DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[dischris11]

I spoke with Yvonne @ DVC earlier today and we chatted for about an hour.

I want to indicate that this is my recollection and notes from the conversation; anything quoted may not be a direct quote.

I can say that based on her comments; she likely reads these boards and members emails (at least some of them) as she was able to bring up many of the ideas we've postulated in this thread without prompting, which I appreciated.

At the end of this post is the email I sent to her and her team after reaching contact. Included were attachments of some of the materials that were most interesting to me on this thread, including a points worksheet for each resort (I'm sorry, I don't recall who posted it and a ton of stuff has been taken down by the owners - so I won't repost it here).

We broke the conversation into two parts:

• A: Point creation
• B: Point reallocation

We spoke through for a few minutes on how DVC comes up with a "comfort model" to determine how points are created in a resort, but agreed that much of how points were created (that is base year, square footage, ext) really don't matter to the specific part of reallocation and did not dive into this topic too much past what we already know in appendix A of the POS.

What we focused on specifically was reallocation; my main question being "what determines how points are reallocated, and how does that result in an increase year-to-year?"

Her response was what I initially expected, that holidays and higher demand periods in 2022 caused the increase in points. She indicated 2023 would be a "down point year" and that they in fact have decided to not change allocation at all for 2023. We also talked about how "rounding" can play a role in point increases [to which I replied, might account for maybe several hundred points a year]. Her overall response was that the point reallocation was good for membership.

I indicated I wasn't too concerned about looking forward, until we look back and understand what happened. Specifically around the multiple instances in the POS that indicate point increases coincide with a decrease. If we look at SSR as an example, declared vs 2022 point totals show an overall increase of 67,000 points.

She said DVCM's intent is to not continually increase points.

I brought up that if holidays are to blame; it wouldn't make sense that DVCM could just say "every day is now a high-demand day" and increase the points by any arbitrary amount without reduction anywhere else. Further, I do not see a way that DVCM can increase points year-to-year outside of a leap year due to ownership being a function of (space x time).

She agreed that DVCM could not increase the points to whatever value they wanted arbitrarily and would need to look into it some more.

I also brought up that, outside of points - "percentage of ownership" is really what the membership owns. And, this is a function of (space x time). Point charts are a simplistic way of measuring this ownership - but ultimately outside of point creation, the POS does not address point charts and in-fact addresses each and every day of the year independently.

She agreed that ownership percentage is what is being sold, but the points system is what they have been given/are using and the outcome of the points is just what has happened. She also agreed that the reallocation terms do in-fact not discuss points managed as a chart. She said that had they the ability to go back and do it again, they would have multiplied the number of points (not in a way to reduce value, but in a way to make rounding less of an issue when creating the charts).

I brought up that to membership, the point increase of 67,000 points at a single resort has a retail value at DVC's own one-time-use price of over a million dollars a year; and that in every year up to this point - DVC has met the breakage cap of 7.5% for the capital reserve account meaning that the creation of additional points has no monetary benefit to membership and in-fact decreases their overall leverage in using the resort.

She indicated none of the resorts operate at 100% occupancy and that membership has the opportunity to use breakage within the 60 days just as DVCM does. She did agree to look into if something can be done about the perception of extra revenue being drawn from the point increases.

I also brought up that there may have been no intended malice, but at a minimum - the feeling the ownership takes away - is that DVCM is benefiting. And that if the intent was purely balancing that the ~67,000 points at SSR could reduce the total daily points by ~183. I would like to know why they didn't do this.

We ended the call that she would like to get with her analysists; the team has grown significantly over the years from 5 originally and she did not have all the answers in front of her but said she would present them all the information I sent and get back to me with what has happened in the next few weeks; or at least follow up in 2-3 weeks if she doesn't have a concrete answer.



My email:

Thank you for doing this.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

Eldon32, thank you very much for all of the effort you've put into this. Much appreciated!

