Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[Dean]

Thanks Chuck - interesting I always thought absolute # of points was a fixed number and it was originally calculated when the resort was opened and assumed full availability of all the rooms. And that number was fixed and could not change

No I agree with you 100%. But in my example I am showing the case where 100% of 2 bedrooms are booked before any other rooms. Then I am showing if all the lock-offs get broken because studios get rented first. I am just surprised I see YoY change assuming full availability in both scenarios YoY.

It is based on no lockoff's being separate and there is an unsold portion, min 2%. As I read the POS the changes in the lockoff smaller portions have minimal to any protection.

Why, please? Curious re your line of thinking on this.

To me, rebalancing should only occur if there is a pattern of unbooked nights - to minimize breakage. Why/How does it matter to the system as a whole if some villas / some dates book faster than others?

We'll have to disagree on the aspect of being booked eventually means even demand, IMO it doesn't. A significant % of those ultimate later bookings are for something that wasn't near the first choice whether it be a 1 BR when they wanted a studio or Nov when they wanted Dec. But they certainly don't want to micromanage it either. That's no different than saying that the concierge and AKV value have the same demand as the a 2 BR standard at AKV or the same demand between VGF and OKW or SSR since they are all ultimately booked up.

As I said, I may be mis-interpreting but this is how I keep reading it:

It references the Member company controlling bookings for Home Resort points (and booking in the home priority window).

Then it references Home Resort Points being converted to DVC points "to book non-home resort DVC resorts" and that it is under the BVTC.

And there is reference to Reservation points later for booking other exchanges.

First mention of DVC Point and BVTC supervision:

View attachment 372538

And a later reference about point requirements:

View attachment 372539

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you're asking. Reallocations are done resort by resort but they utilize the information across all resorts that are similar. What some don't understand is we don't own DVC, we own specific resorts with an internal exchange option. If you're asking what I think you are, I think that may be whats this is referencing.

 

[Dean]

Okay, I know that all the following message is going to be rather 'inflammatory' but I don't know any other way to put it.

Disney does own a small percentage of each resort. Often around 2.5%. Now, in the following example, my figures (and my understanding might be wrong), are as follows. It seems to me that: At Polynesian, if there are 4 million points and if each of those points sells for $200 (approximate) then $200 X 2.5 X 4,000,000 = $20,000,000 in value that Disney owns, just at Polynesian. So, of the 4 million points, Disney owns about 90,000 of them, and if they rented them out, and if each point is worth $16 per rental, then every year, Disney would get 90,000 X $16 = $1.44 million per year. Doesn't sound like too much, really. Who would begrudge Disney that. But, Disney also gets 'Breakage.' Breakage is when people have not reserved their points and it is now within 60 days of the the reservation day. In other words, if a Studio, 1-Bedroom or 2-Bedroom unit isn't rented out by 60 days before the Check-In date, then, as I understand it, Disney has the right to grab those points, from that unit, and rent the unit out. Let's say there are 10 Polynesian Bungalows, that don't rent out and it is now 60 days before the check in date (actual number is almost certainly lower than this, but there probably are almost always SOME Polynesian Bungalows that don't rent out, at 60 days before check-in. In fact, at the time I am writing this, there are not only Polynesian Bungalows available at 60 days out, but there seem to be a significant number that are available at 30 days out. In fact there are a number of Bungalows available at 23 days out and beyond. If you assume that there is breakage and that Disney gets most of the points for that, and that Disney WILL rent them out, as illustrated by the fact that there currently are no Bungalows available to Reserve, until you get to 23 days out, then you have to assume that Disney is consistently making a good amount of 'Extra' money from breakage.) At 125 points per night, per Bungalow (approximate average) then that gives Disney 125 X 10 = 1250 points and at $16 a point, Disney earns $20,000. $20,000 x 365 days per year would be $7.3 million dollars. And of that, from ALL the breakage, per year, Disney must return A MAXIMUM of 2.5% back to the DVC owner's association. So, 0.025 (2.5%) X $7.3 million means that Disney will be returning a MAXIMUM of $182,000 to us, and will be keeping $7,117,500 for themselves. What a Deal, for THEM. So, why am I talking about Polynesian Bungalows? Because it is another example of a time that Disney did something for their own benefit, so they could SKIM the points off DVC owners. AND, it illustrates how much Disney makes off points.

