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

[zavandor]

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

I will certainly do it. I am currently on holiday, but it'll be the first thing I'll do once back at home with easy access to a printer.

 

[Dean]

Is the purpose/goal of point reallocation to balance demand at a resort or across the entire system?

For example BWV has high demand and low point cost rooms, while SSR has much lower demand. Would DVC consider it reasonable to continue to increase studios/1 bedrooms point costs at BWV (using the lockoff premium) until demand balanced among the two resorts? Would this not be a way to increases point cost at older resorts to come more in line with newer resorts point charts, this would all be done of course in the name providing increased members benefit.

It's by resort but they are going to average out the information. For example, it's unlikely they'll rebalance at all if only 1 resort has demand that's off but if they do decide to rebalance largely due to one resort, they are likely to do adjustments in all resorts to tweak them even if the specifics at that resort we're enough off to do it by itself.

Something I ran across in my POS reading this morning that I hadn't remembered noting before is that there is the Home Resort Vacation Points that are subject to rebalancing and then DVC points (that which you use at 7 months) can also be subject to rebalancing at the determination of BVTC. It states that "The number of DVC Vacation Points required to make reservations at a DVC Resort from any other DVC Resort is determined by BVTC in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion from year to year and based upon the demand balancing standard set forth above".

I may be wrong but it appeared that there could be 2 point determinations and even 2 rebalancing possibilities - the Management Company will rebalance points for Home Resorts and BVTC (which I believe is comprised of the same group as the Management Company) oversees the "trades" to other DVC resorts and could potentially create a different chart although they never have. Since it references "above" rebalancing which is the section about 20%, point increases/decreases, units and Vacation homes that are under discussion it does seem like it still can't shift requirements between resorts.

Am I interpreting that all correctly?

BVTC is the registered exchange company. My guess is this is referencing the demand of the hotel side.

 

[Dean]

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%)

IMO, demand and ultimately being booked at not even close to the same. IF the demand is off but everything is ultimately utilized, they should still consider rebalancing depending on the specifics.

 

[Jerry5788]

Actually, it appears that they probably have almost no trouble renting out the Bungalows. In the next 3 weeks there are essentially NO Bungalows available to rent, from Disney or from DVC points. Ergo, any that broke MUST be rented out.

It is true that on most resorts, there probably is not that much 'Breakage.' That is why I only talked about Breakage at Poly. The Bungalows break, very very frequently. There also is almost certainly some breakage at the other resorts you mentioned. BUT, the Lock-Off Premium is entirely different from Breakage. And it starts immediately, once all the Dedicated Studios are reserved, and the DVC Members then turn the the 'Lock-Off' Studios. They don't even realize they are getting it from a lock off. They only know that they wanted a Studio and one was available, but by selecting it, they separate the lock-off and create the Lock-off windfall that then goes to Disney.

Correct but the breakage exists at SSR. I get the whole lock-off premium causes people to use points quicker. If we exclude the borrowing, banking, and one-off purchases that means there are extra rooms available once people’s points get depleted quicker. But those extra rooms that are there get booked at 7 months and people use their other points to book.

If I get sometime I’m going to replicate total points needed for resort 100% booking at 1) optimal booking meaning 2 bedrooms all booked first, 2) unoptimal booking studios all booked first. And then compare and contrast under original point structure and new point structure. Probably at BCV as it’s smaller and easier to do I imagine.

 

[crvetter]

Correct but the breakage exists at SSR. I get the whole lock-off premium causes people to use points quicker. If we exclude the borrowing, banking, and one-off purchases that means there are extra rooms available once people’s points get depleted quicker. But those extra rooms that are there get booked at 7 months and people use their other points to book.

If I get sometime I’m going to replicate total points needed for resort 100% booking at 1) optimal booking meaning 2 bedrooms all booked first, 2) unoptimal booking studios all booked first. And then compare and contrast under original point structure and new point structure. Probably at BCV as it’s smaller and easier to do I imagine.

I would suggest reading post #139 on page 7. It was interesting. I believed what you believed but after this I am not 100% sure. But the one thing I am arguing is the maximum reallocation gives a limit to what they can raise the costs to. It specifically states it can’t go above that amount which is effectively describing the average nightly point cost. That’s the route I’m pursuing in my letters now. It at least caps our costs and highlights an issue with some resorts not all. Plus even those without dedicated studios and 2 bedrooms are protected with this argument since it has maximum reallocations for those too.