 

[New Mouse]

Appreciate the conversation...sounds like the person steering the ship doesnt actually understand DVC from day 1... in turn it doesnt surprise me that the "analysts" also dont understand, or choose not to understand what is required. All of this is not surprising as Disney does not pay anywhere near market value for most of their positions, so in turn this is the result of that.

At the end of the day, its clear they are quite aware of what they are doing. Whether they are aware what they are doing is illegal doesnt really matter as its not allowed plain and simple.

 

[EM Lawrence]

I’m still not getting notifications for this post, despite “watching” it, commenting on it recently and checking it every time it comes up in my notifications. When I click on the thread it also takes me to the first page instead of defaulting to the page that contains new posts. Is anyone else having this issue, or just me?

 

[mlayman7]

Thanks for keeping everyone informed. To me it sounds like that she admitted they were wrong but said they were not going to do anything about it. I do not understand where she said, 2023 will be a down year but they will not adjust the point charts?

 

[Minniemoo15]

Thanks for keeping everyone informed. To me it sounds like that she admitted they were wrong but said they were not going to do anything about it. I do not understand where she said, 2023 will be a down year but they will not adjust the point charts?

I'm confused about that too. According to @i<3riviera's charts 2023 is already projected to be a down year (but still higher than what it should be). That doesn't give me much comfort.

Agree with the others - thanks for taking the time to call and sharing your findings with us.

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks for keeping everyone informed. To me it sounds like that she admitted they were wrong but said they were not going to do anything about it. I do not understand where she said, 2023 will be a down year but they will not adjust the point charts?

Easter week switches between 3 travel periods. In 2023, the week for Easter in 2022 will go back to travel period 5 but will come from travel period 6. That will lower the charts back to closer to 2021.

Easter week came from travel period 5 in 2022 charts, but the 2021 week went back to travel period 6...which played a role in the point changes seen in the 2022 charts..

When the chart had only 5 seasons, Easter only flopped between season 4 and 5 so we didn’t see what has happened,

The 7 travel periods were made to more specifically match demand and usage of owners. And yes, I know it is not something everyone agrees was the reason.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m still not getting notifications for this post, despite “watching” it, commenting on it recently and checking it every time it comes up in my notifications. When I click on the thread it also takes me to the first page instead of defaulting to the page that contains new posts. Is anyone else having this issue, or just me?

Contact one of the admins for the site. I believe it is admins@wdwinfo.com.

 

[dismedvc]

Also my thanks. However I I have a different opinion on on what what you put in bold in your email to DVC after your conversation.

"In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

I believe what you wrote in bold is what DVC is required to do under Florida time share law.
I read it to say the total number of Vacation Points sold for a particular resort cannot exceed the total number of points it takes to reserve all the units in that resort every night of the year. That is why they can never have a negative year. A negative year being where the total points required to reserve all units for all nights of a year are less than the total number of points sold.
What this thread is discussing is the opposite. That because of point inflation, the total number of points points required to reserve all units at a particular resort in 2022 is greater than it had been in past years and exceeds the number of points sold by a significant amount at all resorts. You indicated by about 67,000 points at SSR, and there is similar increases at all other resorts. Under the new method, the only years points sold will roughly equal the points required to reserve all units will be 2035 and 2046 when Easter falls on March 25th.

 

[Sandisw]

Also my thanks. However I I have a different opinion on on what what you put in bold in your email to DVC after your conversation.

"In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

I believe what you wrote in bold is what DVC is required to do under Florida time share law.
I read it to say the total number of Vacation Points sold for a particular resort cannot exceed the total number of points it takes to reserve all the units in that resort every night of the year. That is why they can never have a negative year. A negative year being where the total points required to reserve all units for all nights of a year are less than the total number of points sold.
What this thread is discussing is the opposite. That because of point inflation, the total number of points points required to reserve all units at a particular resort in 2022 is greater than it had been in past years and exceeds the number of points sold by a significant amount at all resorts. You indicated by about 67,000 points at SSR, and there is similar increases at all other resorts. Under the new method, the only years points sold will roughly equal the points required to reserve all units will be 2025 and 2046 when Easter falls on March 25th.