Now, let's look at the '2-Bedroom Lock-Off Premium' which is what Disney gets if a 2-Bedroom Lockoff is split into a single studio and a single 1-Bedroom.

Here is the number of Standard 2-Bedrooms and Lock-Offs at each resort (except Poly, since I already talked about that as a separate case).

Resort: Dedicated 2 BR - Lockoff 2 BR

Old Key West 274 - 230
Boardwalk Villas 0 - 149
Boulder Ridge Villas at Wilderness Lodge 44 - 45
Beach Club Villas 78 - 74
Saratoga Springs 360 - 432
Animal Kingdom Villas – Jambo House 0 - 82
Animal Kingdom Villas – Kidani Village 140 - 168
Bay Lake Tower 148 - 133
Villas at Grand Floridian 47 - 47
Copper Creek Villas at Wilderness Lodge 56 - 36

In 2020, the Point Cost of a Studio PLUS a 1 Bedroom will be approximately 10 more points per night (about 5 points each for the Studio and 1-Bedroom), than the cost of a 2-Bedroom or a 2-Bedroom Lock-Off. THIS IS THE LOCK-OFF PREMIUM. Now, let's assume that when people reserve 2-Bedroom units, that ALL of the regular 2-bedroom units are reserved. The people that use them will get them at a 10 point per night discount, because of the Lock-Off premium. (This is no skin off Disney's nose, since it just balances the rise that they already made in the point cost of the Studios and 1-bedrooms.) But, of the 2-Bedroom Lock-Offs, let's assume that DVC members reserve half of the Lock-Offs as 2-Bedrooms and half as a separate Studio and a separate 1-bedroom. If they do that, then in each case where they ‘split’, they will create a 10 point windfall, per unit per night, for Disney. So, how much would this be? At 1/2 of them splitting, that would be about 115 lock-offs at OKW. 75 at BWV. 23 at Boulder Ridge. 38 at Breach Club. 216 at SSR. 42 at Jambo and 84 at Kidani. 66 at BLT. 24 at Grand Floridian and 18 at Copper Creek. If you add this up, then 115 + 75 + 23 + 38 + 216 + 42 +84 +66 +24 +18 = 700 units per night that 'split.' And this creates 7000 points for Disney, which, if they are worth $16 a point is $112,000 per night and X 365 = $40,880,000 more, per year, for Disney, that comes DIRECTLY from the ownership and points of the DVC members. Not a bad chunk of change. And this is ALL from the 'Lock-Off Premium' which they have created and have now increased. (Keep in mind WHO pays that Lock-off Premium? It is US! So $40 million from US, the DVC Owners.)

And, yeah, sure, they are supposed to pay a MAXIMUM of 2.5% back to the DVC Owners, which would be $1,022,000, BUT, we won't even get that, because, I BELIEVE THE AMOUNT THAT DISNEY MUST RETURN TO US IS CAPPED. And I believe the cap is somewhere around $150,000 per resort, per year. (I don't really remember the real figure), so, in actuality, we would be getting NONE of it back.

Now, don't you think Disney did this as a VERY self-serving move? I agree that my figures are suppositions and estimates. ONLY DISNEY knows for sure. But I really feel that they are probably in the general Ballpark. Disney will be earning $40,000,000 for EXTRA POINTS that it sucks out of the pockets of the DVC owners. For shame!

Specific to your post, the 2% min they own is slated to maintenance. They may own other points also that are ROFR or unsold points and they will have points traded in for cash type options like DCL. Any rentals out of this group will be theirs now outside breakage. In addition any breakage inventory is also subject to rental and they’ll get anything above the cutoff there in terms of dollars and that’s where they are currently. So the only issues on the table in this regard include the intent for the change and how much actual dollars ends up in their pocket compared to now. I know some believe it’s nefarious, I can’t believe that and I’ve dealt with DVC over the years including corporate directly. Here’s an example, historically (not sure where they are now) they would purposefully hold back on booking points that were traded in for cash options. Had they booked them earlier they could have secured options that would have returned a better $$ yield to them and also allowed them to reduce the points costs of the cash type exchange options (used as bait for sales) since that is a zero sum scenario (after CRO gets their cut). There iss no requirement for them to do so, they could take rooms at 11 months out minute one to get the best options. To me it doesn’t matter so much if it generates more rental $$$ but rather the thinking/intent behind the change. But it’s possible the intent could be appropriate AND it yields more breakage inventory and $$$, that isn’t a deal breaker to me.

