Why not to buy into Poly 1 but maybe Poly 2 / Those Darn Bungalows !!!!

[Sandisw]

I would suspect people don't book Poly out 100% within the 11-7 month window not because they want cheaper rooms but because they want larger room sizes. And what @Sandisw was referencing was that if they rebalanced (which I maintain they can't) points between studios and bungalows they would need to do so by increasing the points per night by roughly 4 points across the board, not that the rooms are 25% more expensive right now because DVC hasn't transferred points between room types, they tried but they failed.

It would also only increase the points per night roughly about 18% not 25% if they transferred those 4 points per night per room onto the studios.

Edit: When DVC tried to rebalance the points across room type they tried to use the 7 month booking window as an argument. Unfortunately, the POS only referenced balancing within a home resort. And the multi-site POS doesn't really say anything about demand rebalancing, except that they could potentially claim points aren't 1-1 when transferring between resorts but I think that can only happen when introducing a new resort not after the fact. It's been a few years when reviewing those documents.

BVTC follows different rules for trading and there is info in there about demand balancing.

So, they have the ability to do things that don’t apply to home resort points balancing.

For example, home resort point charts have to be point neutral but from what I understand thst is not required for those who trade into a resort.

They can also charge fees, change the booking windows, etc. based on resort. It doesn’t have to stay the same for each one.

If VGF, for example was hard to get into, they could have a non home resort point chart that makes trading in more than 1:1 for non home points.

They never have..but language is there to support that.

 

[Sandisw]

Not sure I follow this. If the studios are more expensive to book by 25%, and then you're saying there is plenty of availability at 11 months (maybe even at 7), doesn't that mean that there has been an impact on demand? Those owners are not booking at PVB but rather elsewhere at 7 months. When something is cheap to book, like AKV Value or Standard views at some resorts, those owners do have trouble booking even at 11 months.

It was in response to how the bungalows added so many points to PVB that it causes issues.

But, had they wanted to sell the same points but didnt attach as many to bungalows and more to studios, we’d only see about a 4 point njght average raise.

That doesnot scream crazy to me. Of course, had they not built the bungalows at all and sold only 3 million vs 4 million that’s different.

But those extra 1 million points are not preventing owners from booking home resort and my guess is because some owners don’t want studios and don’t book until 7 months because they are trading out to other places for them, which I suspect DVD realized when they decided things for PVB.

Now, where I think there is an impact is CCV for studios which are in high demand and lots of points floating around from cabins. for those

 

[crvetter]

BVTC follows different rules for trading and there is info in there about demand balancing.

So, they have the ability to do things that don’t apply to home resort points balancing.

For example, home resort point charts have to be point neutral but from what I understand thst is not required for those who trade into a resort.

They can also charge fees, change the booking windows, etc. based on resort. It doesn’t have to stay the same for each one.

If VGF, for example was hard to get into, they could have a non home resort point chart that makes trading in more than 1:1 for non home points.

They never have..but language is there to support that.

I thought the language might have been in their reducing the point trade from 1 to 1. I couldn't remember. But what I did remember was them wanting to rebalance the home resort points because of trading occurring at 7 months, which I thought was bogus and unallowed.

 

[crvetter]

It was in response to how the bungalows added so many points to PVB that it causes issues.

But, had they wanted to sell the same points but didnt attach as many to bungalows and more to studios, we’d only see about a 4 point njght average raise.

That doesnot scream crazy to me. Of course, had they not built the bungalows at all and sold only 3 million vs 4 million that’s different.

But those extra 1 million points are not preventing owners from booking home resort and my guess is because some owners don’t want studios and don’t book until 7 months because they are trading out to other places for them, which I suspect DVD realized when they decided things for PVB.

Now, where I think there is an impact is CCV for studios which are in high demand and lots of points floating around from cabins. for those

Maybe I'll do a similar analysis at CCV for their room types. I'm actually kind of curious here because the cabins seem more popular in the 7 month window and are cheaper. But like you said the studios do get shut out there within the 11-7 month window. Though booking for this fall the rooms were the easiest to get ever when the 11 month window opened up, I didn't see super prevalent walking and well after 8 AM were rooms available at 11 months (consecutively too) which is not the norm there.

I think CCV had the bad privilege of a lot of excess points people were using through banking/borrowing when first purchased then 2 years later COVID happened which exacerbated the glut of points more. So maybe we will now see an ease of booking there in the 11-7 month window.=

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe I'll do a similar analysis at CCV for their room types. I'm actually kind of curious here because the cabins seem more popular in the 7 month window and are cheaper. But like you said the studios do get shut out there within the 11-7 month window. Though booking for this fall the rooms were the easiest to get ever when the 11 month window opened up, I didn't see super prevalent walking and well after 8 AM were rooms available at 11 months (consecutively too) which is not the norm there.

