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

[Novakm]

Any idea how we get DVD to turn over that data? Seems like they should have to answer for this reallocation somehow

We don’t have past data, but it will be easy to see if this benefits Disney. Compare 2019 breakage income to 2020 breakage income for each resort. If it goes up significantly, something is fishy.

If it goes down, the reallocation was a success for membership.

 

[mustinjourney]

We don’t have past data, but it will be easy to see if this benefits Disney. Compare 2019 breakage income to 2020 breakage income for each resort. If it goes up significantly, something is fishy.

If it goes down, the reallocation was a success for membership.

It definitely went up. Disney just added several 10s of million of dollars per year

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Kat, I disagree.

The “lock off premium” just has to mean another category is less expensive than it would have been without the kickoff premium.

The section that states that it doesn't have to do that has been posted previously in the thread.

We don’t have past data, but it will be easy to see if this benefits Disney. Compare 2019 breakage income to 2020 breakage income for each resort. If it goes up significantly, something is fishy.

If it goes down, the reallocation was a success for membership.

And DVC management does not report the total breakage income. All they have to report is what the breakage income is that comes back to the resort budgets. That is capped what comes back and has maxed out for quite awhile per what others have reported. There is no transparency in what the Management company receives back as the remainder.

 

[mab2012]

You stated : "The 2020 point charts are clearly in violation of the "maximum reallocation" point values in some categories, including BWV standard studios (subject to my disclaimer* above)."

The quote you provided above is available to any DVC Member via the POS for their Resort. Please note that the quote you include above was preceded in my POS by "As stated in the preceding paragraph, even in the event of maximum reallocation," and was followed by "a Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability, at least one (1) Use Day in a one (1) bedroom Vacation Home for every thirty (30) Vacation Points and at least one (1) …". The POS I have quoted from is the May, 1993 OKW document and the statement above does NOT include mention of Studio, only 1 and 2 Bedroom Vacation Homes. Studios and Grand Villas were not specifically mentioned in this sentence, but were included in the Maximum Reallocation.

You posted two pages. The document labelled "OKW-VacationPointResValues-05-1993.pdf" discusses DVC's right to reallocate in general, and the final paragraph specifically lays out the member's entitlement to reserve one day "for every X" points, where X varies according to the unit type, including studio units (subject to availability). This is described before ANY mention of maximum reallocation is made. It goes on to describe maximum reallocation, calling the information on page 163 a "graphic depiction" of the maximum reallocation scenario. However, even if the language on page 162 did state "even in the event of maximum reallocation..." that wouldn't change anything. If I tell my child that I will love them "even if" they do some horrible thing, that doesn't imply that they must do that horrible thing in order to be loved. Likewise, the entitlement "to reserve ... at least one use day in a <type> vacation home for every X vacation points" applies regardless of whether maximum reallocation has or has not been reached.

As for the description of the given values as an "average": I've mostly tried to avoid using that term in an attempt to avoid contention, but the fact is that the language in the POS does describe an average. Because, math. By definition, if I can reserve "at least one night for each X points", that means the average point value over the number of nights I reserve must be no higher than X. They don't have to use the term "average" in order to describe an average value.

In looking at the 2020 BWV Point charts, there appear to be many nights where a Studio may be reserved for 15 points or less, so if that was the villa size you were referencing as a violation, it would seem that the 2020 charts do meet the intent as there are indeed nights (based on availability) where Studios cost 15 or fewer points. Again, that statement would also be true under Maximum Reallocation.

It makes no difference if there are "many" nights where a studio may be reserved for 15 points or less, unless any owner can book "one use day in a studio for every 15 vacation points", including an owner who owns 15 * 365 = 5475 points. And that has been shown to be impossible in 2020. The only assumption that has been made here is that the language in the BWV POS describes the owners' reservation entitlements in the same way as the OKW POS. As I'm not a BWV owner, I can't check.

 

[mab2012]

Not sure how you did your calculation -- but all of the reallocation calculations are supposed to be based on the same Base Year, which has the least number of F/Sa nights and is 365 days long. Perhaps 2020 has a higher number of F/Sa than the Base Year, and this might account for at least some of the difference?

It could make a small difference, yes. They don't reallocate the point chart each year to account for differences in the number of weekend days, so the total number of points to book 365 nights could vary slightly from year to year. But 364 is divisible by 7, so the number of weekend days between any two years can't vary by more than one. And the difference between a weekend stay and a weekday stay in a studio is typically 5 points or less. So it doesn't go very far to explain the 58 point spread. You might also get more weekend nights falling into a higher point season (where the weekday/weekend spread is higher) in one year compared to another, but again, that's not going to explain more than a couple of points.

 

[Dean]

Shouldn’t 1BRs have gone down then? And if 2BRs were in higher demand, their prices shouldn’t have gone down overall.

That would not have affected 2 br availability

 

[Dean]

Not to mention if VGF is sold out, the fact that SSR has inventory should not cause VGF to get reallocated.

But there going to take a big picture approach looking across all resorts

 

[mustinjourney]

But there going to take a big picture approach looking across all resorts

I'm pretty sure they can't reallocate points at VGF in order to facilitate a change at another resort. Doesn't the language specifically limit the reallocation to affecting demand at that specific resort?

 

[DVC92]

I read thru a good part of this thread, but not all of it, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

From a contract standpoint, there are two definitions of points. The points contained “within” a unit are different from the points needed to “book” the rooms in the unit.

