What the Hell is Wrong with DVC?

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I am quite impressed with how far this misses the point.

So one fast point: by returning the borrowed points back to where they came Disney created a situation where fewer points are chasing the room, if any, that will be available prior to expiration. this is a benefit to current use year owners and owners of banked points.

the converse, returning borrowed points back to where they came from would really infuriate those who banked.

It was, just on this one reason, a smart and rational and reasoned business decision. All owners get a benefit. Disney takes some hit. In fact for an initial decision facing an unknown that has not been faced before it might have been brilliant.

This makes no sense. Once points have been borrowed they are not in the future. They are in the present. Standard rules forbid sending them back to the future because borrowingroughly offsets banking. Disney suspended those rules to allow borrowers to return those points into the future. There will be a room shortage in the future (see below) and allowing people to unborrow made it worse.

Borrowing and banking are very different things with different risks. Every borrower knows that borrowing cannot be undone and that it is final.

Four words change but there is no substantive difference. The risk of banking is an immovable deadline. The risk of borrowing is it cannot be undone. People took both risks and DVCM decided to save one group from their decision but not the other.


I doubt Disney can or will do anything to alleviate the banking quandary. This post explains -- with solid math -- that the balance in the system is already off and getting worse every week the closure extends. DVC will face a room shortage for 3-10 years with too many points chasing to few rooms. Anything Disney does to let people undo borrowing or bank extra points make this shortfall worse. All Disney can do to help s increase inventory. There are ways to do this discussed in that thread, though they carry costs for Disney.

ETA: Also, the post to which I responded, and the subject of my post, was a suggestion that DVCM might forbid regular banking. So the invocation of "Every banker knows that there is an end date and that it is final" is irrelevant. The discussion is not about relaxing the banking rules to save people who already banked.

 

[Sandisw]

One facet of this situation that I think has gotten overlooked consistently is that DVC is not "allowing" borrowers to return those points to the current UY. Rather, DVC has made the determination that those borrowed points WILL be returned to the current UY. I can only assume they have a reason for doing so (many here have provided some good theories as to why that is).

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think DVC is asking members if they want to return the points to the original UY. DVC is just doing it because that is the policy decision they made (that said, I can understand how that decision could be perceived as favoring borrowers over bankers, but as others have said... it's about the points, not the owners of those points).

I think the caveat to what I stated above would be: for those members who re-scheduled for a stay that's before the start of their next UY, DVC may just be leaving the points alone and applying them to the new reservation. However, that's really no different than DVC returning the points to the original UY and the member then borrowing them back to the current UY for the modified reservation (albeit, probably less "paperwork"/effort, which is why they might forego the intermediate step of returning the points to their original UY).

I think you are right in that it is hard to not to feel the decision is based on owners, when it has to do with the points and how one decision will or will not help the situation,

If DVCM had run the numbers and returning them was a worse outcome, then leaving them, those points would not have been returned,

Again, we have no idea how many points of each type are effected, If there were more banked points and points beyond banking window at a much higher level than borrowed points, it could have been part of the reason.

 

[Sandisw]

This makes no sense. Once points have been borrowed they are not in the future. They are in the present. Standard rules forbid sending them back to the future because borrowingroughly offsets banking. Disney suspended those rules to allow borrowers to return those points into the future. There will be a room shortage in the future (see below) and allowing people to unborrow made it worse.

Borrowing and banking are very different things with different risks. Every borrower knows that borrowing cannot be undone and that it is final.

Four words change but there is no substantive difference. The risk of banking is an immovable deadline. The risk of borrowing is it cannot be undone. People took both risks and DVCM decided to save one group from their decision but not the other.


I doubt Disney can or will do anything to alleviate the banking quandary. This post explains -- with solid math -- that the balance in the system is already off and getting worse every week the closure extends. DVC will face a room shortage for 3-10 years with too many points chasing to few rooms. Anything Disney does to let people undo borrowing or bank extra points make this shortfall worse. All Disney can do to help s increase inventory. There are ways to do this discussed in that thread, though they carry costs for Disney.

ETA: Also, the post to which I responded, and the subject of my post, was a suggestion that DVCM might forbid regular banking. So the invocation of "Every banker knows that there is an end date and that it is final" is irrelevant. The discussion is not about relaxing the banking rules to save people who already banked.