I think CCV had the bad privilege of a lot of excess points people were using through banking/borrowing when first purchased then 2 years later COVID happened which exacerbated the glut of points more. So maybe we will now see an ease of booking there in the 11-7 month window.=

Honestly, at CCV I think it’s a matter of too few studios. I think any analysis would be looking at all the rooms combined to see how it shakes about, especially since they only sleep 4 until the 2 bedrooms.

That would give you an idea of overall impact I would think. I agree the cabins book up faster than bungalows though.

I still believe that regardless of the addition of both, each resort still have space for owners to book home resort most of the time in something other than the bungalows or cabins.

 

[Sandisw]

I thought the language might have been in their reducing the point trade from 1 to 1. I couldn't remember. But what I did remember was them wanting to rebalance the home resort points because of trading occurring at 7 months, which I thought was bogus and unallowed.

My guess is that because they have always used the same charts for both home resort and trading they took liberty with the interpretation of how they work together.

And, I can see how one might be able yo support that in demand balancing between the two.

So I won’t say it was down right bogus but rather using the clauses to support their interpretation. But, when challenged decided it was t worth the fight.

 

[Yankee626]

Honestly, at CCV I think it’s a matter of too few studios. I think any analysis would be looking at all the rooms combined to see how it shakes about, especially since they only sleep 4 until the 2 bedrooms.

That would give you an idea of overall impact I would think. I agree the cabins book up faster than bungalows though.

I still believe that regardless of the addition of both, each resort still have space for owners to book home resort most of the time in something other than the bungalows or cabins.

I knew there would be a problem with booking studios at CCV when I purchased there. This is why I got a Guaranteed week for Thanksgiving week. Of course then Disney took That week off the Sorcerer pass. Now I have to change it every year to the week before and contend with the 11 Month walkers. So far I've been able to work it out.

 

[crvetter]

I knew there would be a problem with booking studios at CCV when I purchased there. This is why I got a Guaranteed week for Thanksgiving week. Of course then Disney took That week off the Sorcerer pass. Now I have to change it every year to the week before and contend with the 11 Month walkers. So far I've been able to work it out.

Also a guaranteed week for thanksgiving week at CCV is cheaper 6 (week 47) out of 7 years for booking vs booking the week directly. Because when they opened CCV Thanksgiving week happened to be a different week number than usual so the opening point chart had the 6 out of 7 years costing 118 points (with the premium) but thanksgiving week costs more than 118 points.

 

[Yankee626]

Also a guaranteed week for thanksgiving week at CCV is cheaper 6 (week 47) out of 7 years for booking vs booking the week directly. Because when they opened CCV Thanksgiving week happened to be a different week number than usual so the opening point chart had the 6 out of 7 years costing 118 points (with the premium) but thanksgiving week costs more than 118 points.

Yeah its like 132 now

 

[RoseGold]

There are approximately 4 million total points sold at the Poly resort and 1.1 million of them are alocated for the Bungalows. Over 25% of the points sold were for the bungalows. Of course it moves the thread.

If bungalows became 50 points, it would be 3-4 points more on studios, which isn't a huge deal IMO. I bet Poly1 owners would be THRILLED with that actually, because a bungalow for 50 points is a screaming steal, and they would be stalked and walked.

Let's see your math if you think this is somehow terrible for the studios.

 

[Yankee626]

If bungalows became 50 points, it would be 3-4 points more on studios, which isn't a huge deal IMO. I bet Poly1 owners would be THRILLED with that actually, because a bungalow for 50 points is a screaming steal, and they would be stalked and walked.

Let's see your math if you think this is somehow terrible for the studios.

If this was done I believe Poly owners would love it. Bungalows would be booked at 11 months out. The value of the Poly resale contracts would definitely go way up.

 

[sethschroeder]

They tried the point transfer once, people like myself and @zavandor (I believe the number of us was 24) fought with DVC on the legality of that based on language in the contract. We won because DVC back pedaled the reallocation of points between unit types and hasn't attempted to do so again, which suggests to me we were right.

Verify for me though you are talking about 1BR lockoff correct? Which is a point premium and essentially creating points to rent out of no where. That absolutely can not be done.

DVC has already moved points at SSR to the treehouse without issue historically.

Will they do it no clue but has the outright shift of points actually been tried?