Correct in that points sold can never be more than what it takes to book in a year and that is why they choose high demand time with least Friday and Saturday because that would create the lowest points charts. That ensures they can never go negative.

In years where the holiday week changes or there are more weekend days or on a leap year it will be higher on the charts but the actual points that were sold remain constant.

 

[Eldon32]

I'm confused about that too. According to @i<3riviera's charts 2023 is already projected to be a down year (but still higher than what it should be). That doesn't give me much comfort.

Agree with the others - thanks for taking the time to call and sharing your findings with us.

I forgot to place my commentary for this; I do agree that it was concerning the points were staying the same even though it was a "down" year. I did not want to come off accusatory on anything (or at least, as little as possible) since she was willing to research this more and get back to me. Sometimes, people are more likely to make a change when they find their own mistake (if there is one) then when you point it out to them. I'm taking that approach up to the point that I feel no further progress can be made.

Correct in that points sold can never be more than what it takes to book in a year and that is why they choose high demand time with least Friday and Saturday because that would create the lowest points charts. That ensures they can never go negative.

In years where the holiday week changes or there are more weekend days or on a leap year it will be higher on the charts but the actual points that were sold remain constant.

I 100% agree with any leap year having a higher "bookable" point total given the extra day - and would gladly say that DVCM would keep any monies generated from those points as per the terms written.


It will be some time until my next update - but at least the conversation is open. I would encourage everyone to continue to message/email DVC if you take issue with what this thread is discussing. It's clear middle and upper management are hearing about it, and the more that happens the better the chance we all get to resolution.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I spoke with Yvonne @ DVC earlier today and we chatted for about an hour.

I want to indicate that this is my recollection and notes from the conversation; anything quoted may not be a direct quote.

I can say that based on her comments; she likely reads these boards and members emails (at least some of them) as she was able to bring up many of the ideas we've postulated in this thread without prompting, which I appreciated.

At the end of this post is the email I sent to her and her team after reaching contact. Included were attachments of some of the materials that were most interesting to me on this thread, including a points worksheet for each resort (I'm sorry, I don't recall who posted it and a ton of stuff has been taken down by the owners - so I won't repost it here).

We broke the conversation into two parts:

• A: Point creation
• B: Point reallocation

We spoke through for a few minutes on how DVC comes up with a "comfort model" to determine how points are created in a resort, but agreed that much of how points were created (that is base year, square footage, ext) really don't matter to the specific part of reallocation and did not dive into this topic too much past what we already know in appendix A of the POS.

What we focused on specifically was reallocation; my main question being "what determines how points are reallocated, and how does that result in an increase year-to-year?"

Her response was what I initially expected, that holidays and higher demand periods in 2022 caused the increase in points. She indicated 2023 would be a "down point year" and that they in fact have decided to not change allocation at all for 2023. We also talked about how "rounding" can play a role in point increases [to which I replied, might account for maybe several hundred points a year]. Her overall response was that the point reallocation was good for membership.

I indicated I wasn't too concerned about looking forward, until we look back and understand what happened. Specifically around the multiple instances in the POS that indicate point increases coincide with a decrease. If we look at SSR as an example, declared vs 2022 point totals show an overall increase of 67,000 points.

She said DVCM's intent is to not continually increase points.

I brought up that if holidays are to blame; it wouldn't make sense that DVCM could just say "every day is now a high-demand day" and increase the points by any arbitrary amount without reduction anywhere else. Further, I do not see a way that DVCM can increase points year-to-year outside of a leap year due to ownership being a function of (space x time).

She agreed that DVCM could not increase the points to whatever value they wanted arbitrarily and would need to look into it some more.

