2020 Point Charts

[Madame]

My point was that you are a hypocrite. On one hand you accuse them of being unethical to make a profit and on the other hand you do something unethical to make a profit. Your’s is apparently ok because the dollar value is low. That’s the funny thing about ethics. People try to justify their actions.

Anyway sorry to thread for getting off topic.

Well, I’ve never lied about any of my kids’ ages anywhere (even though apparently a 2.9 year old is not person enough to pay, but my 11 year old is an adult?!?), and I think they’re acting in bad faith. Two wrongs don’t make a right

 

[mustinjourney]

My point was that you are a hypocrite. On one hand you accuse them of being unethical to make a profit and on the other hand you do something unethical to make a profit. Your’s is apparently ok because the dollar value is low. That’s the funny thing about ethics. People try to justify their actions.

Anyway sorry to thread for getting off topic.

I just said if they’re going to essentially steal from us, I’m not going to feel bad about my own moral indiscretion.

My other statements were that I was disappointed in their actions since I held them in a better light than other timeshare companies.

 

[DizDaD7]

Disney pockets $50 million extra per year and SOME members can pick up an extra day or two at SSR or OKW.

Sounds like a win-win

How so? Those points went up as well?

 

[DizDaD7]

I too, am not happy about the changes, but a little baffled as to some people that say my week's stay at X resort is going up 10-19 points and have to "cut short" their stay.
Let's say you have 200 points, and you stay in X studio/1BR. Now, in 2020, it is 215 points for "your week". IF you go to the same resort at the same
timeframe (Magic season/etc). You could borrow 15 points/year you could stay at that resort and never run out of points until 13 years later!!

200-215=185. 185-215=170.. 170-215=155... etc, etc. So, people saying they will have to "cut short their week" is NOT really true.. Just my .02

OK, true, but in that 14th year you can't go(NOne left), whereas of 2019 pts..You could...

 

[mustinjourney]

How so? Those points went up as well?

I’ve explained this already.

By increasing the lock-off premium, they are effectively creating more points for their own use. Those points from VGF reallocation are worth $1.6 million. SSR is 10x bigger than VGF. So that’s $16 million. Then add up another 12 resorts that are all bigger than VGF. I didn’t run the numbers for all the resorts, bc it’s all academic. But it is at least $30 million and likely closer to $50 million.

 

[deerh]

OK, true, but in that 14th year you can't go(NOne left), whereas of 2019 pts..You could...

True... BUT, as said on many posts in this forum... MOST people sell in 9-10-11 years or at least that is the consensus... So, it would be a mute point.

 

[deerh]

I'm sorry, but countering peoples arguments that they will cut short their vacations by saying "just borrow against your future" is just silly. Ok, using your logic, at one point my points got me a week long Disney vacation in a Studio every year. Now, they only get me a week every year until the 13th year, then I can't go on vacation that year. Any way you slice it, I've lost value.

That said, I'm wondering what's Disney's angle with one-time-use points and all of this. I.E. how many people do they figure will be in the above boat, and will just say "Oh, I'll buy the 15 points I need for $19/pt." Another bump in revenue for Disney. There are a lot of folks on here with much more knowledge than me, does anyone know what Disney's allotment of one-time-use points per year looks like? We've bought them a few times over the past years, and have never been told "sorry, one-time points are all sold out for the year."

Disagree with "lost value". IF, after 13 years you cannot sell your DVC for "more than you paid for it" then yeah... I have serious doubts that would ever happen, as it has increased in value each year. Besides, the "average DVC owner" sells after 9-10-11 years or so they say on this forum from time to
time... So, it is a mute point in the 13th year.. You would not own it.

 

[Chrisvee]

DVC is a member of ARDA and it has an ethical code of conduct that includes fair and meaningful disclosure to consumers as well as standards for inventory control.

 

[mustinjourney]

True... BUT, as said on many posts in this forum... MOST people sell in 9-10-11 years or at least that is the consensus... So, it would be a mute point.

There’s no such thing as a mute point.

The idiom is moot point.

 

[mustinjourney]

True... BUT, as said on many posts in this forum... MOST people sell in 9-10-11 years or at least that is the consensus... So, it would be a mute point.

And it’s not a moot point, bc when you go to sell your contract, it will be somewhat stripped. Which means it won’t be as attractive to potential buyers.

This means you won’t sell it for as much as you could have.

 

[DizDaD7]

True... BUT, as said on many posts in this forum... MOST people sell in 9-10-11 years or at least that is the consensus... So, it would be a mute point.

