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

[skier_pete]

Wow, we all knew the lockoff premium increase was going to benefit Disney, but looking at the actual numbers it is shocking. 13.9 million more in breakage revenue is HUGE.

And by the way, Happy Lockoff Premium Day everyone!
Today is the first day members will book rooms with the lockoff premium increase.

That was at one resort - over all resorts it's probably in the $40-50 million range. But please tell me again how this benefits the members.

Does Disney need to prove that? Or do the plaintiffs need to prove that it wasn't?

This isn't a criminal case. Pretty sure if Disney were to be taken to court sanctioned arbitration saying that we have access to limited data but what we have access to says Disney is lining it's pockets while hurting its members - they would have to provide proof to the judge as to why they are saying this benefits the membership.

So, the real complaint now is that "we" just didn't recognize that Disney is allowed to make a profit?

No - the complaint is that Disney is making a profit while at the same time taking away benefit from it's members - specifically reducing the number of nights the membership (as a whole) can realistically book at the resort.

Example - a resort has 5,000,000 points at it when all lock-offs are booked as 2-bedrooms, and 5,500,000 points when all lock-offs are split. Raising the lock-off premium changes that number to say 5,800,000 points, the power of our points (the entire membership) dropped by as much as 5%.

Well yes and no. I think the complaint is that a point rebalance should actually minimize breakage income.

That captures it right there - if they are increasing breakage income it does not benefit members.

Raising both, does not help demand imbalance, it may even make it worse.

I completely agree with this statement. What they are claiming to try to improve will in fact only drive the situation further. People considering between studios and 1-BD will be more likely to go to studios. People considering between 2-BD and 1-BD will go to 2-BD, driving 1-BD availability even higher.

Could you tell Y that what you (and I and pretty much everyone following this thread, I think) want is data (best) or at minimum a more detailed explanation as to how the data they have that’s not visible to us via the booking tools leads to such a different conclusion on their part? Thanks for your efforts in this regard.

Like this a lot too! If they provided where they are getting that from it MIGHT help. (Though I already suspect.)

 

[DVC92]

The change to you personally is important to you but it's not the consideration of the system as they have larger mandates.

Based on numerous posts in this lengthy thread, I believe my dissatisfaction in the changes to the point reallocation is representative of a majority of the membership which Disney is charged with serving the best interests of. That is what they are legally responsible for. There is no reason for their lack of transparency and justification of their action. Clearly, increasing 1BR points, when the clear consensus is that they are not in greater demand, doesn't benefit the membership as a whole.

As far as the larger mandate Disney is attending to, that can only be to increase their revenue. IMHO!

 

[freediverdude]

Some of these arguments about needing the breakage for exchanges into DCL and RCI and such don't seem to be relevant to me, maybe I was misunderstanding. Those are points that are already in the system and accounted for, and I think in a lot of cases end up being kind of a wash, money wise. What I am concerned about is the extra breakage occurring even over what it was in the past, because now even more villas cannot be booked with the points that were sold because of higher reservation requirements.

Also, the extra costs to rent out the breakage in the CRO system to me would seem very minimal, as they already have all of that set up for the hotel rooms. Some extra call center time, some extra website programming to add those resorts to the website and keep it updated (again probably just doing it along with all the regular hotels, so would be hard to separate out time used solely for the DVC rentals.) CRO probably has just agreed to charge DVC a set amount each year or something, don't know the details.

 

[crvetter]

In theory the goal would be 100% booked at the same pace across all seasons, unit sizes and to a degree, each resort. It's really more like 98% though but I'm going to assume when we say 100% we mean all after appropriate refurbishment needs. That would be slowing down those that were booked the fastest and vice versa.

I stick with the 100% because Disney is an owner their points are equally bookable. I think people often confuse breakage and Disney renting the points they own or bought from people transferring to different places. Breakage is simply no one wants the room by points. So when those rooms are taken no points (owner or Disney's) are used to reserve them. So yes DVCMC mandate is absolutely to get the resort to operate at 100% occupancy (less maintenance, they only have to use their 2% when a room needs maintenance else they can rent them out), essentially dropping breakage to 0. If the 2020 points lead to increased breakage their mandate would be to readjust the points. Something that they confirmed to me would absolutely have to happen.