One point is that DVC doesn’t take the points for breakage, only the underlying unit. IF the goal were to get more breakage inventory, they could and should have increased the breakage to 90 days. Your post of availability at Poly would support the need to raise studios and lower the 2 BR. Not having lockoff’s at Poly make’s this a cleaner discussion for breakage but but also avoids much of the core issue of the question at hand. For the Poly this almost certainly means they will have less breakage, not more as some will book the bungalows that would not have otherwise. It really doesn’t take much of a swing to be a big help there. I still think Poly was a mistake in how it was done but that’s another thread we’ve done a few times. For resorts heavy on lockoff’s we truly don’t know where that will fall.

Let’s remember they own the 2% or more so as long as the appropriate maintenance gets done, they are entitled to the income on the rest and they are entitled to the income generated on points traded for the Disney Collection, Concierge Collection, etc. This would not count or be included in the breakage numbers either technically or ethically. So ultimately we’re only talking the difference on the breakage that’s above the points they own. So if you assume they get 1% above the amount that offsets dues and only 1% is needed to satisfy maintenance and other requirements for flexibility of the system (like the 1 night compensation mentioned at 12 months out) then it’s a wash from the members standpoint currently. For Poly they’ll likely have less breakage not more, I suspect alterations in booking patterns will ultimately yield roughly the same answer for those with L/O but it may take a couple of years to even out.

Specific to the L/O situation later in your post. There are lots of assumptions but technically speaking this has always been the case and to have a L/O premium is appropriate but even if one doesn’t feel it isn’t, it was in place at these resorts when they bought. So if the principle was a deal breaker, they should not have bought in, after that we’re just haggling over price (bad joke comes to mind). So the CHANGE makes us look at certain variable much of which we don’t currently have all the parameters for so we have to talk more in the hypothetical. The comparison would be the recent/current % of lockoff’s reserved as 2 BR vs smaller unit and, true breakage income above the limit that goes to DVCMC (really actually above what they already own plus that credited to dues) compared to the same info afterwards. I think it’s an absolute that some will book a 2 BR now where they might have booked a 1 BR before, often they should have before but didn’t, but we don’t know how much of a difference it’ll be. Every 2 BR lockoff booked now that would have been booked as a smaller unit credits points back to the system if those points are less after the reallocation (many are) and it takes both a studio and 1 BR out of the system. That makes the actually potential income across resorts that is created because of this change likely to be extremely small and may actually decrease it.


Also you have to consider that at times they are not renting those rooms to return $16 a point after housekeeping daily, CRO take and applicable discounts not to mention they are eating the rooms not rented. I think the cap is the 2.5% only, not a $$$ amount.


So no, your post doesn’t even convince me they’ll have more $$$ much less this was the motive behind it.

 

[skier_pete]

A lawsuit may eventually be the only solution but I suggest that the immediate activity should be for those who are opposed to what DVC has done to write a letter to the new Senior VP similar to the one I did, portions of which are posted in another thread, see https://www.disboards.com/threads/2020-point-charts.3725229/page-23. Communicating with MS via phone or email is most likely going to get little but canned answers that address none of the real questions and concerns. That is partially because the people who receive those calls or emails have nothing to do with determining the point charts. If we get a lot of letters to the Senior VP we will at least get the attention of those who are responsible for making and approving the charts and make it known that many are concerned.

Can someone maybe pin the information on the address / person we should write to in one of the first posts on this thread? It seems to me the most effective plan is to have everyone write to the SAME person at the SAME address. One or two letters won't make a dent. Dozens possibly, hundreds maybe. I found @drusba letter in this link - but can't find where to send a letter. (I would also suggest we not all send duplicates of the same letter - we should all be writing what our specific concerns are, and hopefully they overlap enough.)