The total points needed to “book” the resort for a year needs to closely equal the points “within” the resort. The points to “book” a unit does not need to equal the points “within” the unit.

The number of points “within” a unit can never change. It’s on the deed, and was calculated based on cost to build.

The number of points to “book” a unit is based on how popular it is. The more people want to book it the more points. This is the only fair way to minimize breakage.

As an example, ocean view and parking lot view units contain an equal number of points, because they cost the same to build. But it costs more points to book ocean view because more people want ocean view. NOT because it costs more. Let’s face it, if GVs were the same points as studios, lot no one would want a studio.

The goal of a reallocation of points to book is to minimize breakage. If I look at the 60 day RAT today, there are 339 room nights available likely to become breakage. None are studios, and only 39 are 1br. The rest are 2+ BR. This tells me studio and 1 BR are “priced” too low compared to 2+BR.

Im willing to wait and see if this latest change helps with this. If not, they can readjust for 2022.

Why does breakage matter? If the rooms aren't booked, DVC will rent them out and make a buck. By raising the points in studios and 1BRs, there will be greater breakage and DVC will make more moolah. That is probably their intent!

 

[DVC92]

Not to mention if VGF is sold out, the fact that SSR has inventory should not cause VGF to get reallocated.

Exactly. If VGF is sold out, why should DVC care if a room is not booked? The only reason is to be able to rent.

 

[RobDoc]

On the contrary the OKW POS does include the studio and grand villas. The paragraph you a quoting from is setting the maximum amount of points you would be required to have to participate in an external exchange based on a weekly reservations. If you read the preceding paragraph which is the language being mentioned by others does have the information and that is the setup to the maximum reallocation.

I've attached the section from OKW that does specifically state the rates for the studio and Grand Villas.

Thank you for that correction.

 

[Madame]

Why does breakage matter? If the rooms aren't booked, DVC will rent them out and make a buck. By raising the points in studios and 1BRs, there will be greater breakage and DVC will make more moolah. That is probably their intent!

Huh? DVCMC is supposed to be representing OUR interests, not making Disney “more moolah”!!

 

[dvc at last !]

Holding my place to read .......

 

[RobDoc]

Novakm said: ↑
We don’t have past data, but it will be easy to see if this benefits Disney. Compare 2019 breakage income to 2020 breakage income for each resort. If it goes up significantly, something is fishy.

If it goes down, the reallocation was a success for membership.

It definitely went up. Disney just added several 10s of million of dollars per year

I believe it is a little early to see what the breakage income will be for 2019 and definitely too early to look at 2020 numbers.

 

[DougEMG]

Not to mention if VGF is sold out, the fact that SSR has inventory should not cause VGF to get reallocated.

This is the exactly the part I don't get (one of many apparently ). Why should resort A have a reallocation done to match and help out resort B?

 

[mustinjourney]

This is the exactly the part I don't get (one of many apparently ). Why should resort A have a reallocation done to match and help out resort B?

 

[DougEMG]

And DVC management does not report the total breakage income. All they have to report is what the breakage income is that comes back to the resort budgets. That is capped what comes back and has maxed out for quite awhile per what others have reported. There is no transparency in what the Management company receives back as the remainder.

No reporting of the demand numbers that DVC is looking at to justify the reallocation, no reporting of breakage income to show if the reallocation helps members or DVC more and increasing the lock-off premium. Given that it is easy to see how it is possible for DVC to come out ahead while at the same time we have to trust what they are doing kind of makes me feel like a sucker. Coming from the IT security field, I'm more of a "trust but verify" kind of person. Sadly I probably placed too much trust in the Disney brand when I bought.

 

[mab2012]

I've been trying to make sense of the cost decrease on 2BR units at the expense of 1BR units. Particularly at SSR, where 1BR units seem to be available virtually all the time. They can be had on exchange almost any week of the year, and most of the time they are the ONLY unit that gets exchanged. So clearly the 1BR demand is low, right?

But what if it's not really low 1BR demand, as much as disproportionately high studio demand? 1BR demand is obviously lower than studio demand, but it could still actually be higher (maybe even significantly higher) than 2BR demand. If nobody is booking 2BR and most of the units end up getting booked as studios, that could look like a lot of empty 1BR units, when really the root issue might be 2BR booking patterns. If more 2BR units are booked, that leaves fewer units that can be booked as studios, which means fewer 1BR units available. It's plausible that overall occupancy could be improved by this change, which would leave fewer "breakage" units for DVCMC to rent, not more.

Granted, they wouldn't necessarily have to increase 1BR costs to achieve the same result. And it doesn't necessarily explain the changes at other resorts where all units are routinely reserved well in advance. (If the units aren't ultimately sitting empty, is there any need to influence demand at all?) But it's the best I've been able to come up with that doesn't involve "DVCMC is deliberately trying to rip off owners and line their own pockets", which I still don't think is likely.

 

[mab2012]

This is the exactly the part I don't get (one of many apparently ). Why should resort A have a reallocation done to match and help out resort B?

Maybe to slow the flood at the 7-month mark? It could be argued that there's a benefit to VGF owners in trying to keep demand roughly proportionate across resorts, so that they might have a hope of booking their home resort inside of 7 months.

Whether or not the reallocation that was done is enough to make a difference is another question.

 

[zavandor]

Not to mention if VGF is sold out, the fact that SSR has inventory should not cause VGF to get reallocated.

That's an excellent point. Which make me think... they haven't increased the lockoff premium at off site resorts, have they? Are they trying to balance demand at WDW with the demand at VB, HHI and Aulani?