Also I don't necessarily thing overall the increase in lockoff premium will lead to higher breakage because I'm sure people will bank/borrow which puts more points into the system yearly than available to book with. It could but don't necessarily subscribe to the fact it will.

Also I believe for smaller resorts Disney states they minimum keep back 4 or 5% (can't remember what it said) and 2% for larger resorts (the smaller larger resorts was dictated by a threshold). Fairly confident it was in one of the POS I was reading recently.

Also their are priorities on how breakage gets applied in the POS. It doesn't immediately get allocated to cash reservations.

 

[crvetter]

Some of these arguments about needing the breakage for exchanges into DCL and RCI and such don't seem to be relevant to me, maybe I was misunderstanding. Those are points that are already in the system and accounted for, and I think in a lot of cases end up being kind of a wash, money wise. What I am concerned about is the extra breakage occurring even over what it was in the past, because now even more villas cannot be booked with the points that were sold because of higher reservation requirements.

Also, the extra costs to rent out the breakage in the CRO system to me would seem very minimal, as they already have all of that set up for the hotel rooms. Some extra call center time, some extra website programming to add those resorts to the website and keep it updated (again probably just doing it along with all the regular hotels, so would be hard to separate out time used solely for the DVC rentals.) CRO probably has just agreed to charge DVC a set amount each year or something, don't know the details.

Correct exchanges don't matter for breakage. Breakage uses no points from the system and has a specified order how rooms entering breakage must be used. The exchanges are only available to RCI owners when a DVC member exchanges into RCI.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

<snip>
No - the complaint is that Disney is making a profit while at the same time taking away benefit from it's members - specifically reducing the number of nights the membership (as a whole) can realistically book at the resort.

Example - a resort has 5,000,000 points at it when all lock-offs are booked as 2-bedrooms, and 5,500,000 points when all lock-offs are split. Raising the lock-off premium changes that number to say 5,800,000 points, the power of our points (the entire membership) dropped by as much as 5%.
...

This has been well-documented since DVC started, that lock-off Studios and 1BRs may cost more points than the combined 2BR villa. The POS also makes it clear (there I used that word) that the points for the lock-off 2BR is what is used to determine the total number of points at any resort with lock-off 2BR villas. In the case of OKW, there are no dedicated studios or 1BRs. Unless you are able to show that the reallocation fails to balance the 2BR villas (both lock-off and dedicated) and Grand Villas there is no case to be made for OKW. If you have evidence to the contrary for all other resorts, then you may have something to take to court for your complaint.

Your example above chooses to ignore the POS definition of how the total points are computed - where the points for the lock-off are the determining factor. Until that aspect in the legal document is understood or changed there is nothing to argue. This has been in place since the very first point chart was released in 1991. By your definition, I suspect that the points have never been in balance EVER.

I have not computed, nor do I have any interest in computing the points owned and required at OKW to reserve the entire resort for a year, so there could have been some period of time when the total points were actually in balance but I doubt it. IMHO, the imbalance is necessary and required to meet the responsibility of DVCMC to balance the needs created by the way the membership has used the program over the last several years. Did DVD add to that usage by selling smaller contracts and encouraging the use of Studios? - perhaps but the responsibility to balance that usage is also required.

 

[skier_pete]

This has been well-documented since DVC started, that lock-off Studios and 1BRs may cost more points than the combined 2BR villa. The POS also makes it clear (there I used that word) that the points for the lock-off 2BR is what is used to determine the total number of points at any resort with lock-off 2BR villas. In the case of OKW, there are no dedicated studios or 1BRs. Unless you are able to show that the reallocation fails to balance the 2BR villas (both lock-off and dedicated) and Grand Villas there is no case to be made for OKW. If you have evidence to the contrary for all other resorts, then you may have something to take to court for your complaint.

Not suggesting they are not balancing points. Points created by "lock-off premium" only exist if the lock-off is used, which based on studio demand is probably more often than not. And I don't even argue that increasing the "lock-off premium" is illegal - I freely admit it is legal. However, by INCREASING it over the original amount - which doesn't affect the point balance on resorts with only lock-offs - to me they are breaking the covenant to do things "in the best interest of the membership".

 

[KSkywalker17]

1BR rooms seem to be kind of the ugly stepchild.