Okay, I know that all the following message is going to be rather 'inflammatory' but I don't know any other way to put it.

Now, don't you think Disney did this as a VERY self-serving move? I agree that my figures are suppositions and estimates. ONLY DISNEY knows for sure. But I really feel that they are probably in the general Ballpark. Disney will be earning $40,000,000 for EXTRA POINTS that it sucks out of the pockets of the DVC owners. For shame!

I cut most of your post out @Frederic Civish - but just wanted to do more than like, and say that this is so spot on. The only thing I would say is you are being conservative in saying half of lock-offs go to studios and one-bedrooms. The number is impossible to predict but CLEARLY much higher. Thinking about resorts like VGF, SSR or BLT that have ONLY lock-off 2-beds and regular 2-beds - and the fact that studios run out BEFORE 2-beds, this means that likely near 100% of the lockoffs are going as studios/1-beds. A resort like Boardwalk, where all the 2-beds are lock-offs and theres a lot of dedicated studios probably has a much lower percentage of rooms getting the lock-out premium, but the fact is there are a lot more places like VGF that have mostly lock-offs and few dedicated rooms.

So here is my question then. Why change the points at BWV at all? The entire resort is always booked up regardless of season or room category, nothing is ever sitting empty there. The main category that went down was 2 bedrooms, but all 2 bedrooms at BWV are lock-offs, so there are never any 2 bedrooms at BWV sitting empty because they cost too much, they are all going to be booked up as studios and 1 bedrooms at the very least. So why make them cheaper?

It is very clear to me that the only thing that should of happened at BWV is that some of the weeks should of been switched to different seasons to reflect the actual real demand of members.

Right now every single BWV owner that wants a studio is going to have to pay more points except in Adventure Season Preferred view which stays the same. Similarly for the 1 bedrooms every season is going up except for Preferred view in Dream & Magic (down 2%)

Why change it @DougEMG at BWV. So BWV has 97 dedicated studios, 130 dedicated one-bedrooms, and 149 2-bed lock-offs. (We'll ignore GV for now.)

So the resort can either be booked at
Scenario A: 97 studios - 130 1-beds, 149 2-beds
OR
Scenario B: 246 studios - 279 1-beds, 0 2-beds
OR
Scenario C: anywhere in between (the most realistic scenario) though impossible to know on any given day where they fall. However, we DO know (from observing the booking tool) that when all the studios are gone, the 2-beds are gone - so it's not like DVC keeps some lock-offs for only 2-bed use.

Because there are in fact dedicated studios at this resort, it limits how much of a lock-off premium, but they still adjusted it.
Let's pick a random week during the middle season - DREAM season, and I'm going to use the pool/boardwalk rates to simplify the calculations, since only 20% of the resort is at the lower standard rate.
So 2019, Dream season, for one week, 125 for a studio, 255 1-bedroom, 313 for a lock-off. (lock-off premium is 67 points)
Scenario A: Takes 91912 points to book the entire week
Scenario B: Takes 101895 points to book the entire week
So if lock-off are all booked as studios/1-bedrooms, that's 9,983 pts extra that owners have to use to book the week (67 x 149), and a 10.8% premium versus what the owners at BWV actually own.

In 2020, Dream Season, same week, 134 for a studio, 250 1-bedroom, 301 for a lock-off. (lock-off premium is now 83 points)
Scenario A: Takes 90347 points to book the entire week - so on paper, Disney made the base # points for that week cost LESS - meaning they shifted points away from this season - "benefitting" the members.
Scenario B: Takes 102714 points to book the entire week - which is MORE than the resort to rent that week before.
In Scenario B - Disney requires 12,367 more points (83 x 149) to book the week - an increase from 2019 of 2,384 points and a 13.7% premium instead of 10.8%.

Without doing the calculation for the ENTIRE resort (which someone with more time than I have could easily do) - If we know that the resort in Scenario A has 4,888,800 pts - the total points at the resort - we can estimate in 2019 it could take 5,416,900 points to book in Scenario B, but 5,558,600 points in 2020. Meaning Disney created the NEED to use 141,700 extra points to potentially fully book the resort. (Again realizing the actual amount is somewhere between this number and zero - with no real way to tell.