You are absolutely correct. Borrowing and banking are final transactions. Late banking is not allowed. In normal circumost aces, those are the rules, It works because they have models and statistics that balance against normal travel and 52 weeks a year of rooms.

But, we are now faced with at least 4 to 10 weeks worth of rooms gone and DVCM has a responsibility to all owners and the system to mitigate those losses.

Of course, whatever decisions are made may impact owners differently. There is absolutely NO WAY to save every point in a way that makes every owner of those points happy....especially when they may need to involve Disney to help.

So, they decided that putting borrowed points back was a good first step,...not because they cared about those owners of those points, but because they felt it helped the situation vs. Leaving them where they were,

I get..,people don’t like it because now some owners are getting a benefit and others with a different type of points are not,

But, it isnt about owners or rules, it’s about how to deal with a loss of inventory and one way is changing the rules that will help, first in the short term, and then in the long term.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I think you are right in that it is hard to not to feel the decision is based on owners, when it has to do with the points and how one decision will or will not help the situation,

If DVCM had run the numbers and returning them was a worse outcome, then leaving them, those points would not have been returned,

Again, we have no idea how many points of each type are effected, If there were more banked points and points beyond banking window at a much higher level than borrowed points, it could have been part of the reason.

You may have already posted this idea elsewhere... there are so many interrelated COVID/closure threads, who can really keep track of them all? It took a global pandemic to surpass the number of ROTR topics being posted!

A group of members who are largely being overlooked in these discussions are those with previously banked points that expire soon and they hope to use them for a stay as soon as Disney reopens.

Example: Member A has points banked from 2018 OCT UY into 2019. Those points are set to expire on September 30th. They want to use those points this summer (optimistic that Disney will be open). Member B, C, D, & E borrowed points from 2020 UY into 2019. If not returned to their original UY, all of those points expire on September 30th as well. All of these people are competing for rooms between now and September before their points expire.

Returning the borrowed points to their original UY eases the pressure on the immediate overload of points over the coming months. I understand that Disney might not be opened for any of those months, and we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But, assuming that Disney will reopen before the fall, this may have been the best (perhaps only viable) decision they could make.

Granted, this perhaps kicks the can down the road for there to be an overload of points in the next year(s). But consider that those "unborrowed" points are now spread out over an entire year instead of competing for such a short window of availability. Also, they are now eligible to be banked to 2021 UY, which spreads out the overage even further.

We won't know for a while how this will truly impact availability moving forward, but I believe things would have been worse in the near term if they didn't return the borrowed points to their original UY and I think it's a fair assumption that they have experts in balancing the numbers, timeshare law, etc. that advised management that this was the best course of action.

 

[Brian Noble]

I doubt Disney can or will do anything to alleviate the banking quandary. This post explains -- with solid math -- that the balance in the system is already off and getting worse every week the closure extends. DVC will face a room shortage for 3-10 years with too many points chasing to few rooms.

I read that post when it went up, and liked it a lot. One potential twist I would add: If the economy does what I expect it will do (tank, hard) the rate of unused and expired points will go up, possibly by a lot. Even if your lodging is already paid for, nothing else is, and while you can forgo park tickets, you still have to get there and you still have to eat. Even if you are making your own meals, you are doing it with a significantly reduced pantry, and there is cost friction there. And, that's assuming you can get time off of work--hard to do if you are in a new job and haven't vested vacation time or established your reputation in the office.

We saw that during the Great Recession, when availability in all forms was much easier to come by, RCI exchanges were plentiful, lots of points were offered for rent and they were chasing too few renters. This lasted for a good while. I don't know if the same thing will happen over the next year or two. We aren't hearing talk of austerity from governments right now, and that's very different from the Recession. The structure of this economic disruption is also very different. So, maybe things work out better this time. But, I am on the Bearish side of things.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I read that post when it went up, and liked it a lot. One potential twist I would add: If the economy does what I expect it will do (tank, hard) the rate of unused and expired points will go up, possibly by a lot. Even if your lodging is already paid for, nothing else is, and while you can forgo park tickets, you still have to get there and you still have to eat. Even if you are making your own meals, you are doing it with a significantly reduced pantry, and there is cost friction there. And, that's assuming you can get time off of work--hard to do if you are in a new job and haven't vested vacation time or established your reputation in the office.