Literally made me LOL!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

"in the best interest of the membership" is such a vague term it's almost laughable. Says who? You, me, this group, or DVD? Says DVD sounds like to me. Somebody gets to say it. Might as well be them since we have no formal organization outside the informal term "membership" by which to contest that which they represent for us.

 

[Dean Marino]

.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

Chiming in on the 1 bed being in high demand and my other thoughts.

“1 bedrooms are in higher demand than 2 bedrooms”, this does not pass the eyeball test, smell test, common sense and/or whatever other term you would like to use.

You would have to look no further than the pricing of these units when listed on Disney CRO site.

All SSR preferred view random week in May 2019

Studio $480

1 Bedroom $640 (twice the space of a studio only 133% of the cost)

2 Bedroom $1015 (50% more space than the 1 bedroom 159% of the cost)

Numbers do not lie especially when you are talking money and Disney. If 1 bedrooms were a hot commodity you could bet the price structure would reflect it.

Another issue is if the 1 bedrooms are in such demand by members, why is it that they are the only thing being deposited into RCI verses the less in demand 2 bedrooms? We all know SSR is one of the resorts with the lowest demands so they put SSR into RCI. We also know (or at least thought we did) 1 bedrooms are the least desired accommodations by the membership at large because of the additional cost without any additional occupancy than the studio and in many intense less and assume this is why they deposit 1 bedrooms into RCI.


At the same time I do not think this is a smoking gun that DVCMC is obviously trying to take advantage of the membership for the benefit of another business unit at Disney. I ask myself… why would the leadership at DVCMC take such a huge risk for the benefit of another B.U. and my gut tells me they would not. I believe the motivation to do this was to pull points out of the system as so many believe. I just do not think it is with the greedy intent that many others have expressed. When DVC was first launched banking and barrowing rules very were different, the cost per point to buy in was much less, the rental market was not mature…. With all that I think a lot more points were not getting used historically. Now with the premium on the cost of points, the ease of banking and borrow, the use of the online reservation system versus calling in, the mature rental market… there are far fewer points going unused. They have also moved up the renovation schedules to have more renovations more frequently. This means more units being pulled from inventory to be worked on. This (along with the point heavy Bungalows and Cabins, and the pressure from the off-site resorts) has caused an issue with more people trying to book than rooms available to book (mainly studios). We have all heard how tight everything is now and it is hard to get anything once inside of 7 months. Perhaps this is an attempt to relieve some of that pressure by raising points cost without actually raising point cost (by the definition in the POS).


I am not saying we need to give DVCMC a pass and just accept what they have done without question. It is good to question leaders. However, I do not think we should jump to the conclusion without data that we are “clearly” being taken advantage of. Those speaking to management should press them for data/information/statistics on why they made the change. This is the only way we will understand why they did it and if it indeed was for the members benefit or not.

It has been a fun read so thought I would add my two cents.

 

[Madame]

Chiming in on the 1 bed being in high demand and my other thoughts.

“1 bedrooms are in higher demand than 2 bedrooms”, this does not pass the eyeball test, smell test, common sense and/or whatever other term you would like to use.

You would have to look no further than the pricing of these units when listed on Disney CRO site.

All SSR preferred view random week in May 2019

Studio $480

1 Bedroom $640 (twice the space of a studio only 133% of the cost)

2 Bedroom $1015 (50% more space than the 1 bedroom 159% of the cost)

Numbers do not lie especially when you are talking money and Disney. If 1 bedrooms were a hot commodity you could bet the price structure would reflect it.

Another issue is if the 1 bedrooms are in such demand by members, why is it that they are the only thing being deposited into RCI verses the less in demand 2 bedrooms? We all know SSR is one of the resorts with the lowest demands so they put SSR into RCI. We also know (or at least thought we did) 1 bedrooms are the least desired accommodations by the membership at large because of the additional cost without any additional occupancy than the studio and in many intense less and assume this is why they deposit 1 bedrooms into RCI.