Even saying that you are going to sell it after that 13th year, As of Now I can sell it WITH the 14th Years points....More value as opposed to the new structure , I can sell it in the 14th year with 0 points...Therefore diminishing the value in some sorts.

 

[DizDaD7]

And it’s not a moot point, bc when you go to sell your contract, it will be somewhat stripped. Which means it won’t be as attractive to potential buyers.

LoL You beat me to it...

 

[Madame]

LoL You beat me to it...

Me too

 

[mustinjourney]

How so? Those points went up as well?

Looks like I missed your point with my previous comment.

I was intimating that members with LOTS of points, while it costing more, might benefit from the extra inventory that will result in all of this.

 

[deerh]

There’s no such thing as a mute point.

The idiom is moot point.

Sorry, not an English major. Biology major. Know all about Deoxyribonucleic Acid however!!!

 

[mustinjourney]

Sorry, not an English major. Biology major. Know all about Deoxyribonucleic Acid however!!!

Sorry to be an ***. If I see something misspelled twice, the inner voice in my head won't let me NOT say something.

 

[skier_pete]

Disagree with "lost value". IF, after 13 years you cannot sell your DVC for "more than you paid for it" then yeah... I have serious doubts that would ever happen, as it has increased in value each year. Besides, the "average DVC owner" sells after 9-10-11 years or so they say on this forum from time to
time... So, it is a mute point in the 13th year.. You would not own it.

The supposition that contract values will always go up isn't a good one. In fact, eventually all contract values will reach zero. Do you think people are going to pay $200 a point for BVC contracts in 2037 when they have 5 years left on them? I think it's still a little ways away but there will be a point when the remaining length of contracts start dissuading buyers.

 

[Dean]

We have data on the availability for studios, 1 bedrooms and 2 bedrooms for an entire year for every 2 week period for every resort. That is the data that members are looking at to try and understand what would be a reasonable point reallocation.

Disney is legally allowed to reallocate points for the benefit of members. No argument there. My argument is that point reallocation looks like it is NOT for the benefit of members, instead it looks like it benefits DVC a lot. Until DVC provides an explanation of how the point reallocation is benefitting members as a whole, then I do NOT trust what they are doing. The fact that DVC can get away with not having to provide an explanation on how the reallocation benefits members without being taken to court seems to be a rather large loophole.

Saying there is a requirement to increase demand for 2 bedrooms, doesn't make sense at SSR, there are no dedicated 2 bedroom units at SSR. Hence there is no requirement to increase demand for 2 bedrooms, so why decrease the 2 bedroom costs?

But availability doesn't equal demand. I tend to believe the reallocation is in response to the POS mandate they even out demand by reallocating, if that's the case AND reason it really doesn't matter whether it benefits most members or not.

Sorry, not an English major. Biology major. Know all about Deoxyribonucleic Acid however!!!

Are you questioning someone's? Is that the same as PPP, LOL.

I just said if they’re going to essentially steal from us, I’m not going to feel bad about my own moral indiscretion.

My other statements were that I was disappointed in their actions since I held them in a better light than other timeshare companies.

I don't subscribe to situational ethics. Choices are a reflection on the individual and their own ethics regardless of the reason or "justification". Have we all made mistakes, sure, but hopefully we didn't plan to do so.

 

[tbfkc]

I've been somewhat quiet on the matter until I've been able to do some level of analysis. At first glance, I will admit that I didn't have as much energy on the topic as it didn't seem to be that significant. The change has driven me to perform an assessment a bit further, but has left me disappointed not only in the change, but for how the historical point charts have been designed. Suffice it to say that the one bedroom families are the ones that have been overlooked both historically and within the point change. If anything, the one bedrooms should have decreased in points. The analysis also makes me a bit less sympathetic to the studio change. I do understand that the one bedrooms have additional amenities such as the full kitchen, an increase in space, increased size in bed, etc. However, I feel like there should be some level of comparability between a one bedroom and a two bedroom with a slightly lower points per person in the studio.

Without uploading all of the analysis, I want to call to attention a few references:

If we were to simply incorporate the number of people that can stay in a room in proportion to the number of individuals that can stay in the room, the 2019 from a spot check perspective would have existed:

2019 Point Chart
Adventure Standard
Studio - 3.5
One - 5.2
Two - 4.11
Three - 7

2020 Point Chart
Adventure Standard
Studio: 3.75
One - 5.6
Two - 3.78
Three - 7

Long story short, I support the increase in studio, but believe the two bedroom decrease should have been shared with the one bedroom. I would support a world where the studio is around 3.75 to 4 per person with the one and two bedroom being around 4.2 to 4.4. If that were the case, it would seem fair. I also haven't spent much time thinking about the disparity in the three bedroom. There is certainly some level of expected disparity, but not sure if the current increase in necessarily fair.

