesson the negative by offering point transfers for $15 per point.

Bill

As I mentioned above it was the reallocation in 2010 I was referencing as being poorly done by DVC, not the later reallocation of views.

 

[Dean]

AKV had a reallocation when they changed some savanna view rooms to standard, BLT theme park views to standard, and THV/SSR when they raised the points per night for THV.

Doesn't seem like a big deal but for our usual stays/dates, we needed an additional 30 points per year.

DVC tried to lesson the negative by offering point transfers for $15 per point.

Bill

DVC has made a number of reasonable changes in the last few yrs but often handled them poorly. The valet parking and BLT change during pre-sales are likely the 2 worst ones followed by the 2 yrs in a row reallocation needed because of their previous lack of willingness to make the changes needed starting around 2000-01. It is my opinion that they should reallocate if needed to keep things in balance and clearly this was past due when they finally got around to it a few yrs ago. They probably should do something in this area about every 5-6 yrs just so members will know it can/will happen and we won't get the complaining such as I knew it could happen but didn't think it would, the guide promised or the worst, I didn't know it could happen. To be clear, so not everyone gets upset, one can make those statements without complaining but some were clearly upset using those statements and it's that group I'm referencing. Even if they just a formal statement in the Disney Files or on the website stating they reviewed it and there would be no changes AT THIS TIME.