 

[crvetter]

Verify for me though you are talking about 1BR lockoff correct? Which is a point premium and essentially creating points to rent out of no where. That absolutely can not be done.

DVC has already moved points at SSR to the treehouse without issue historically.

Will they do it no clue but has the outright shift of points actually been tried?

So the point charts did two things the lock off premium and moved points between units. They tried both and you can’t create a lock off premium without shifting points between units.

As it stands currently one reason I suspect the system as a whole does fine is that booking a studio and 1 bedroom is more money than the 2 bedroom lockoff, which is what is used to determine the points in the system. This causes more point burning since we can all safely assume most lockoffs are split. I’ll do quick calcs on Riviera and follow-up but I think that might burn like 5-10%

The issue was they increased this even more in those charts, but my main concern wasn’t that and I never argued that with DVC given it already exists in the point charts. I argued they couldn’t move points between unit types.

As for the treehouse I don’t have any of the documentation for how that happened and what exactly occurred there. Perhaps with push back then it wouldn’t have gone through. Or maybe something different happened, I thought the issue with SSR was something to do with when adding the treehouses they removed from the studios. Which most looked favorably, and no one could complain about the treehouses since it was a new unit type. So I think given that it’s uniquely different than what they tried that year.

If interested there is the thread on it where everyone involved some pro point charts and against them.

 

[Sandisw]

So the point charts did two things the lock off premium and moved points between units. They tried both and you can’t create a lock off premium without shifting points between units.

As it stands currently one reason I suspect the system as a whole does fine is that booking a studio and 1 bedroom is more money than the 2 bedroom lockoff, which is what is used to determine the points in the system. This causes more point burning since we can all safely assume most lockoffs are split. I’ll do quick calcs on Riviera and follow-up but I think that might burn like 5-10%

The issue was they increased this even more in those charts, but my main concern wasn’t that and I never argued that with DVC given it already exists in the point charts. I argued they couldn’t move points between unit types.

As for the treehouse I don’t have any of the documentation for how that happened and what exactly occurred there. Perhaps with push back then it wouldn’t have gone through. Or maybe something different happened, I thought the issue with SSR was something to do with when adding the treehouses they removed from the studios. Which most looked favorably, and no one could complain about the treehouses since it was a new unit type. So I think given that it’s uniquely different than what they tried that year.

If interested there is the thread on it where everyone involved some pro point charts and against them.

Just foe those new, there is a different between room type and units. Many units at resorts have multiple rooms in those units…so, that adds another layer to how things can play out.

I have to admit that I don’t have enough support one way or the other to know if points balancing for use can be done by resort is legal or not…nothing I have found is that detailed..most relates to sale and that those must stay the same.

But, since the points for sale are based on 2 bedroom figures, those lock off premiums are indeed part of it from the start, but what i do believe can’t be done..which was a big piece of 2020 IIRC is that the premium was increased with no adjust ent elsewhere.

 

[crvetter]

But, since the points for sale are based on 2 bedroom figures, those lock off premiums are indeed part of it from the start, but what i do believe can’t be done..which was a big piece of 2020 IIRC is that the premium was increased with no adjust ent elsewhere

This is true for resorts with dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms if you follow my argument that points can’t be moved between room types. Places like BLT and VGC and more don’t have dedicated studios and the POS has a provision in there that seems to indicate they could because there is no provision that defines the equalizing of the season. It might actually explicitly state they can but I’d have to refind a BLT POS. I kind of recall this being something brought up in the thread with links to that language.

Just foe those new, there is a different between room type and units. Many units at resorts have multiple rooms in those units…so, that adds another layer to how things can play out.

I will also add that the POS uses the term unit to refer to the declared unit (which you refer to here) and uses unit in other places to refer to an actual enclosed defined room. It’s one of the things I highlighted to DVC on my calls that made it murkier.

Edit: I was correct the lockoff premium at resorts without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms can increase year over year by no more than 20% and require no offset in the point charts. They never tried it before except that one time but the POS for those types of resorts explicitly allow it.

It states the lock-off premium can be increased but IS restricted to no more than 20% in a given year. There is no statement included with that notice of the lock off premium in the POS that it needs to have a corresponding decrease anywhere. The previously proposed 2020 point charts followed that - increased the "lock-off" premium with no corresponding decrease.

 

[sethschroeder]

So the point charts did two things the lock off premium and moved points between units. They tried both and you can’t create a lock off premium without shifting points between units.

Except the point is they created points in total at the resort.

They already moved points between units with the Treehouse from how I understand it all broke down.

So I don't agree that because they revoked the lock-off premium change it means they can't move points around. Now they might not but thats not why I see them walking back the changes previous.