 

[skier_pete]

But availability doesn't equal demand.

Availability doesn't equal demand - but it does show the trend. If studios are completely booked at 10 months and 1-BDs are still available at 4 months, it COULD just be that there is demand for ONE less 1-BD than studios. However, in reality that piece of data would tell us that the studios are in higher demand since people feel the need to get them booked further in advance.

Let's see if we can use the charts to get a better feel for true demand.

An example from my availability charts - Wilderness lodge - Boulder Ridge comparison of Studios and 1-bedrooms. I have included the studio / 1-BD as well as the somewhat limited 2-BD data we have developed to date in the tables below.



Even with only about 1/3 of the data on complete, it's pretty fair to say that the order of availability is STUDIO < 2-BD < 1-BD. Yes, the 2-BD data is limited, but the trend is already becoming apparent.
But the only way to assess demand would be if we knew exactly how many rooms are being used in each of the three categories. (If you have 1000 rooms in one category and 20 rooms in another, the one with 1000 rooms could have 999 rooms booked before the 20, and the 1000 room category would have greater demand.

Wilderness Lodge has 20 dedicated studios, 27 dedicated 1-Bedrooms, 45 2-BD lock-offs that can be split, and 44 dedicated 2-BD.
So in theory this COULD be as high as 65 studios, 72 1-BD, and 44 2-BD.
The biggest question mark in assessing DEMAND based on availability is in knowing how many 2-BD book as studio/1-BD. Since members could in theory ALWAYS pick the 2-BD lock-offs ahead of the 2-BD dedicated when booking, you could have these disappear quicker for THAT reason as opposed to being studio.

So - for the sake of argument - I am going to be rather generous to the 2-BD renters and say that HALF of the dedicated 2-BD book as 2-BD. (Or let's say 23 are split, and 22 stay as 2-BD. The data below says this is a generous thing to do, but of we choose this it says we have on any given week:
43 studios
50 1-BDs
66 2-BDs (22 lock-offs, 44 dedicated)
So again, I'll point out that if only HALF the lock-offs book as studios, that means their are significantly MORE 2-BDs than either studios OR 1-BDs.


But in the scenario above - with 43 studios always being FIRST as the charts show - there are MORE 2-BDs then there are 1-BDs.
Yet the charts STILL show that 2-BDs are GONE before 1-BDs, even though there are more of them.

So that simple fact - MORE 2-BDs are gone FIRST, and FEWER 1-BDs are gone LATER, tells us without any doubt that 2-BDs are in higher demand than 1-BDs. This scenario breaks the argument that 1-BD points needed to be raised because demand there is higher than 2-BDs.

The only way to possibly make the data go the other way - that 1-BDs could be more in demand than 2-BDs is there would have to be MORE 1-BD availability than 2-BDs.
So let's look at a much farther scenario - that 90% of the 2-BD lock-offs go to studios.

Now we have
60 studios
67 1-BDs
49 2-BDs (5 lockoffs, 44 dedicated)

Now, in THIS scenario - one could make the argument that 1-BDs don't have a higher demand, they just have a higher availability, and it also would match the charts:
1) The studios book up much faster than the 1-BDs and 2-BDs.
2) The 2-BDs book second, but there aren't as many available.
3) 1-BDs are last to book not because they are not as popular as 2-BDs, but because there are more available.

This is the ONLY way to make what Disney did make sense - it says that the DEMAND for studios and 1-bedrooms are higher - so we're going to make them both more expensive and 2-BDs less expensive.


But BOTH scenarios have no logic behind them when it comes to raising the 1-BD points and lowering the 2-BD points:

Scenario A: 2-BDs are in higher demand than 1-BDs, so we are going to raise points on studios and 1-BDs and lower them on 2-BDs.
Scenario B: 1-BDs are actually in higher demand than 2-BDs since there is more of them available - so we are going to raise points on studios and 1-BDs and lower them on 2-BDs. So we are going to drive more people to the room size in the least demand.

I spent way too long on this - because I'm just trying to grasp a really good argument for raising points on both studios and 1-BDS in a world with many rooms built as lock-offs, and it just never comes out making sense. There's no scenario I can come with where raising the 1-BD portion of the lock-off premium really is beneficial to members. (Studios yes...both studios and 1-BDs, no.)