 

[Jerry5788]

I would suggest reading post #139. It was interesting. I believed what you believed but after this I am not 100% sure. But the one thing I am arguing is the maximum reallocation gives a limit to what they can raise the costs to. It specifically states it can’t go above that amount which is effectively describing the average nightly point cost. That’s the route I’m pursuing in my letters now. It at least caps our costs and highlights an issue with some resorts not all. Plus even those without dedicated studios and 2 bedrooms are protected with this argument since it has maximum reallocations for those too.

Do you know what page #139 post is lol

 

[PerfessorZ]

Do you know what page #139 post is lol

Page 7, Dean’s post with the attachment.

 

[crvetter]

Do you know what page #139 post is lol

Apologize I meant to say the post is in page 7. I’ve corrected

 

[Jerry5788]

Correct but the breakage exists at SSR. I get the whole lock-off premium causes people to use points quicker. If we exclude the borrowing, banking, and one-off purchases that means there are extra rooms available once people’s points get depleted quicker. But those extra rooms that are there get booked at 7 months and people use their other points to book.

If I get sometime I’m going to replicate total points needed for resort 100% booking at 1) optimal booking meaning 2 bedrooms all booked first, 2) unoptimal booking studios all booked first. And then compare and contrast under original point structure and new point structure. Probably at BCV as it’s smaller and easier to do I imagine.

Here is my analysis of Beach Club - hope it is right lol

I am not sure why my YoY points are changing - does anyone know the total number of points issued at BCV?

 

[Chuck S]

The problem with some of the suggested figures is that they assume all rooms are rented every singe day, either via cash or DVC points. Remember that there are sure to be some rooms at almost every resort that are not rented, and some that are down for maintenance or refurbishments.

If Disney were able to rent every room onsite every night, they should be building cash resorts by the dozen, as a long term investment.

DVC is a short term investment for the company...they build, they sell most of the resort, and they are out, except for maintenance and management. DVC gives them immediate cash on hand, cash resorts gives them great long term ROI. A combination of both types of investments are needed for a conglomerate like Disney.

As far as DVC, Disney’s right to reallocate, the maximum allowable allocation, and so forth are spelled out in our documents. It was our responsibility to read them and then decide if the program was right for us even if Disney did maximum reallocation. What really seems to be throwing the system off is the smaller contracts, the system was originally designed for larger 230+ contracts, limiting the number of owners who can be wanting reservations at any one time. Smaller contracts means that more people are competing for the same units than what the system was originally designed to handle.

 

[Jerry5788]

The problem with some of the suggested figures is that they assume all rooms are rented every singe day, either via cash or DVC points. Remover that there are sure to be some rooms at almost every resort that are not rented, and some that are down for maintenance or refurbishments.

If Disney were able to able to rent every room onsite every night, they should be building cash resorts by the dozen, as a long term investment.

DVC is a short term investment for the company...they build, they sell most of the resort, and they are out, except for maintenace and management. DVC gives them immediate cash on hand, cash resorts gives them great long term ROI. A combination of both types of investments are needed for a conglomerate like Disney.

As far as DVC, Disney’s right to reallocate, the maximum allowable allocation, and so forth are spelled out in our documents. It was our responsibility to read them and then decide if the program was right for us even if Disney did maximum reallocation. What really seems to be throwing the system off is the smaller contracts, the system was originally designed for larger 230+ contracts, limiting the number of owners who can be wanting reservations at any one time.smalker contracts means that more people are competing for the same units than what the system was originally designed to handle.

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

 

[Chuck S]

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

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.

 

[Jerry5788]

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 the sell 10 230 point contracts, so 20 people have a good chance of getting what they want. Now say those same 2300 are divided into 23 100 point contracts, you now have 23 people competing for those 10 studios for the same dates.

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.

 

[OKW Lover]

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 the sell 10 230 point contracts, so 20 people have a good chance of getting what they want. Now say those same 2300 are divided into 23 100 point contracts, you now have 23 people competing for those 10 studios for the same dates.

But this assumes that those small contracts are all owned by different people. I wonder how many owners have only 50 (or fewer) points.

 

[Chuck S]

But this assumes that those small contracts are all owned by different people. I wonder how many owners have only 50 (or fewer) points.

Quite a few, by reading the boards. If all the smaller contracts were owned by people that already had larger contracts, then there would not be the competition for studios that apparently is happening. Disney perhaps could have controlled this (assuming it would be legal) by gobbling up all the small contracts when someone wants to sell them resale, or adding those points to the original contract when add-ons were purchased, so they could not be sold separately. Buying up the smaller contracts when they hit resale seems like the best way to go, but more expensive for DIsney than just not allowing add-ons to hit resale.. But since add-ons may be in separate "units" of the same resort, they may not be able to legally add them to the original contract.