The issue was they increased this even more in those charts, but my main concern wasn’t that and I never argued that with DVC given it already exists in the point charts. I argued they couldn’t move points between unit types.

What you argued doesn't equate to why DVC made any change. The point creation is the primary issue with all the changes they have done.

As pointed out Treehouses had points moved and they kept that change.

Every reversal by DVC has had a single underlying thread. Total points for the resort increased.

Perhaps with push back then it wouldn’t have gone through.

It did go through and there was essentially no issue with it. Hence there is now standing that moving points is not detrimental as long as total points remain consistent as a whole (not creating points).

So not saying they can but saying nothing done previously has any ability of restricting the possible change.

 

[crvetter]

Except the point is they created points in total at the resort.

Not an issue the POS for VGF, VGC, BLT, and those without dedicated studios/1 bedrooms explicitly state they can do this. They didn't create points but my opinions on this are well documented in the threads. I hypothesize that they can't do this because they traded between unit types. Just because they did it once (albeit under different circumstances of taking points away and placing into new units) doesn't mean what they did was allowed.

Every reversal by DVC has had a single underlying thread. Total points for the resort increased.

It didn't the total points did not increase if you booked lockoffs as 2 bedrooms, which is what they claimed allowed it. It never created excess points in that case. Sure if you book lockoffs as 2 units there is more points required to book, but that has always been the case.

Question did you call and speak to DVC executives on this? I was on the call with the some directors and they really pushed hard back on the lockoff premium quoting the POS does allow this at resorts without dedicated unit. In my arguments with Yvonne I didn't bother with the lockoff premium myself given I logically don't see the issue "making points" when booking lockoffs as 2 bedrooms still cost the same number of points. Was it crappy yes, was it allowed probably. I just think moving points between already declared inventory isn't. However, they did acknowledge the issue with moving points between room types.

Edit: We don't have to agree here and seems unlikely we do. But no matter what my effort along with the "other members of the 24" seem to have made them reverse their decision. Ultimately, we may not know what did it but I'll still maintain my opinion that the lockoff premium didn't increase points given their only mandate for total points counts booking lockoffs as 2 bedrooms and that always evened out.

 

[Sandisw]

This is true for resorts with dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms if you follow my argument that points can’t be moved between room types. Places like BLT and VGC and more don’t have dedicated studios and the POS has a provision in there that seems to indicate they could because there is no provision that defines the equalizing of the season. It might actually explicitly state they can but I’d have to refind a BLT POS. I kind of recall this being something brought up in the thread with links to that language.

I will also add that the POS uses the term unit to refer to the declared unit (which you refer to here) and uses unit in other places to refer to an actual enclosed defined room. It’s one of the things I highlighted to DVC on my calls that made it murkier.

Edit: I was correct the lockoff premium at resorts without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms can increase year over year by no more than 20% and require no offset in the point charts. They never tried it before except that one time but the POS for those types of resorts explicitly allow it.

The POS also includes the definition of a vacation home as one set spot that can be reserved so I do believe that helps to differentiate between unit being declared units vs just rooms.

It is still not 100% clear for me how points can be moved based on demand for use as nothing seems to define that. Just for sale.

But, I think we can all agree that DVC does sometimes tries to capitalize on vague language and May back down if challenged if they are not 100% convinced to be correct.

Which is why I think we have seen some of the decisions reversed when asked to justify.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

As for the treehouse I don’t have any of the documentation for how that happened and what exactly occurred there. Perhaps with push back then it wouldn’t have gone through. Or maybe something different happened, I thought the issue with SSR was something to do with when adding the treehouses they removed from the studios. Which most looked favorably, and no one could complain about the treehouses since it was a new unit type. So I think given that it’s uniquely different than what they tried that year.

The treehouses had exactly the same point charts as the 2BRs when they launched in 2009.

In 2013, they took points from every other room type, including all configurations of a lockoff and GVs, and gave them to treehouses.

In 2017, they took points from 10 of the buildings and gave them to the other 7, creating standard and preferred views.

None of these changes inspired any meaningful pushback that I can find. I think SSR owners generally liked them.

 

[sethschroeder]

But no matter what my effort along with the "other members of the 24" seem to have made them reverse their decision.

I have discussed at length with DVC as well previously and talked directly with the team that creates the point charts. The point specifically outlined by myself is total points can not go up.

In the end it could be your point or not. I dont directly know either way I was just trying to say that past action doesn't mean its "safe" so to speak since that wasn't for sure the reason for the reversal especially based on what you are saying being something DVC has done actually and kept.