The problem is, those demand factors should evolve over time. There's a lot of guesswork when building the initial models, but once a property is sold out and it's been operating for a few years, they should get much better at calculating those demand factors over time. I understand that total points at a given resort can't change, but the "demand factors" between unit types and travel seasons are completely out of whack. Disney shows a complete unwillingness to make the necessary adjustments.
The POS gives DVC certain power to modify points after the base year has been created and the resort goes on sale. In relation to changes in seasonal demand, it can raise points for any given vacation home in any season while lowering points by an equal amount in another season. In other words, that is the way it is permitted to respond to changes in demand. Doing that effectively changes the seasonal demand factors originally created without actually revisiting any demand factors. Since that is is the only thing expressly permitted, that is the only change DVC should make,. A fiduciary is usually not legally allowed to make up additional things it can do to members that are not expressly allowed by the documents creating the relationship, but as we have seen with the modern DVC, it is basically claiming a right to make any changes it wants to while just ignoring the controlling POS that it created.
Once you concede that DVC can do anything more than what is allowed by the POS, the result will be DVC doing whatever it feels like, including what it has done with the 7-season point charts which result in total points greater than those in the base year for 48 of the next 50 years.
As to being able to make point changes to address changes in room size demand, I view that as improper. There has been much prior debate about that issue on this site. My reading of the POS would not allow it. Moreover, particularly as to earlier DVC Resorts, DVD made written representations to purchasers that its ability to change points was limited to seasonal demand changes and did not include differences in room size demand.
Also, the problem of excess studio demand has been mainly caused by DVD's sale practices over the last 11 years, e.g., it lowered the new purchase requirement to 100, and at times 75 or 50 points, from 160 points; raised the price per point greater than 100% over ten years during a time when inflation was very low to non-existent and wages remained stagnant; for new resorts raised the nightly point prices well-beyond those of the earlier resorts, thus requiring one to purchase more points even to get a desired room; added point-excessive bungalows and cabins resulting in the sale of large amounts of those extra points to those who purchased only to get smaller rooms, particularly studios; and added Murphy beds to studios that previously allowed only four so it could sell more studio points to those needing a space for five.
In essence, in the last 11 years DVD has taken multiple actions that have resulted in the oversell of points to those purchasing only enough to get studios. DVD has indicated no desitre to change its modern sale practices but meanwhile some seem to believe DVC should "fix" the problem DVD has mainly created by shifting points among the room sizes. Besides that it should not be legally allowed, the fix is something that will never be a permanent solution as long as the DVD sales practices that result in the oversell of studio interests continues. Moreover, we already know the kind of fix DVC would create if allowed to do so, in that it would significantly raise the points needed for studios and 1BRs year-round like it tried to do with the intial 2020 point charts.