This doesn't necessarily create occupancy at Boardwalk though - but if every Boardwalk owner used their points at Boardwalk, there could still be 669,800 points worth of rooms unoccupied in 2020. (Only 528,100 in 2019.)

Now Disney can argue "Well we lowered the rates for 2-bedrooms by 12 points and raised the studio rates by 11 points, which should encourage more people to book 2-bedrooms, and therefore it DOESN'T really benefit Disney because with more 2-bedrooms occupied the number of extra points will go down - so benefits the members!" Which is why I really think are going to have little recourse in this whole thing.

Did I go on long enough???

 

[DVC92]

I don't have a problem with the lockoff premium, but I also don't think a lockoff should be available for the same points as a 2BR. As I previously stated, a 1BR (VGF & SSR, for example), should not cost more, or almost as much as, a 2BR on any given night. To me, that is nefarious. Maybe you believe Disney is always above board, but new people take over and have a different mindset.

 

[E2ME2]

[QUOTE="So if the principle was a deal breaker, they should not have bought in, after that we’re just haggling over price (bad joke comes to mind).
.[/QUOTE]

Dean -
Not a "bad joke", but a very memorable line by Robert Redford! I'm honestly confused over the recent rise in points, and I'm not sure if I've been hoodwinked or not ??
I know it's a little discouraging to see your number of vacation nights decrease as your yearly maintenance fees increase; that's a double whammy!

 

[glamdring269]

I know it's a little discouraging to see your number of vacation nights decrease as your yearly maintenance fees increase; that's a double whammy!

Feels like getting the jelly of the month club Christmas bonus. Pixie dust!

 

[Turn the Page]

Feels like getting the jelly of the month club Christmas bonus. Pixie dust!

That's the gift that keeps on giving all year, Clark!

 

[Dean]

I don't have a problem with the lockoff premium, but I also don't think a lockoff should be available for the same points as a 2BR. As I previously stated, a 1BR (VGF & SSR, for example), should not cost more, or almost as much as, a 2BR on any given night. To me, that is nefarious. Maybe you believe Disney is always above board, but new people take over and have a different mindset.

Different views aren't apples to apples if the points are different between the same size units for the 2 views. If the principle is OK, we're still just haggling over price.

Dean -
Not a "bad joke", but a very memorable line by Robert Redford! I'm honestly confused over the recent rise in points, and I'm not sure if I've been hoodwinked or not ??
I know it's a little discouraging to see your number of vacation nights decrease as your yearly maintenance fees increase; that's a double whammy!

Sure, no one should be thrilled if this is negative to them but it is the system we signed up for and we knew or should have know this was a risk whether we were thinking of this exact issue or not is irrelevant. But if I didn't know before, the valet parking thread(s) convinced me that some people just couldn't see past their nose. Other than HOW it was done, there could have only been one decision there but some were still arguing it should be free to them, totally irrational.

I agree it's a little strange but if I thought it was nefarious, I'd sell, plain and simple or else I'd go the route described to get answers. The reality is obvious, either we accept it with or without a good explanation, vote with our feet or we proceed down the path of legal action getting at least to arbitration as a minimum. There is absolutely nothing short that is going to have any chance of changing it even if the best legal interpretation is that it isn't allowed. The more I look at it and we discuss it the more convinced I am that the ultimate issue was to drive as many as possible to 2 BR units and reduce the number of units that are booked as smaller units.

 

[DVC92]

Different views aren't apples to apples if the points are different between the same size units for the 2 views. If the principle is OK, we're still just haggling over price.

Sure, no one should be thrilled if this is negative to them but it is the system we signed up for and we knew or should have know this was a risk whether we were thinking of this exact issue or not is irrelevant. But if I didn't know before, the valet parking thread(s) convinced me that some people just couldn't see past their nose. Other than HOW it was done, there could have only been one decision there but some were still arguing it should be free to them, totally irrational.

I agree it's a little strange but if I thought it was nefarious, I'd sell, plain and simple or else I'd go the route described to get answers. The reality is obvious, either we accept it with or without a good explanation, vote with our feet or we proceed down the path of legal action getting at least to arbitration as a minimum. There is absolutely nothing short that is going to have any chance of changing it even if the best legal interpretation is that it isn't allowed. The more I look at it and we discuss it the more convinced I am that the ultimate issue was to drive as many as possible to 2 BR units and reduce the number of units that are booked as smaller units.