At the same time I do not think this is a smoking gun that DVCMC is obviously trying to take advantage of the membership for the benefit of another business unit at Disney. I ask myself… why would the leadership at DVCMC take such a huge risk for the benefit of another B.U. and my gut tells me they would not. I believe the motivation to do this was to pull points out of the system as so many believe. I just do not think it is with the greedy intent that many others have expressed. When DVC was first launched banking and barrowing rules very were different, the cost per point to buy in was much less, the rental market was not mature…. With all that I think a lot more points were not getting used historically. Now with the premium on the cost of points, the ease of banking and borrow, the use of the online reservation system versus calling in, the mature rental market… there are far fewer points going unused. They have also moved up the renovation schedules to have more renovations more frequently. This means more units being pulled from inventory to be worked on. This (along with the point heavy Bungalows and Cabins, and the pressure from the off-site resorts) has caused an issue with more people trying to book than rooms available to book (mainly studios). We have all heard how tight everything is now and it is hard to get anything once inside of 7 months. Perhaps this is an attempt to relieve some of that pressure by raising points cost without actually raising point cost (by the definition in the POS).


I am not saying we need to give DVCMC a pass and just accept what they have done without question. It is good to question leaders. However, I do not think we should jump to the conclusion without data that we are “clearly” being taken advantage of. Those speaking to management should press them for data/information/statistics on why they made the change. This is the only way we will understand why they did it and if it indeed was for the members benefit or not.

It has been a fun read so thought I would add my two cents.

I like your .02$!

 

[Dean]

Some of these arguments about needing the breakage for exchanges into DCL and RCI and such don't seem to be relevant to me, maybe I was misunderstanding. Those are points that are already in the system and accounted for, and I think in a lot of cases end up being kind of a wash, money wise. What I am concerned about is the extra breakage occurring even over what it was in the past, because now even more villas cannot be booked with the points that were sold because of higher reservation requirements.

Also, the extra costs to rent out the breakage in the CRO system to me would seem very minimal, as they already have all of that set up for the hotel rooms. Some extra call center time, some extra website programming to add those resorts to the website and keep it updated (again probably just doing it along with all the regular hotels, so would be hard to separate out time used solely for the DVC rentals.) CRO probably has just agreed to charge DVC a set amount each year or something, don't know the details.

It depends. For RCI it's relevant because it will likely take more points to deposit what they have deposited the past couple of years OR there will be less or different deposits to RCI. Or they could adjusts the formula which are currently lower than they were previously. Not all units are booked by members and to rent. A % is done for maintenance/refurbishment, likely 1-2% on average. IMO it's relevant because it comes off the top before breakage is created and thus reduces breakage. Will it be any different with the changes, likely not. Historically CRO has taken 50% so DVD and/or the members as a dues offset only gets a portion of any dollars that are generated from breakage.

I stick with the 100% because Disney is an owner their points are equally bookable. I think people often confuse breakage and Disney renting the points they own or bought from people transferring to different places. Breakage is simply no one wants the room by points. So when those rooms are taken no points (owner or Disney's) are used to reserve them. So yes DVCMC mandate is absolutely to get the resort to operate at 100% occupancy (less maintenance, they only have to use their 2% when a room needs maintenance else they can rent them out), essentially dropping breakage to 0. If the 2020 points lead to increased breakage their mandate would be to readjust the points. Something that they confirmed to me would absolutely have to happen.

Also I don't necessarily thing overall the increase in lockoff premium will lead to higher breakage because I'm sure people will bank/borrow which puts more points into the system yearly than available to book with. It could but don't necessarily subscribe to the fact it will.

Also I believe for smaller resorts Disney states they minimum keep back 4 or 5% (can't remember what it said) and 2% for larger resorts (the smaller larger resorts was dictated by a threshold). Fairly confident it was in one of the POS I was reading recently.

Also their are priorities on how breakage gets applied in the POS. It doesn't immediately get allocated to cash reservations.

It's not 100% due to maintenance type issues but it's close enough to use it in discussion. The POS that I've seen says they keep up to 4% but a minimum of 2% used first for maintenance.

Not suggesting they are not balancing points. Points created by "lock-off premium" only exist if the lock-off is used, which based on studio demand is probably more often than not. And I don't even argue that increasing the "lock-off premium" is illegal - I freely admit it is legal. However, by INCREASING it over the original amount - which doesn't affect the point balance on resorts with only lock-offs - to me they are breaking the covenant to do things "in the best interest of the membership".

It depends on the reason behind it. If it was purposeful to increased breakage dollars, I'd agree, I don't believe it was the purpose even if it ends up doing so.