We saw that during the Great Recession, when availability in all forms was much easier to come by, RCI exchanges were plentiful, lots of points were offered for rent and they were chasing too few renters. This lasted for a good while. I don't know if the same thing will happen over the next year or two. We aren't hearing talk of austerity from governments right now, and that's very different from the Recession. The structure of this economic disruption is also very different. So, maybe things work out better this time. But, I am on the Bearish side of things.

Not to sound heartless, but from a purely analytical perspective this could address the availability concerns that many are citing due to an overabundance of points in the system. I don't wish that outcome on the country (or any individual), but it is a factor in resolving the "first world problem" of too many DVC points overloading the system. A recession could also lower the number of guests staying at resorts on the cash side, which could offer another solution of putting DVC members in otherwise empty non-DVC rooms.

Personally, I'd prefer to see everyone getting back to work and thriving, even if it means availability for a DVC room being more limited in the next few years.

 

[mgarbowski]

I'm responding here to one post as an example but trying conceptually to address multiple responses to me. To make discussion simpler I'm also going to pretend everyone has a January UY so this year is 2020 and next year is 2021. Obviously that is not accurate but trying to discuss this while accounting for all the different UYs is too complicated in ways that don't advance this discussion.

by returning the borrowed points back to where they came Disney created a situation where fewer points are chasing the room, if any, that will be available prior to expiration. this is a benefit to current use year owners and owners of banked points.
the converse, returning borrowed points back to where they came from would really infuriate those who banked.

How is the bolded text different from the italicized? If we're talking past each other -- and it really appears we are doing that -- this might be why, because to me those appear to be the exact same yet you say one is converse of the other. What am I missing?

So one fast point: by returning the borrowed points back to where they came Disney created a situation where fewer points are chasing the room,

I believe that is true this year, but not in the future. My posts were completely about the future. Returning borrowed points alleviates a room shortage in 2020 but makes it worse in 2021. Correct? If not, what am I missing? I thought I was clear but to recap, @StitchesGr8Fan suggested DVCM might suspend banking. DVCM would do that because more people than usual will bank this year and that will create a room shortage in 2021 and beyond. I responded that DVCM made the situation worse by returning borrowed points from 2020 to where they came from, which is effectively 2021. Pushing borrowed points to the future helps if the shut down is brief by alleviating pressure when they reopen this year. But if there is an extended closure returning borrowed points makes things clearly worse because it leaves even more points in the future chasing too few rooms.
_________________
One more attempt from another perspective. It seems several people think I am being completely missing their point while I think the opposite. One of us is wrong. I think we are talking past each other and want to figure out in good faith what one of us is missing. So let me try to be super clear:
The following groups of points are irrelevant to this immediate discussion:

• points that have expired or been used, including those that expired because the owner missed a banking deadline through no fault of their own
• points that were already banked from last year to this year (some people might want relief for these first two sets of points but that's not relevant to this)
• points from future years that have never been borrowed

The two sets of points that are relevant are:

1. points from this year that have not been used, banked or borrowed, but which owners will want to bank on a timely basis under current rules, and it has been suggested that DVCM might not allow this (Group 1)
2. points from next year that were borrowed into this year, and then sent back to next year by DVCM (Group 2)

Based on various people saying that borrowed points are from the future and seem to think that is rather important I think we might have 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the situation.
The people who say that believe (as best as I can guess and tell me if I'm wrong) that borrowed points (Group 2)inherently belong to the future and returning them restores the natural order in some way, while (Group 1) points banked from now to the future belong to now and letting them be banked is a privilege that can be fairly suspended regardless of standard rules.
My view is that once points are borrowed or banked their inherent nature changes, and (Group 2) borrowed points are not allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, while (Group 1) current use year points are inherently allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, and suspending either of those rules is likely to cause problems and inequity.

Another possibility is that those who expect the shutdown to be somewhat brief think the return of borrowed points to the future makes sense because the crunch will be in 2020, while those who expect a longer shut down think the opposite and the crunch will be in 2021, and neither have not really focused until now on how their different assumptions on the length of closure determine their view.

Does any of this help? Does it help people understand me better now, or, does it help you realize what I am missing so you can help me understand you? Because it really seems that we are talking past each other. If this doesn't help I think I'm out of the discussion, because it can't be fruitful. Someone is clearly missing something, and it might be me, but regardless of who is failing to grasp the point if neither side can help the other see what the other is missing it's just a recipe for frustration. I say this in all good cheer and hoping one of us can clarify for the other.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm responding here to one post as an example but trying conceptually to address multiple responses to me. To make discussion simpler I'm also going to pretend everyone has a January UY so this year is 2020 and next year is 2021. Obviously that is not accurate but trying to discuss this while accounting for all the different UYs is too complicated in ways that don't advance this discussion.