Therein lies the problem. Disney allowed so many people, not myself, to buy small contracts so they could book studios. Now, Disney raises the cost of points for the smaller units making these people out to be fools and forcing them to buy more points, if available, just to make the ressie they had desired when they were led down the yellow brick road to purchase. New purchasers, even if they read all the fine print, don't really expect points to increase for units they think they purchased.

 

[skier_pete]

The more I look at it and we discuss it the more convinced I am that the ultimate issue was to drive as many as possible to 2 BR units and reduce the number of units that are booked as smaller units.

I will say this, if you assume it isn't a ploy for disney to line their pockets further, this is probably the best interpretation you can find - to drive more rooms being booked as 2-beds. The problem with this theory is it presumes that members have the points to do such things. I for one do not unless I want to drop from 2 weeks a year to one short one.

So @Dean do you think a secondary motive is to drive people to buy more points?

I for one really wish Disney wouldn't do things like this like they are sneaking down the back alley and hoping no one notices. If this is why they are doing it, why not be upfront about the change. (And as I said all along, I even get the motive of raising studios, even if it hurts me personally.)

 

[glamdring269]

Dean - It could very well be that the reason they need to make this change is to drive more in to 2 bedrooms. I doubt it but definitely a possibility.

Skier - I really hope this doesn't drive people to buy more points. That seems to be a good way to just reinforce the behavior and ensure it continues.

Has anyone been by to see what the sales pitch is like now? I'd really like to see how the sales force has been trained to deal with people who ask questions about this.

 

[Dean]

Therein lies the problem. Disney allowed so many people, not myself, to buy small contracts so they could book studios. Now, Disney raises the cost of points for the smaller units making these people out to be fools and forcing them to buy more points, if available, just to make the ressie they had desired when they were led down the yellow brick road to purchase. New purchasers, even if they read all the fine print, don't really expect points to increase for units they think they purchased.

I'm repeating to a degree I know but IMO the sales process does not add to the rules. That they've sold smaller contracts or even convinced people to buy stating they could use it in such a way they can't now is really irrelevant IMO. Those members knew or should have known changes could occur that would get them. If they bought retail, they got the POS and if they bought resale, they assumed the original owners commitments. One needs to understand what they're buying. Disney would have been happy to sell them more points.

I will say this, if you assume it isn't a ploy for disney to line their pockets further, this is probably the best interpretation you can find - to drive more rooms being booked as 2-beds. The problem with this theory is it presumes that members have the points to do such things. I for one do not unless I want to drop from 2 weeks a year to one short one.

I'll say that lowering 1 BR and raising studios doesn't drive people to 2 BR, only evens out the demand between the 2. I've also stated that there are other occupancy issues besides just demand such as number of parking units and resort density or even less housekeeping to control dues. Pushing people to 2 BR will somewhat decrease two of those. IF that is part of the issue, and I'm only speculating, we might see other changes such as strict enforcement of the formal occupancy of units, esp the 1 BR and possibly a min LOS in some way. We'll see, I do hope we get more information on this matter.

So @Dean do you think a secondary motive is to drive people to buy more points?

I for one really wish Disney wouldn't do things like this like they are sneaking down the back alley and hoping no one notices. If this is why they are doing it, why not be upfront about the change. (And as I said all along, I even get the motive of raising studios, even if it hurts me personally.)

Personally I don't think they're that devious or willing to take the risks that such info would get out. I've said a number of time, starting back a good 4-5 years or more, that DVC would be far better off if they were just forthcoming and be willing to stand firm once they make a decision. They're far too reactive rather than proactive, IMO. Whether it's the implementation of the valet parking change or some of the refurbishment fiascos esp 2 from AKV that come to mind. Certainly they're a business but I don't see them going into a meeting and actively discussing how to stick it to members bending the rules, esp in the core timeshare. Now all bets are off when you get outside the contractual issues such as perks. And having dealt with them I can only imagine the meetings that went into the initiation and planning of this issue. Not to mention the math of the reallocation and the double & triple checks, even with computers and spread sheets.

