But that's just it, technically and legally they are not since the lockout's only count as the full unit. It has always cost more to reserve the components separately. It's not much different than the Disney Collection not being a good value exchanging points.
As I read the statute you quoted it says that all lockoff's are counted as their full component unless the POS specifically says otherwise. Put another way, the ability to lockoff doesn't make it count separately but the developer, by way of the POS could specify otherwise. They would have to do so specifically and directly, that is not the case with DVC.
There are timeshares where the smaller units add up to the total of the larger unit. All the ones that come to mind have studios, 1 BR standard and 1 BR deluxe a lot closer than DVC. Say the 2 BR is 15000 points the studio might be 6000, the 1 BR 8000 and the full unit 14000 points (thinking of a specific situation for Bluegreen). Usually they are tying sales to individual villas and weeks in that situation even for the points systems as a way to track who owns what. DVC has taken a different approach. Marriott has a system for points where just using points has a built in loss of average around 10% roughly.
Some would say their gaining breakage inventory to use and sell and some would suggest this is the main goal. My view is their trying to do what's required by the POS, manage demand. But I think we all can agree it's a little weird without an explanation.
Ok thanks. Have you seen in other systems reallocations that increased the lockoff premium?
I've seen very few that have had reallocations. Most systems aren't set up to even allow it. As I noted, many of them have the points tied to a specific fixed week option so it's not possible which means they can't adjust. To me this comes under the other side of the "DVC isn't like other timeshares" argument. They knew they didn't really know how this would play out, all you have to do is look at the BWV and OKW points charts to understand that. So it's a double edged sword. But we've had several. now, 3 big ones if you could 2010/11 as one. Every time the response here was the basic response. They can't , it isn't allowed, I new it could happen but didn't think it would be like this or I didn't think they would at all, I'll sell, I'll complain, I'll sue, I'll bash them and tell everyone not to buy. In the end almost no one does anything. A few sell, a few don't buy because of the change, a few don't add on; but it's small potatoes in the big scheme of DVC. And yet the price keeps going up though it'll pull back at some point.
Exactly my point which is why the lockoff portion are not protected here. The reality is they could just not allow reservations for smaller units at all related to lockoffs if they wanted. Thus only the dedicated units would be available. Or they could hold them as 2 BR and release the smaller units later if they choose. That would all be legal under the rules & regulations and it would accomplish much the same thing as I suspect is the goal here.
I think we could further say that Disney would be gaining breakage inventory, if at all (because some percentage will be reserved as 2BR), at the resorts that are least in demand. For example, Now there are more points required to reserve VGF at 11 months for studios and 1 BRs than there are in the system. So owners at other DVC resorts can reserve these units at the 7 month mark, leaving breakage inventory ultimately at the resorts that are lowest in demand.
