I know there is disagreement on this, but as I stated earlier, I agree that DVCM has the ability on the behalf of owners to shut the resort, so in turn you could interpret that to say that I as an owner shut the resort, which in turn effected the renter from not being able to check-in. It's actually the only point in this mess that I agree with David on.
Owners that didn't have a rentals, aren't just accepting that their points are lost, they expect Disney to "do" something for them. I think it is completely unreasonable for an owner to say to a renter that what they booked was non-refundable, money lost because the owner lost the points. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a court would side with an owner if they did this and the renter lost their money.
For me, as we have all been highlighting here, this 100% re-enforces that at the time the rental is made an owner's points may not be distressed, but any reservation has the ability for an owner's points to become a distressed.
Current UY points that are used to book a reservation in the first 8 months of an owners UY should be worth more than banked points, and IMO a broker should pay more for these points. Because let's face it in the event of a force majeure event, the best way the broker can actually fill the renters need to re-book a reservation and not return the renters money, is if the points they used from the original owner are bankable.
Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.
The extension that Disney gave to April and June UYs was "nice" but it was limited. Not as good as the original owner being able to bank their points, by their banking deadline, and extend the points for an entire year.
To do what I have described above brokers would need to completely rewrite their software, and rethink the way they do business.