How is the bolded text different from the italicized? If we're talking past each other -- and it really appears we are doing that -- this might be why, because to me those appear to be the exact same yet you say one is converse of the other. What am I missing?

I believe that is true this year, but not in the future. My posts were completely about the future. Returning borrowed points alleviates a room shortage in 2020 but makes it worse in 2021. Correct? If not, what am I missing? I thought I was clear but to recap, @StitchesGr8Fan suggested DVCM might suspend banking. DVCM would do that because more people than usual will bank this year and that will create a room shortage in 2021 and beyond. I responded that DVCM made the situation worse by returning borrowed points from 2020 to where they came from, which is effectively 2021. Pushing borrowed points to the future helps if the shut down is brief by alleviating pressure when they reopen this year. But if there is an extended closure returning borrowed points makes things clearly worse because it leaves even more points in the future chasing too few rooms.
_________________
One more attempt from another perspective. It seems several people think I am being completely missing their point while I think the opposite. One of us is wrong. I think we are talking past each other and want to figure out in good faith what one of us is missing. So let me try to be super clear:
The following groups of points are irrelevant to this immediate discussion:

• points that have expired or been used, including those that expired because the owner missed a banking deadline through no fault of their own
• points that were already banked from last year to this year (some people might want relief for these first two sets of points but that's not relevant to this)
• points from future years that have never been borrowed

The two sets of points that are relevant are:

1. points from this year that have not been used, banked or borrowed, but which owners will want to bank on a timely basis under current rules, and it has been suggested that DVCM might not allow this (Group 1)
2. points from next year that were borrowed into this year, and then sent back to next year by DVCM (Group 2)

Based on various people saying that borrowed points are from the future and seem to think that is rather important I think we might have 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the situation.
The people who say that believe (as best as I can guess and tell me if I'm wrong) that borrowed points (Group 2)inherently belong to the future and returning them restores the natural order in some way, while (Group 1) points banked from now to the future belong to now and letting them be banked is a privilege that can be fairly suspended regardless of standard rules.
My view is that once points are borrowed or banked their inherent nature changes, and (Group 2) borrowed points are not allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, while (Group 1) current use year points are inherently allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, and suspending either of those rules is likely to cause problems and inequity.

Another possibility is that those who expect the shutdown to be somewhat brief think the return of borrowed points to the future makes sense because the crunch will be in 2020, while those who expect a longer shut down think the opposite and the crunch will be in 2021, and neither have not really focused until now on how their different assumptions on the length of closure determine their view.

Does any of this help? Does it help people understand me better now, or, does it help you realize what I am missing so you can help me understand you? Because it really seems that we are talking past each other. If this doesn't help I think I'm out of the discussion, because it can't be fruitful. Someone is clearly missing something, and it might be me, but regardless of who is failing to grasp the point if neither side can help the other see what the other is missing it's just a recipe for frustration. I say this in all good cheer and hoping one of us can clarify for the other.

Yes, returning borrowed points could impact next year, but leaving them, along with banked points and points beyond banking deadline guaranteed that 2020...using your example...would be overloaded.

I think that is why they had to at least attempt to spread them out a little, because if they can’t do anything for those expiring points, at least owners with those may have some choices..not guaranteed, but possible.

There is absolutely no way to not impact the system, both short and long term, So, DVCM had to do something right now to at least help with 2020. Granted, it may mean further actions in 2021, but that is why it’s not a simple process,

So, for those that don’t think it was fair...or that nothing should have been done, please help me to understand how leaving borrowed points in 2020 helps with the loss of inventory during 2020?

If

 

[DVC92]

I cancelled a May ressie before the park was shut down so I could bank points. I was able to make a new ressie which overlapped the end of July and August but still stand to lose 118 banked points for the July part. Unless the virus clears or there is a vaccine, I'll probably cancel this trip as well as a December trip. I would rather lose points than get the virus, particularly being in the higher risk age group. In fact, I currently may not return until next spring. The problem is that many people need to make decisions at different times, and unless one fully knows Disney's final plan, such decisions are difficult to make.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

This is a lot to write a response to so let me start by saying how much I appreciate the effort and thought you put into it. Thanks. You also made me see that the second phrase you quoted should have said 'banked' not 'borrowed'.