 

[crvetter]

It's not 100% due to maintenance type issues but it's close enough to use it in discussion. The POS that I've seen says they keep up to 4% but a minimum of 2% used first for maintenance

Yep you said exactly what I said

 

[DougEMG]

This kind of summarizes the issue (I hope).

We all agree that Disney is suppose to manage the point charts for the benefit of members to even out demand. The only limits are keeping the total for the resort unchanged and no more than a 20% change in a category within a year. In addition all studios and 1 bedrooms in a lock-off are counted as a 2 bedroom (lock-off premium), not a studio or a 1 bedroom, towards the resorts total points. Finally Disney is not required to provide any proof or evidence to members to support the reallocation.

For this latest reallocation, Disney has stated that there is not enough demand for 2 bedrooms, so the points are being lowered for the 2 bedrooms in order to increase demand. Studios and 1 bedrooms are having their points increased because they are in high demand and in order to keep the resort in balance.

Some members are unhappy (me for one) about this change because based on the evidence we have from the availability charts, it appears that 1 bedrooms are the last rooms to book, suggesting that 1 bedrooms should have seen a decrease in point costs, not the 2 bedrooms. In addition, it appears that the point reallocation will benefit Disney because of the increase in the lock-off premium as most lock-offs are booked as studios and 1 bedrooms which now require more points to book. So we have a very questionable potential benefit for members, unsupported with any evidence, while at the same time we have a strong potential for increased benefit for Disney because of all the extra points Disney will receive from the lock-off premium.

Some members are willing to accept that Disney is doing the point reallocation for the benefit of members.

Which camp do you fall in?

As an aside, I'm reading a book called "Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics" that I think is interesting give what is happening here. In particular around how trusting people are, what people do when they feel their trust has been broken, what people consider gouging is and why companies don't always charge as much as they can get away with. Only half way through, but very interesting.

 

[crvetter]

This kind of summarizes the issue (I hope).

We all agree that Disney is suppose to manage the point charts for the benefit of members to even out demand. The only limits are keeping the total for the resort unchanged and no more than a 20% change in a category within a year. In addition all studios and 1 bedrooms in a lock-off are counted as a 2 bedroom (lock-off premium), not a studio or a 1 bedroom, towards the resorts total points. Finally Disney is not required to provide any proof or evidence to members to support the reallocation.

For this latest reallocation, Disney has stated that there is not enough demand for 2 bedrooms, so the points are being lowered for the 2 bedrooms in order to increase demand. Studios and 1 bedrooms are having their points increased because they are in high demand and in order to keep the resort in balance.

Some members are unhappy (me for one) about this change because based on the evidence we have from the availability charts, it appears that 1 bedrooms are the last rooms to book, suggesting that 1 bedrooms should have seen a decrease in point costs, not the 2 bedrooms. In addition, it appears that the point reallocation will benefit Disney because of the increase in the lock-off premium as most lock-offs are booked as studios and 1 bedrooms which now require more points to book. So we have a very questionable potential benefit for members, unsupported with any evidence, while at the same time we have a strong potential for increased benefit for Disney because of all the extra points Disney will receive from the lock-off premium.

Some members are willing to accept that Disney is doing the point reallocation for the benefit of members.

Which camp do you fall in?

As an aside, I'm reading a book called "Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics" that I think is interesting give what is happening here. In particular around how trusting people are, what people do when they feel their trust has been broken, what people consider gouging is and why companies don't always charge as much as they can get away with. Only half way through, but very interesting.

Just a thought if Disney wanted to shut down any argument on the lockoff premium, I wonder if they can say all lockoff rooms can be booked as 2 bedrooms only. I haven't given that a thought if they can but I suspect they might be able to.

Overall, the above reason is why I focused on asking Disney if there is a limit to what they can raise a room's cost. With the above consideration and the maximum reallocation language (and right to reserve a Use Day at X points), gets even more interesting. I wonder if the maximum reallocation language and right to reserve a Use Day at X points was something regulators required to approve the POS. With this in mind I would suggest anyone concerned really raise this issue with Florida directly stating they were sold the ability to reserve smaller units. However, those without dedicated units could start to have major issues effectively removing a Home Type from the inventory. If the regulators did require the language in the POS they would 100% have an interpretation in mind of this language and that would have to be the interpretation Disney would be held to. I suspect it was something regulators needed when they told me it had to be put in there to setup the first year of the resort, thus only applying to the first year.