I have the original 230 point contract, and 3 add-ons (40, 40 and 35) at OKW...some are the same unit/building, but not all. For all practical purposes, they act as one contract

 

[wdrl]

Here is my analysis of Beach Club - hope it is right lol

I am not sure why my YoY points are changing - does anyone know the total number of points issued at BCV?

Beach Club Villas has 86 Residential Units that, according to my calculations, contain 3,027,700 points. Due to rounding in my calculations, BCV's actual number of points is probably + or - 0.001%, or about 3,000 points.

Here is a chart that I drafted on BCV's 2020 reallocation. I post it with a significant qualification because it does not take into account that reallocations must use the same Base Year. In my chart, I compared calendar year 2019 to 2020 and you will note that the number of weekend days and weekdays are different in the Adventure and Dream Seasons between the two years. If I had correctly used the appropriate Base Year, there would be no such differences. BTW, the Base Year does not include a Leap Day; it has only 365 days.

Please note that the total number of points to book all of BCV in 2020 actually goes down by about 2,296 points. That is -0.0758% than in 2019. Put another way, that is a difference of 8/100ths of a percent.

 

[CarolMN]

IMO, demand and ultimately being booked at not even close to the same. IF the demand is off but everything is ultimately utilized, they should still consider rebalancing depending on the specifics.

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?

 

[Jerry5788]

Beach Club Villas has 86 Residential Units that, according to my calculations, contain 3,027,700 points. Due to rounding in my calculations, BCV's actual number of points is probably + or - 0.001%, or about 3,000 points.

Here is a chart that I drafted on BCV's 2020 reallocation. I post it with a significant qualification because it does not take into account that reallocations must use the same Base Year. In my chart, I compared calendar year 2019 to 2020 and you will note that the number of weekend days and weekdays are different in the Adventure and Dream Seasons between the two years. If I had correctly used the appropriate Base Year, there would be no such differences. BTW, the Base Year does not include a Leap Day; it has only 365 days.

Please note that the total number of points to book all of BCV in 2020 actually goes down by about 2,296 points. That is -0.0758% than in 2019. Put another way, that is a difference of 8/100ths of a percent.

Thanks I was able to compare your chart to mine and make corrections. Only difference I have is Magic Season Weekday/Weekend count in 2020.

So full breakage would have been 192K points in 2019 - full breakage in 2020 would be 255K a difference of 63K (33%) or 2% of full BCV points.

This is actually more sizable then I imagine but I still think it is Disney's right to do so as the original point chart is staying full clear. People complain about studios going up in cost but imagine if resorts like BCV did not have lock-off 2 BR and only dedicated.

The theoretical resort would look like 75 studios, 59 1BR and 113 2 bedroom dedicated versus today a theoretical 110 studios, 94 1 BR, and 78 2 bedrooms. Competition would be that much worse and the studio people would be getting squeezed up to 1 bedrooms and paying more.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It's by resort but they are going to average out the information. For example, it's unlikely they'll rebalance at all if only 1 resort has demand that's off but if they do decide to rebalance largely due to one resort, they are likely to do adjustments in all resorts to tweak them even if the specifics at that resort we're enough off to do it by itself.

BVTC is the registered exchange company. My guess is this is referencing the demand of the hotel side.

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:



And a later reference about point requirements:

 

[DVC92]

The problem with some of the suggested figures is that they assume all rooms are rented every singe day, either via cash or DVC points. Remember that there are sure to be some rooms at almost every resort that are not rented, and some that are down for maintenance or refurbishments.

If Disney were able to able to rent every room onsite every night, they should be building cash resorts by the dozen, as a long term investment.

DVC is a short term investment for the company...they build, they sell most of the resort, and they are out, except for maintenance and management. DVC gives them immediate cash on hand, cash resorts gives them great long term ROI. A combination of both types of investments are needed for a conglomerate like Disney.

As far as DVC, Disney’s right to reallocate, the maximum allowable allocation, and so forth are spelled out in our documents. It was our responsibility to read them and then decide if the program was right for us even if Disney did maximum reallocation. What really seems to be throwing the system off is the smaller contracts, the system was originally designed for larger 230+ contracts, limiting the number of owners who can be wanting reservations at any one time. Smaller contracts means that more people are competing for the same units than what the system was originally designed to handle.

Having been in the club since its first year, I originally purchased over the minimum 230 for OKW. Since then I have purchased at BLT and VGF with over 230 in each. I was always aware of reallocation, but when 1BRs cost more, or almost as much as a 2BR irrespective of the view, something is wrong.