Recall that while borrowing brings future points into the present, banking takes past points and also brings them into the present. Exact and equal treatment of those present points will result in large and unequal treatment. One fix, returning all points back to the future or back to the past simply is not feasible.

The post you quoted was limited to the benefit owners of banked and current use year points get from the borrowed points being returned back to the future which does not destroy those future points. Returned the banked point destroys them and puts most of the burden on those owners. I am not one of them but I am not sure I find that fair with a better solution(s). what disney actually did is a better solution.

Talking past each other? The bolded text and the italicized text go in different directions and time frames. Bold means borrowed go back where they were. Borrowed go into the future where they are totally and completely fine whenever Disney opens. It also means banked points go back in time and in many/most cases vanish, so nothing is fine. They are gone.

Even as today I am not sure additional response by Disney, other than general comments are needed. For example Dave's now has a policy that seems to be pleasing most of the people commenting on it whereas a few days ago people were burning him in effigy.

Without speaking for others I suggest that to most people posting the most relevant thing is the status of their banked points and/or the points of the current use year being threaten. I disagree that this is irrelevant in any respect, it is the driving force. I also think fixing the room availability issue is easier in the long view than any immediate fix to the banked points.

At the risk of simplifying your opinion it seems you are saying that owners are where they due to voluntary action and should be stuck with that. I disagree. I understand it, get where the basis of it is but I don't that a result like that from something beyond the control and foresight of most of us (not all of us) impacts people so harshly when there are better alternatives. Your opinion may likely result. I can see that. But I think returning the points that were borrowed and opening up rooms for this summer is better for everyone and a great and positive first step. Yet i see but can not predict the next step. I don't expect Disney can either.

I'm responding here to one post as an example but trying conceptually to address multiple responses to me. To make discussion simpler I'm also going to pretend everyone has a January UY so this year is 2020 and next year is 2021. Obviously that is not accurate but trying to discuss this while accounting for all the different UYs is too complicated in ways that don't advance this discussion.


How is the bolded text different from the italicized? If we're talking past each other -- and it really appears we are doing that -- this might be why, because to me those appear to be the exact same yet you say one is converse of the other. What am I missing?

I believe that is true this year, but not in the future. My posts were completely about the future. Returning borrowed points alleviates a room shortage in 2020 but makes it worse in 2021. Correct? If not, what am I missing? I thought I was clear but to recap, @StitchesGr8Fan suggested DVCM might suspend banking. DVCM would do that because more people than usual will bank this year and that will create a room shortage in 2021 and beyond. I responded that DVCM made the situation worse by returning borrowed points from 2020 to where they came from, which is effectively 2021. Pushing borrowed points to the future helps if the shut down is brief by alleviating pressure when they reopen this year. But if there is an extended closure returning borrowed points makes things clearly worse because it leaves even more points in the future chasing too few rooms.
_________________
One more attempt from another perspective. It seems several people think I am being completely missing their point while I think the opposite. One of us is wrong. I think we are talking past each other and want to figure out in good faith what one of us is missing. So let me try to be super clear:
The following groups of points are irrelevant to this immediate discussion:

• points that have expired or been used, including those that expired because the owner missed a banking deadline through no fault of their own
• points that were already banked from last year to this year (some people might want relief for these first two sets of points but that's not relevant to this)
• points from future years that have never been borrowed

The two sets of points that are relevant are:

1. points from this year that have not been used, banked or borrowed, but which owners will want to bank on a timely basis under current rules, and it has been suggested that DVCM might not allow this (Group 1)
2. points from next year that were borrowed into this year, and then sent back to next year by DVCM (Group 2)

Based on various people saying that borrowed points are from the future and seem to think that is rather important I think we might have 2 fundamentally different ways of viewing the situation.
The people who say that believe (as best as I can guess and tell me if I'm wrong) that borrowed points (Group 2)inherently belong to the future and returning them restores the natural order in some way, while (Group 1) points banked from now to the future belong to now and letting them be banked is a privilege that can be fairly suspended regardless of standard rules.
My view is that once points are borrowed or banked their inherent nature changes, and (Group 2) borrowed points are not allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, while (Group 1) current use year points are inherently allowed to move to the future under pre-existing rules, and suspending either of those rules is likely to cause problems and inequity.