Does anybody have a POS for a different Point based TimeShare in florida? Does similar language exist in that one? If so then there would be some basic understanding of what the State meant that language to mean if they requested it to be added.

 

[CaliforniaGirl09]

Which camp do you fall in?

I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and I want to thank all of you who have put so much effort in on our behalves. I fall in the camp of the allocation being for Disney's benefit, to profit from breakage, and not for its general members. Whether they can do so within the terms of the docs is debatable (and I lean toward not), but I think the stronger claim is that they breached their fiduciary duty to act in members' interests and not their own. The one bedroom being more in demand than two bedroom doesn't pass the smell test, and the fact that the exec didn't know what is going on with the reallocation was pretty ridiculous. One of the biggest selling points of DVC was that the overall points can never go up. I bet 99% of DVC brokers say that to buyers. This reallocation makes a mockery of that. The profit Disney will take from it is completely relevant, and I believe would bolster a breach of fiduciary duty claim. "Wow, what a crazy coincidence that we are making $xx million more now?" I don't think a court would look favorably on that.

But I do think publicity might be a faster option than litigation. It definitely isn't the most newsworthy of stories though, as it's complicated to explain what is going on and doesn't have a nice, quick soundbite. But I think publicity would be the best way to get Disney to do something to change. They don't like bad press I wonder if there are any timeshare watchdogs out there--especially on TV in Florida? Or news watchdogs? Getting someone like that to take it on in Florida might make Disney rethink. Maybe something like, "Ask any DVC broker to explain how the point system works and they will tell you the same thing: points can go up or down for a unit, but the total amount of points can never change. Well, DVC owners are finding out that isn't true in a big way. DVC management has just reallocated the point charts to create thousands of points out of thin air, lining their own pockets, while making it difficult for some owners who to rent their units for the amount of points they purchased." I'm sure you guys in the know can do much better than me with the particulars, but that would be the general idea to make it understandable and obvious what is at stake.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

Looks like a win for the members. They are revising the point charts:

 

[DougEMG]

Someone on another site just posted this, saying they got it from DVC after talking to them about the reallocation. I have no idea if it is true or not.

--------

Dear Ryan,



Thank you for reaching out to our team.



Disney Vacation Club Management has revised the 2020 Vacation Points Charts originally posted on the Member website on Dec. 19, 2018.



As we have stated, the reallocation of vacation point values is outlined in the Membership Agreement and is an important part of meeting Members’ needs and expectations.



The originally posted 2020 Vacation Points Charts were consistent with the Membership Agreement. However, Disney Vacation Club Management listened to our Members’ feedback and decided to more closely align them with the 2019 Vacation Points Charts, with some adjustments for the 2020 calendar.



This will give Disney Vacation Club Management time to further analyze demand and usage patterns, along with Member feedback, and adjust Vacation Points Charts for 2021 and beyond, as appropriate.



Thank you,

Yvonne



Yvonne Chang

Director, Club Management & Regulatory Affairs

 

[Dean]

Does anybody have a POS for a different Point based TimeShare in florida? Does similar language exist in that one? If so then there would be some basic understanding of what the State meant that language to mean if they requested it to be added.

Here's the definition from 721

(41) “Timeshare unit” means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter, unless the timeshare instrument provides that timeshare interests may be separately conveyed in such locked-off portions.

This is clear in stating that unless here is specific language to the contrary, they are counted as one. For DVC there isn't and thus it's the default of the entire villa. There should be no confusion in this area for DVC or the state intent. Clearly the state's intent was for lockoff's to be treated as a whole unless specifically designated otherwise by the developer.

I reviewed the POS for Bluegreen which has some similarities. It allows for demand balancing as well but there are some key differences. It's held in a trust but the points are conveyed as specific units for a specific period fo time. Often it's a portion of a lockoff and in some cases, it's not for a full week. The separate components of a lockoff are equal to the entire lockoff cost to reserve though with BG. Something like a studio gets 7000 its, a 1 BR 8000 pmts and the same 2 BR 15000 pts. I have Marriott's somewhere but I don't have it handy right now.