I feel for them at times, they truly can't win.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Our letter is typed, ready to be signed and mailed.

We are 15 year members and the two things that DVC has done in the past that bothered me was first the separation of the treehouse chart from the two bedroom chart, when a selling point for SSR always included the statement that you could get a treehouse for the price of a two bedroom and within a couple of years you could no longer. The other was when I was at a presentation for selling BLT, and they gave out the current year chart to prospects when as a member I knew the next year’s charts were different. I sent a letter after that presentation, I thought it was wrong. I think the prospective buyers should have been give all the information that was out there.

No real glasses in studios caused me a lot of distress, ( and that changed) but not like this new points chart. The best I hope for is an explanation, I am that disappointed in a chart that shows a one bedroom preferred at SSR costing more than a two bedroom standard for a week in a certain season. There were no view differences when they built SSR, the points were not sold supporting this new idea, IMO.

I suppose I hope people are not as disillusioned as I am, because prices would fall, and our stake in membership would deflate.

Bobbi

 

[Dean]

Dean - It could very well be that the reason they need to make this change is to drive more in to 2 bedrooms. I doubt it but definitely a possibility.

Skier - I really hope this doesn't drive people to buy more points. That seems to be a good way to just reinforce the behavior and ensure it continues.

Has anyone been by to see what the sales pitch is like now? I'd really like to see how the sales force has been trained to deal with people who ask questions about this.

It's really the only thing that makes sense since I think there's zero chance they are actively seeking more rental dollars on the backs of members. As for sales, they'll do what they should do, take the current setup and spin it in a positive way. I'm sure most will sit where they are, some will buy more points and some will sell. But if this is enough difference to make DVC unaffordable or not a good value, they shouldn't have bought in anyway. But maybe their situation has changed and DVC no longer makes sense for other reasons. For me personally I use very few of my points staying most stays on exchanges and have for the last 17 years or so. I actually bought AKV 4*25 to get the incentive with the intent of selling my BWV and all but 25 of the AKV to get the perks but I just haven't gotten around to it. And with the newer resorts and decreased exchange options the last few years I may not.

 

[Dean]

Our letter is typed, ready to be signed and mailed.

We are 15 year members and the two things that DVC has done in the past that bothered me was first the separation of the treehouse chart from the two bedroom chart, when a selling point for SSR always included the statement that you could get a treehouse for the price of a two bedroom and within a couple of years you could no longer. The other was when I was at a presentation for selling BLT, and they gave out the current year chart to prospects when as a member I knew the next year’s charts were different. I sent a letter after that presentation, I thought it was wrong. I think the prospective buyers should have been give all the information that was out there.

No real glasses in studios caused me a lot of distress, ( and that changed) but not like this new points chart. The best I hope for is an explanation, I am that disappointed in a chart that shows a one bedroom preferred at SSR costing more than a two bedroom standard for a week in a certain season. There were no view differences when they built SSR, the points were not sold supporting this new idea, IMO.

I suppose I hope people are not as disillusioned as I am, because prices would fall, and our stake in membership would deflate.

Bobbi

Personally I thought, and still do, that the THV should have been their own resort and not added to SSR. But they do have the contractual right in the POS to do so.

 

[Dean]

To add a point I don't think has been made, if it was, I missed it. We have given up the right to a jury trial and committed to arbitration before true legal action.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Our personal raise, when I use the 2020 point chart for what I have so far booked in 2019 is 3.9%. That’s not the deal breaker, it’s the increased differential between booking a studio plus one bedroom vs. a two bedroom and what it does to the total points in a resort.

 

[Frederic Civish]

The points are set, and do assume maximum usage. The problem with smaller contracts is that it increases the number of owners competing for the same unit size/dates. For instance, New Years Eve is a popular time. Say a resort has 10 studios, and they sell 10 230 point contracts, so 10 people have a good chance of getting what they want. Now say those same 2300 points are divided into 23 100 point contracts, you now have 23 people competing for those 10 studios for the same dates.