Another possibility is that those who expect the shutdown to be somewhat brief think the return of borrowed points to the future makes sense because the crunch will be in 2020, while those who expect a longer shut down think the opposite and the crunch will be in 2021, and neither have not really focused until now on how their different assumptions on the length of closure determine their view.

Does any of this help? Does it help people understand me better now, or, does it help you realize what I am missing so you can help me understand you? Because it really seems that we are talking past each other. If this doesn't help I think I'm out of the discussion, because it can't be fruitful. Someone is clearly missing something, and it might be me, but regardless of who is failing to grasp the point if neither side can help the other see what the other is missing it's just a recipe for frustration. I say this in all good cheer and hoping one of us can clarify for the other.

 

[dismedvc]

Another possibility is that those who expect the shutdown to be somewhat brief think the return of borrowed points to the future makes sense because the crunch will be in 2020, while those who expect a longer shut down think the opposite and the crunch will be in 2021, and neither have not really focused until now on how their different assumptions on the length of closure determine their view.

I think you have that correct. I had previously posted I thought DVCM "jumped the gun" and should not have made the decision to return borrowed points (especially those that would have expired during the shutdown). They should have waited until they knew how long the shutdown was going to last before making any changes to the rules. (Others pointed out at the time they made that decision they thought the resorts would reopen April 1st. That always seemed overly optimistic.)

@CanadaDisney05 put together a post that assumed the resorts would reopen on July 1st. After reading that post, I changed my mind and agreed that if that assumption turns out to be correct, and the resorts do open on July 1st, the decision to return borrowed points would be an overall benefit to the system by reducing short term demand. However, if the resorts stay closed for a longer period, the quick decision to return borrowed points may end up making the long term worse without helping the short term.

Below is a link to that discussion

Great analysis

 

[Sandisw]

I think you have that correct. I have previously posted I thought DVCM "jumped the gun" and should not have made the decision to return borrowed points (especially those that would have expired during the shutdown). They should have waited until they knew how long the shutdown was going to last before making any changes to the rules. (Others pointed out at the time they made that decision they thought the resorts would reopen April 1st. That always seemed like wishful thinking to me.)

@CanadaDisney05 put together a post that assumed the resorts would reopen on July 1st. After reading that post, I changed my mind (and agreed that if that assumption turns out to be correct, and the resorts do open on July 1st, the decision to return borrowed points would be an overall benefit to the system by reducing short term demand. However, if the resorts stay closed for a longer period, the quick decision to return borrowed points may end up making the long term worse without helping the short term.

Below is a link to that discussion

The thing to remember Is that if this lasts longer, DVCM can stop the rule of returning borrowed points,

So, if indeed we go beyond June or even July 1st, we could very well see that stopped.

 

[dismedvc]

The thing to remember Is that if this lasts longer, DVCM can stop the rule of returning borrowed points,

So, if indeed we go beyond June or even July 1st, we could very well see that stopped.

True, but points that were returned before it was stopped might impact future availability, because DVCM " jumped the gun"
Sorry for being repetitive, but I think some of people viewing these threads do not have the time to read the entire (now 13 page) thread.

 

[Sandisw]

True, but points that were returned before it was stopped might impact future availability, because DVCM " jumped the gun"
Sorry for being repetitive, but I think some of people viewing these threads do not have the time to read the entire (now 13 page) thread.

DVCM has to consider both short term and long term system goals.

Leaving them definitely overloads the system now. So will the extra banking that is going on too,

There is just no way to prevent future overloading. Sending them back helps this year. That by itself is a good thing for summer and fall/ winter rooms for those with banked points expiring from Aug UY and beyond.

 

[dismedvc]

There is just no way to prevent future overloading. Sending them back helps this year. That by itself is a good thing for summer and fall/ winter rooms for those with banked points expiring from Aug UY and beyond

Again, sorry to be repetitive, but when you said
"Sending them back helps this year. That by itself is a good thing for summer and fall/ winter rooms for those with banked points expiring from Aug UY and beyond"
That is only true if the resorts open this year.

While I understand why Disney/DVC is now in a position where their current stance is:
"Some Members may have questions about reservation cancellations involving Points that are set to expire soon. At this time, we are evaluating the banking and expiration policy and the use of certain Points impacted by the closures. As a part of our evaluation process, we need to be considerate of the impact any changes could have on future inventory availability for the Membership overall. A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."

