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

[Matty B13]

Frankly their supposed claim that the maximum reallocation could only occur in year one--when it obviously would not occur--has me questioning the validity of the responses.

If DVC's official position is that a Copper Creek studios should average no more than 18 points per night, but only if a maximum reallocation occurs in Year One, then I'm all on board with a lawsuit. But since the POS places no limits on when this reallocation can occur, I doubt that's a position they will stand by. And it raises doubt on the entire exchange, as related here.

Yeah, that statement really makes you question the entire conversation.

 

[crvetter]

Yeah, that statement really makes you question the entire conversation.

Everyone is entitled to their view on the conversation. I've reported exactly what I was told. Everyone should also contact Disney directly if they want further clarity as I've iterated numerous times. I do suggest you write a letter and actually speak with senior leadership if you want an answer.

 

[GrumpyInPhilly]

In the interest of clarifying my observations in all my prior post to summarize my standing that might have gotten lost through a bunch of back and forth.

1. I initially felt that DVC needed to keep points within a given Vacation Home Type constant (per what I was told by Sales and Quality Assurance). However, when reading older multi-site POSs that explicitly stated otherwise I abandoned that view and feel something was lost in communication during the sales process.
2. I initially felt that guaranteed weeks would strain the system because shortage of points would occur when a room costs 150 to book but the guaranteed week was only 110 (after hypothetical reallocations). I've abandoned this view after talking to DVC as I was told Developer points would have to make up the difference so Members points still maintained the 1 to 1 right to use rule. Thus as a members it worked for us.
3. I also felt there was a need to get a further understanding of the Maximum Reallocation language and a right to reserve a room at X points a night
   1. I took this to mean something differently than others on here on this board.
   2. I was sharing this as my main concern so others were aware of efforts being taken to get answers from DVCMC regarding a point reallocation that occurred without explanation.
   3. I got an explanation that Maximum Reallocation and the right to reserve one use night for X points applied in the first year.

With this in mind I've drafted a letter to the individuals I've spoken with to get further clarity, while expressing my points in a written fashion again to limit the loss in translation aspect.

Thank you for this summary and your continued effort on these issues.

 

[zavandor]

I have just had another call with Y. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's Y. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

 

[crvetter]

I have just had another call with I. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's I. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

I will admit they do take a lot of time out of their day to address concerns directly. It is something that does make them different than other timeshares.

 

[zavandor]

I will admit they do take a lot of time out of their day to address concerns directly. It is something that does make them different than other timeshares.

You're right, last time I completely got the name wrong, at least this time I was nearly there.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Thank you for doing these calls. She is a self-described "very senior" person, yet she was not aware of the massive devaluation of points through the lockoff premium changes. Maybe she is not as senior as she thinks. Her reaction is the same as everyone of us: An increase in one place requires a corresponding decrease in another place. The fact that she did not know the impact of the 2020 points chart is very disturbing.

 

[crvetter]

Thank you for doing these calls. She is a self-described "very senior" person, yet she was not aware of the massive devaluation of points through the lockout premium changes. Maybe she is not as senior as she thinks. Her reaction is the same as everyone of us: An increase in one place requires a corresponding decrease in another place. The fact that she did not know the impact of the 2020 points chart is very disturbing.

I would say that the reason she might not have known is she is indeed senior not "self-described". I think these issues are much more below her day to day job so giving her the benefit of the doubt here in why she wasn't aware of some things during the call. It was a similar experience I had with her but she was nothing but willing to answer questions.

 

[JGINPL]

I have just had another call with Y. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's Y. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

Very interesting that she asked you: "But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? " kind of wonder if she was looking for something that you would say to make you go away almost. I love your response though.

 

[DougEMG]

I have just had another call with Y. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's Y. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

So are they smart/sneaky and stonewalling you or are they really that dumb that they don't understanding any of the implications of what they are doing? I have no idea.

My one take away is "if you don't like it, sell".

Having happy sheep is so much easy to manage.

 

[JGINPL]

zanador and crvetter I really appreciate the work you guys are putting in on this. You 2 seem to know a lot more than I do so I like being able to follow the progress.

 

[Dean]

I think you are missing my point on this issue. My point is the Maximum Reallocation is to define an upper limit on the worse case across seasons and nights to reserve a room. If this does not apply then DVC at it's sole discretion can charge anything they want as long as the changes year over year are capped at 20% (and entire resort is in balance). Also if you define 364 days to be say 40 points but 1 day to the X points dictated in the POS you either wrote the POS deliberately misleading or it is violating the spirit of what the original writer intended. But I believe to avoid this argument is exactly why DVC stated any of this language only applies the first year.