I also brought up that, outside of points - "percentage of ownership" is really what the membership owns. And, this is a function of (space x time). Point charts are a simplistic way of measuring this ownership - but ultimately outside of point creation, the POS does not address point charts and in-fact addresses each and every day of the year independently.

She agreed that ownership percentage is what is being sold, but the points system is what they have been given/are using and the outcome of the points is just what has happened. She also agreed that the reallocation terms do in-fact not discuss points managed as a chart. She said that had they the ability to go back and do it again, they would have multiplied the number of points (not in a way to reduce value, but in a way to make rounding less of an issue when creating the charts).

I brought up that to membership, the point increase of 67,000 points at a single resort has a retail value at DVC's own one-time-use price of over a million dollars a year; and that in every year up to this point - DVC has met the breakage cap of 7.5% for the capital reserve account meaning that the creation of additional points has no monetary benefit to membership and in-fact decreases their overall leverage in using the resort.

She indicated none of the resorts operate at 100% occupancy and that membership has the opportunity to use breakage within the 60 days just as DVCM does. She did agree to look into if something can be done about the perception of extra revenue being drawn from the point increases.

I also brought up that there may have been no intended malice, but at a minimum - the feeling the ownership takes away - is that DVCM is benefiting. And that if the intent was purely balancing that the ~67,000 points at SSR could reduce the total daily points by ~183. I would like to know why they didn't do this.

We ended the call that she would like to get with her analysists; the team has grown significantly over the years from 5 originally and she did not have all the answers in front of her but said she would present them all the information I sent and get back to me with what has happened in the next few weeks; or at least follow up in 2-3 weeks if she doesn't have a concrete answer.



My email:

Thank you for taking time to speak with DVCM and for sharing your conversation!

 

[dismedvc]

I did not want to come off accusatory on anything (or at least, as little as possible) since she was willing to research this more and get back to me. Sometimes, people are more likely to make a change when they find their own mistake (if there is one) then when you point it out to them. I'm taking that approach up to the point that I feel no further progress can be made.

Not sure if this also applies to my previous post #629. I want to clarify that my intent was not to be nitpicky and point out what I felt was a mistake in your email reply to DVC, I am just worried that if DVC can find even one minor error in your email reply, they will use that to dismiss your entire argument.
It seemed to me that when you bolded your statement in your reply that you were indicating you felt they had violated "This section also says in the very last sentence of the last paragraph of Exhibit A: In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Eldon32]

Not sure if this also applies to my previous post #629. I want to clarify that my intent was not to be nitpicky and point out what I felt was a mistake in your email reply to DVC, I am just worried that if DVC can find even one minor error in your email reply, they will use that to dismiss your entire argument.
It seemed to me that when you bolded your statement in your reply that you were indicating you felt they had violated "This section also says in the very last sentence of the last paragraph of Exhibit A: In any event, the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points can never exceed the total number of Ownership Interests in Units of which they are symbolic."

Sorry if I misunderstood.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong! I would just like them to tell me why; and that answer should compute backwards and forwards. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you, and that the whole thing has really become overly complicated!

 

[Sandisw]

I forgot to place my commentary for this; I do agree that it was concerning the points were staying the same even though it was a "down" year. I did not want to come off accusatory on anything (or at least, as little as possible) since she was willing to research this more and get back to me. Sometimes, people are more likely to make a change when they find their own mistake (if there is one) then when you point it out to them. I'm taking that approach up to the point that I feel no further progress can be made.




I 100% agree with any leap year having a higher "bookable" point total given the extra day - and would gladly say that DVCM would keep any monies generated from those points as per the terms written.


It will be some time until my next update - but at least the conversation is open. I would encourage everyone to continue to message/email DVC if you take issue with what this thread is discussing. It's clear middle and upper management are hearing about it, and the more that happens the better the chance we all get to resolution.

I agree everyone should talk directly because then they can have first hand knowledge and make a decision on their own as to the chart.