It is obvious, at least to me, DVCM should have taken that same stance all along and not adjusted the rules on returning borrowed points.
With regard to borrowed points they should have used the same logic as they are using for evaluating the banking and expiration policy.
Specifically with regard to borrowed points they should have said: A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."

 

[Sandisw]

Again, sorry to be repetitive, but when you said
"Sending them back helps this year. That by itself is a good thing for summer and fall/ winter rooms for those with banked points expiring from Aug UY and beyond"
That is only true if the resorts open this year.

While I understand why Disney/DVC is now in a position where their current stance is:
"Some Members may have questions about reservation cancellations involving Points that are set to expire soon. At this time, we are evaluating the banking and expiration policy and the use of certain Points impacted by the closures. As a part of our evaluation process, we need to be considerate of the impact any changes could have on future inventory availability for the Membership overall. A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."

It is obvious, at least to me, DVCM should have taken that same stance all along and not adjusted the rules on returning borrowed points.
With regard to borrowed points they should have decided to use the same logic as they are using for the banking and expiring policy. Specifically: A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."

I get what you are saying, but the decision was made when there was a 2 week closure,

You simply can’t make a decision for long term effect based on what if it last longer,

When Florida did the 30 day stay at home, they kept it in place, because again, they made a decision based on the facts at hand,

For me, it makes no sense to ignore what is happening, and make a plan assuming you are closed for 6 months or more when nothing suggests that will be the case,

It is why they are not doing anything with the other points. They have to see if the system can absorb those as well,

Remember, we have no idea what percentage of points are borrowed each year, For all we know, they had the data to support moving borrowed points back for a 3 to 6 month closure and that any effect of that would be sustainable.

We are all speculating as to why they did what they did when they did, but I trust that the move that was made needed to be done to sustain the system in the best possible way.

 

[dismedvc]

I get what you are saying, but the decision was made when there was a 2 week closure,
You simply can’t make a decision for long term effect based on what if it last longer,

So do you think it was correct that they felt they had to make a knee jerk reaction at the beginning of those two weeks?

To me it seems irresponsible they did not wait at least two weeks to make a decision, after which they would have known for sure whether or not the closure would only be for two weeks, or whether it would be longer.

I am a big fan of Disney/DVC, but in this case I think they "blew it" by "jumping the gun"

 

[Jelly563]

If we own, why don't we get revenue share?

 

[CanadaDisney05]

If we own, why don't we get revenue share?

We do.... When there is extra capacity at the 60 day window, DVC is allowed to rent those rooms for cash stays to the general public. There is a formula that we agreed to in our contract that determines how much of that goes back to the membership (which we see as a credit in our dues). From what I understand, there is a built in cap to this number and it gets hit every year.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

There is a mistake in the reasoning here and not just with the assumption that Disney made a knee jerk decision. It is extremely unlikely it was a hasty or uniformed decision. It was based on real world numbers with actual point use and total knowledge of the borrow/banked point actually in play. It was made by smart, honest, trained and dedicated professionals. You don't have to agree but you should not insult or attempt to minimize what they do.

Assume your idea, that no rule change was made. Disney does not open this year. What happens?
Is this a DVC problem at that point?
At the current rate of spread C19 has infected everyone. Millions and Millions are dead. The economy is totally destroyed. It would be highly likely Disney is gone as it exists today. The billions in equity are destroyed.

I am not sure I see any value in even discussing such a situation.

If Disney opens Sept 1, 2020 What happens if Disney had avoided any rule changes?

Again, sorry to be repetitive, but when you said
"Sending them back helps this year. That by itself is a good thing for summer and fall/ winter rooms for those with banked points expiring from Aug UY and beyond"
That is only true if the resorts open this year.

While I understand why Disney/DVC is now in a position where their current stance is:
"Some Members may have questions about reservation cancellations involving Points that are set to expire soon. At this time, we are evaluating the banking and expiration policy and the use of certain Points impacted by the closures. As a part of our evaluation process, we need to be considerate of the impact any changes could have on future inventory availability for the Membership overall. A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."

It is obvious, at least to me, DVCM should have taken that same stance all along and not adjusted the rules on returning borrowed points.
With regard to borrowed points they should have used the same logic as they are using for evaluating the banking and expiration policy.
Specifically with regard to borrowed points they should have said: A decision will be made when we better understand how long COVID-19 will impact our operations."