I look at AKV and wonder what drugs they were on. AKV value studios stayed the same, 1BRs went down about 8% per season, and 2BRs down 4-8% depending on season. In other words, someone concluded that a room view that very often books full at 8 a.m. exactly 11 months out somehow had far too little demand and thus needed a point decrease. Other changes were more diverse than other resorts. Club level 1BRs and 2BRs went up. 1BR standard view went up adventure and choice season but down the other seasons. Savanna view 1BRs decreased 1 point per weekend day in Magic season, but an 8% increase in premier and adventure season, and then only 2 to 3 point weekly increases in choice and dream season. Standard 2BRs two points per week in adventure and dream season, 5 in choice season, 13 in magic season and 27 in premier. Savanna view 2BRs. GV's came down some except savanna view remained the same for adventure and choice season.
You look at many of the changes, like increasing 1BRs at many resorts, and cannot come up with an explanation of justification for the change and some changes just seem to be random decisions. One change should render many disturbed. The one at Poly. Disney built all those bungalows knowing full well they would usually not fill before 60 days out via member reservations (when Poly went on sale, if one wanted to buy enough points to get a bungalow for a week per year in magic season, it would have cost $250,000). Disney got what it wanted, an excuse to legally sell a huge amount of bungalow-related points to persons who could only afford studios, while at the same time knowing it would likely get the right to rent a lot of those bungalows during the 60-day breaking period at an almost pure profit because the members would cover all the maintenance costs in dues (my tracking of Poly reservations has indicated that they are typically open at 60 days out about 80% of the time during DVC's low to moderate demand season from mid-Jan to late Sep). Now, after Poly has sold out it has decided to start shifting bungalow points to studio. One can surmise it is so it can make even more profit because it can use fewer of the points it owns at the resort to reserve and then rent bungalows even more than 60 days out. Those owning or considering buying at CCV should be aware the same can happen in relation to the cabins once CCV sells out.
Note, some apparently have a misunderstanding of what DVC is required to do in reallocating points. For example, many mention some obligation in the declarations to reallocate because of demand pattern changes. There actually is no requirement in the documents to reallocate points due to seasonal, room type, or any other demand changes. The only thing the documents require is that if DVC, in its discretion, determines a reallocation is needed because of changes in demand, it can do one, as long as any increase in points for a room type or season is met by an equal decrease elsewhere so that total points applicable to the units at the resort remain unchanged. It does not actually have any express duty to make changes. One might argue that DVC's legal obligation to act in the best interests of the members requires it to reallocate when demand becomes skewed. But that is never an easy argument to win, particularly because DVC can always assert any changes it would make would help some members and hurt some and thus it is not necessarily in the bests interests of the members as a whole to make any changes.
Also, someone above asked about maximum annual changes. For any given room in any given night the points needed cannot be decreased or increased more than 20% from what they were in the prior calendar year