I keep hearing that part of the problem is so many people who have small contracts. Hey. This doesn't make sense. A lot of people have smaller contracts because that is all they need. An awful lot of people out there never have more than 4 people, total, in their party, and they are PERFECTLY HAPPY with a Studio. A Studio is at least as good as any Disney World Hotel Room. So, why would you condemn such people for not having enough points to rent out a 1-bedroom or a 2-bedroom or a Grand Villa? Just face it, the biggest majority of DVC owners only need and want and use Studios. So, raising the Studio points might cut their vacations a bit shorter, and it might push other people into larger quarters, but the problem is not and never has been that they don't have enough points.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I keep hearing that part of the problem is so many people who have small contracts. Hey. This doesn't make sense. A lot of people have smaller contracts because that is all they need. An awful lot of people out there never have more than 4 people, total, in their party, and they are PERFECTLY HAPPY with a Studio. A Studio is at least as good as any Disney World Hotel Room. So, why would you condemn such people for not having enough points to rent out a 1-bedroom or a 2-bedroom or a Grand Villa? Just face it, the biggest majority of DVC owners only need and want and use Studios. So, raising the Studio points might cut their vacations a bit shorter, and it might push other people into larger quarters, but the problem is not and never has been that they don't have enough points.

I think it's relatively safe to say that the median of new contracts sold for the past few years is lower than it used to be which will tend to mean they were bought with booking studios in mind. And it's not that there are anything wrong with studios but that other than PVB (which has the Cabin points to contend with) the newest resorts have smaller percentages of studios than most of the older resorts. That's part of the disconnect. DVC doesn't build more of the rooms that they have been targeting sales at with the lower buy in they established. It's also part of the point system but it's just aggravating an issue. The thing is - they don't have to pay the price for creating that issue - the owners do. Or at least owners who bought with the plan to book smaller villas.

 

[Dean]

Our personal raise, when I use the 2020 point chart for what I have so far booked in 2019 is 3.9%. That’s not the deal breaker, it’s the increased differential between booking a studio plus one bedroom vs. a two bedroom and what it does to the total points in a resort.

But technically it doesn't change the points from a legal standpoint since contractually (POS) the points are tied to the full villas only. The issue of smaller units effectively using all the points for the year with villas left over has always been the case.

I keep hearing that part of the problem is so many people who have small contracts. Hey. This doesn't make sense. A lot of people have smaller contracts because that is all they need. An awful lot of people out there never have more than 4 people, total, in their party, and they are PERFECTLY HAPPY with a Studio. A Studio is at least as good as any Disney World Hotel Room. So, why would you condemn such people for not having enough points to rent out a 1-bedroom or a 2-bedroom or a Grand Villa? Just face it, the biggest majority of DVC owners only need and want and use Studios. So, raising the Studio points might cut their vacations a bit shorter, and it might push other people into larger quarters, but the problem is not and never has been that they don't have enough points.

Not from me, people bought smaller contracts for a reason but it might not have been the right reason. I tend to feel they looked at their situation and the DVC setup and chose the contract size rather than buying small then fitting the usage into the contract size. Either that's what they could afford or what THEY felt they needed or a combination of the 2. For a long time I've recommended a 10-20% cushion for many if not most buyers and a minimum contract more in the 150 pt range. The reasons I've often stated include reallocations, different usage patterns and staying at resort that cost more than their home resort. I don't see smaller points owners as a problem but I do see them as having a problem being small points owners and this was before this change was announced. But I don't see that DVCMC has an obligation to protect them beyond the POS either.

I think it's relatively safe to say that the median of new contracts sold for the past few years is lower than it used to be which will tend to mean they were bought with booking studios in mind. And it's not that there are anything wrong with studios but that other than PVB (which has the Cabin points to contend with) the newest resorts have smaller percentages of studios than most of the older resorts. That's part of the disconnect. DVC doesn't build more of the rooms that they have been targeting sales at with the lower buy in they established. It's also part of the point system but it's just aggravating an issue. The thing is - they don't have to pay the price for creating that issue - the owners do. Or at least owners who bought with the plan to book smaller villas.

Well we know initially it was 230 then it went down as the minimum buy in decreased. I suspect we hit a low in terms of average contract size for new purchasers late in the SSR sales process. I have no data but my guess is it started to increase from there since newer resorts cost more points, esp BLT, Poly & VGF.