It's not an upper limit, it's an average and technically it would provide no contractual protection at resorts with no dedicated smaller villas though realistically there is al limit. Could they make a studio the same as a 2 BR or a 1 BR the same as a 2 BR in the same view type, legally they could. Even in resorts with dedicated smaller units they could somewhat.

I still say going in person or working through a lawyer is really the only way to get this done. It sounds like we're still talking to middle management types here that aren't inherently versed on all the issues. Even a formal letter (not email) to the CEO with a copy to the legal department and voting rep would be better.

 

[crvetter]

It's not an upper limit, it's an average and technically it would provide no contractual protection at resorts with no dedicated smaller villas though realistically there is al limit. Could they make a studio the same as a 2 BR or a 1 BR the same as a 2 BR in the same view type, legally they could. Even in resorts with dedicated smaller units they could somewhat.

I still say going in person or working through a lawyer is really the only way to get this done. It sounds like we're still talking to middle management types here that aren't inherently versed on all the issues. Even a formal letter (not email) to the CEO with a copy to the legal department and voting rep would be better.

I can assure you that I was not speaking with middle management for DVC. I was quite up the chain of command. It would provide protections (if it actually meant what I thought it meant) for those resorts because they have the exact same language. However, as I reported DVC told me that the language no longer applied to the resorts.

 

[skier_pete]

zanador and crvetter I really appreciate the work you guys are putting in on this. You 2 seem to know a lot more than I do so I like being able to follow the progress.

Yes - thank you @zavandor and @crvetter for sharing your discussions - I simply wouldn't have the time to devote to these calls. Do you bring up the fact that there are maybe a few dozen people here with the same questions that you are standing up for on these calls?

It kind of blows me away in @crvetter 's post above (#1124) that someone (or two) high up in the organization don't seem to really understand the lockoff premium and how it can be used to manipulate points. I would like to think your call would be an eye-opener to at least one manager.

I also got a clear "is there some way we can get you to go away?" vibe from your description. You should've tried for "Give me an extra 15 points to make up for the lost nights you have taken away from me."

 

[crvetter]

Yes - thank you @zavandor and @crvetter for sharing your discussions - I simply wouldn't have the time to devote to these calls. Do you bring up the fact that there are maybe a few dozen people here with the same questions that you are standing up for on these calls?

It kind of blows me away in @crvetter 's post above (#1124) that someone (or two) high up in the organization don't seem to really understand the lockoff premium and how it can be used to manipulate points. I would like to think your call would be an eye-opener to at least one manager.

I also got a clear "is there some way we can get you to go away?" vibe from your description. You should've tried for "Give me an extra 15 points to make up for the lost nights you have taken away from me."

I think you meant @zavandor post.

 

[JGINPL]

Wonder if we could look at this another way and I may be way off here. But let's take my 100 points = a undivided 0.3370% interest in a unit. If more points are being added to the system by changing the point system across the board. (if this is indeed happening) Wouldn't my ownership interest in my unit be worth more points then?

 

[aoconnor]

It kind of blows me away in @crvetter 's post above (#1124) that someone (or two) high up in the organization don't seem to really understand the lockoff premium and how it can be used to manipulate points. I would like to think your call would be an eye-opener to at least one manager."

Hopefully we're not giving them any ideas

 

[Dean]

Wonder if we could look at this another way and I may be way off here. But let's take my 100 points = a undivided 0.3370% interest in a unit. If more points are being added to the system by changing the point system across the board. (if this is indeed happening) Wouldn't my ownership interest in my unit be worth more points then?

No the POS specifically addresses this issue and says it does not.

 

[mustinjourney]

The chart must still continue to balance--which would be very difficult to do if pricing one night at 18 points and 364 days at 40 points. Member demand will also keep that from happening. Since the charts still have to balance, the need to apply adjustments to other villa sizes will largely keep things in check.

if there are no dedicated studios or 1BRs, they could absolutely do this. At VGF, they could provide 1 night at a studio for 18 points and 1 night at a 1BR for 36 or whatever the number is, and then the other 364 days could be 30 and 50 and there's nothing we could do. The 2BRs would have to still balance out with the 3BRs villas, but the studios and 1BRs they can do whatever,

With that said -- the point reallocation still says that it can only be done in response to User Demand. Which is why I think they need to provide some data.

 

[mustinjourney]

That said, I think you're going beyond the scope of this language in assuming that the sum total of all Studios can never average more than 18 points per night.

Agreed -- at VGF, in 2019, the average for studios already exceeds 18. In fact, the average cost of a studio if there were no views and all days were the same is 23 points and in 2020, it jumps up to 25 points on average.