I’ve done it and am glad I did. As people know, I don’t agree with the premise that the chart is not as it should be in terms of the fluctuations that are allowed. It was these conversations and info given to me by DVCM that allowed me to research and seek the advice of wise friends who deal with legal aspects of contracts all the time.

But I am happy that DVCM has been very willing to spend the time they do to answer questions and explain to any and all owners who don’t get why it has been done the way it has!

 

[dismedvc]

It's entirely possible I'm wrong! I would just like them to tell me why; and that answer should compute backwards and forwards. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you, and that the whole thing has really become overly complicated!

I think you are right on every other point, and I appreciate your efforts.
As I said earlier I am just concerned that if you are right on ten different items, but wrong on one item, they will focus on that one item and give you a lengthy reply on why they are allowed (and may even be required) to do what they have done on that one item, and ignore your other ten items.

 

[Louis morrell]

Thank you to everyone that has contacted DVC about this. Looks like there is nothing else that can be done.

 

[Tiggerette]

As our thread recommended previously, it looks like DVC decided to remark on the point charts in the DVC Files Magazine. On page 21, the Listening Post article, "Feedback: The initial points charts I received for my home resort have changed multiple times since I became a member. Why do the charts change?" by Sajjad Naqvi, Club Strategy and Development. Additionally, there is a note for the December 9th condominium association meeting.

I encourage members concerned about the topics raised in this thread to read the one page article. Take note of what is said, and what is left unsaid.
- What's Said (in part): "Increasing vacation point requirements for some fall dates and off setting those increases by lowering requirements for some summer dates"
- What's Not Said : The overall points required to reserve throughout the year have significantly increased for some resorts. These higher points dilute the overall ownership when comparing the points required to rent now, then when declared at initial resort offering. The higher overall points lead to breakage of unreserved rooms. The ownership dilution and minimal amount of breakage returning to condo association for maintenance and usage demonstrate that this management choice to increase point requirements throughout the year for some resorts primarily benefits the corporation rather than the ownership. Lastly, the inflation of overall point requirements for some resorts demonstrate that the charts are not "point neutral," and instead mark a type of inflation which may be in breach of contract, as determined by a neutral party such as a Florida Regulator.

These are just my thoughts as I read the article. I appreciate that DVC management is concerned about perception of its fiduciary stewardship through point chart adjustments. I greatly appreciate that DVC tries to instill a sense of community beyond the "time share" or "just a room" experience. While I am concerned about how management has chosen to create more points required to stay during the year by maneuvering seasonal dates, and no amount of "extras" can make whole a breach of contract on the point-value reservation mechanism, I do appreciate that management does offer other extras in service to membership. (Recent examples include the waive of RCI transfer fee, extension of points in a use year during the pandemic.) It isn't lost on me as a member. Overall, I appreciate the time DVC took make a PR stance on this thread/matter.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Overall, I appreciate the time DVC took make a PR stance on this thread/matter.

That PR stance took a little bit of time although it more or less follows what they'd been stating and they already publish the vehicle they used to do it. The extra points created provide a lot of money of course and writing an article to assure members that it all is fine is well worth the expense.

 

[Tiggerette]

That PR stance took a little bit of time although it more or less follows what they'd been stating and they already publish the vehicle they used to do it. The extra points created provide a lot of money of course and writing an article to assure members that it all is fine is well worth the expense.

I agree Kat4Disney. I suppose what I am mildly astounded by, is that they took a whole page to address it. They could have remarked on a whole host of other issues related to timeshare/condominium ownership in the "Listening Post" section. I thought I might hear about refurbishment schedule- to generate excitement about the various refreshes that are occurring, or about the way to determine how much to buy in a direct contract (or the "blue card" access opportunities)- to generate excitement for the DL DVC tower, for example.

Out of all the topics they could have chosen for valuable real estate in the magazine, they used the "Listening Post" for the point chart topic. That is revealing to me.