Just Got The Royal Screw From Rci

[Carolinian]

So when we respond to your drivel, we're getting OT?
For most weeks, that's certainly the case. You can get most Orlando and Branson weeks for 5-10 TPU, which is comparable to (and less than some) Blue weeks at other resorts. Top demand weeks (like New Years) are quite a bit higher, but they should be.

This thread was not about blue weeks, it was about RCI playing shell games with valuations, giving different numbers at the same point in time depending on whether it is a deposit or taken as an exchange. And I always know which way your drivel with flow - brownnosing RCI.

You again avoid the subject about the overbuilt areas, where they frequently are overpointed, getting more points on deposit than it takes for an exchange in. I remember another Tugger finding an Orlando holiday week and posting that it was offered 50 points lite as a deposit while at the very same time, RCI was offering the very same week as a trade for 10 points lite. Things like that are just F-R-A-U-D, period!

Just looking at one side of the equation is meaningless. You have consistently, in your frequent drivel, opposed full transparency for RCI's numbers racket. That is a very anti-consumer position.

 

[Carolinian]

Should a late deposit also get full trading power under your theory? It is the very same principle that reduces trading power both for late deposits and late exchanges. Fair is fair. Deposits and exchanges should be treated the same. If one is whacked in value at the last minute, both should be.

The 45 day window was not an ''unintended bonus''. RCI highlighted it in their promo materials they provided to developers and had a two page spread on it in Endless Vacation for a couple of decades. RCI was giving like for like based on the only rational basis for comparision - supply and demand. Some think their resort or resort area is ''special'' and the laws of supply and demand should be waived for them. but all weeks with similar supply and demand curves must be treated the same in any fair system. And last minute inventory is distressed and discounted inventory throughout the leisure travel industry.

But then again, the RCI cheerleaders are getting us away from the original topic which is RCI's practice in Points Lite, but not in regular Points, to give different values to a week at the same point in time depending on whether it is a deposit or a week taken for exchange.

Right on Michael! That has been my thought since the DeHann (sp?) years. There should NEVER have been what amounts to free upgrades to better (ie more desirable times even if there may be an excess in total availability) times. That RCI ever offered that was an unintended bonus. The very fact that it was utilized by the retail sales weasels tells you that they knew it shouldn't exist but while it did they were going to use it to help market otherwise unsellable times! Rather than make the time they had to sell more attractive by lower fees or off season amenities to make it desirable they instead charged full fees and wanted other, better resorts and locations to shoulder the burden. And for RCI to eventually eat the dog weeks that couldn't be given away! Thus the door was opened to cheap rentals and we all know how that has corrupted the whole system. Now rentals are the key to RCI and exchange is a poor afterthought at best.

So while some want to blame RCI actions as the cause of the collapse of fair exchanges I see it as the 45 day window & free undeserved upgrades that eventually killed an otherwise good system. Too late now to undo it so the exchange companies don't get my deposits. They can't rent what they don't have.

 

[MichaelColey]

This thread was not about blue weeks, it was about RCI playing shell games with valuations, giving different numbers at the same point in time depending on whether it is a deposit or taken as an exchange.

It was you who brought blue weeks into the discussion. Yet you blast me and others for bringing the thread off topic when we respond. Whatever.

You have consistently, in your frequent drivel, opposed full transparency for RCI's numbers racket. That is a very anti-consumer position.

I've not once opposed full transparency. I've only said that the transparency that they provide is better than what any other exchange company provides. The end numbers (what you get for a deposit and what it takes for an exchange) is really all that matters. More detail wouldn't hurt, but it really isn't necessary.

When I buy food at the grocery store, I can see the list of ingredients, the breakdown of carbs/fat/protein, and the total calories. I don't need total transparency of exact portions of each ingredient.

Just like a recipe, exactly how RCI calculates demand and supply is a trade secret. We can get a pretty good idea about how they calculate it, but I don't think they'll ever publicly disclose the entire calculation. (And I doubt it's a static equation, either. I'm sure they update it as they come up with other factors that affect supply and demand.

 

[MichaelColey]

But then again, the RCI cheerleaders are getting us away from the original topic which is RCI's practice in Points Lite, but not in regular Points, to give different values to a week at the same point in time depending on whether it is a deposit or a week taken for exchange.

Actually that's not true. There are exceptions in both RCI Weeks and RCI Points. In RCI Points, if you deposit something less than 90 days out, you get less points. But if you exchange into something last minute, you still pay full points. Also, if you PFD (put RCI Weeks inventory into RCI Points), you get one schedule for depositing and the points required to grab a last minute RCI Weeks unit is considerably less.

 

[Beefnot]

When Carolinian digresses, it is to make a larger point. When anyone else challenges Carolinian's digressive monologues, they are getting off topic. Plain and simple. Just pardon the double standard.

 

[ronparise]

Actually that's not true. There are exceptions in both RCI Weeks and RCI Points. In RCI Points, if you deposit something less than 90 days out, you get less points. But if you exchange into something last minute, you still pay full points. Also, if you PFD (put RCI Weeks inventory into RCI Points), you get one schedule for depositing and the points required to grab a last minute RCI Weeks unit is considerably less.

Oh Michael...dont confuse us with the facts

 

[rickandcindy23]

You can't make RCI out to be evil because they don't give a lot of trading power for Blue weeks. That's the way it SHOULD be.

I was always "moaning the blues" (get it?) with our fall Colorado week. I was upset that RCI suddenly decided my week wasn't worth anything in exchange. I had always gotten last-minute exchanges as Carolinian talks about. He is right. Blue weeks used to be gold at < 45 days.

Suddenly, I could not get a thing, not even for next week. RCI was really BAD for a long time. I was disgusted. Probably was around 1992 or so?

Then we got red weeks at the same resort. Miracle traders in comparison. But I was stuck with whatever RCI gave me during a phone call or ongoing search, which the guide set up. I wasn't ecstatic about many trades back then.

Then suddenly RCI went back to valuing the blue week again. I cannot tell you when it happened, exactly, but it seemed to happen about the time RCI got an online system, and I could access things myself.

Moving to today, I see my blue weeks are worth around 18 TPU's for $480 MF's. My red weeks at the same resort are worth 24 TPU's for $500 in MF's. I can combine those two and get FOUR weeks, 2 bedrooms, at Wyndham Bonnet Creek in the fall. I am happy as can be. But those aren't great traders, either. Combined with my great traders, I can do better. I LOVE THE TRANSPARENCY. RCI won me over.

Now if we could get RCI to allow us to deposit our reserved SBP and SDO weeks without the shenanigans of "combined trading power" Starwood insists upon, I would be even happier.

 

[Carolinian]

As long as they are playing this flim-flam of giving different values for the same week at the same point in time, the transparency of the underlying system is critical. As long as they are systematically underpointing some resorts or resort areas and overpointing others, then full transparency is vital to an honest and fair system. For those who own overpointed weeks, I can see why they would not want full transparency as that would likely mean they would get real trading value of their week instead of the gift of inflated trading power RCI has been giving them.

Grocery store analogies don't flush. You don't go into a grocery store and trade in your carrots from your garden for their T-bone steak. An exchange basis, where fair value is important on both sides of the equation is an entirely different animal from a retail business.

When you defend RCI for not revealing full transparency, you are in effect opposing full transparency, and you do that regularly just as you have in this thread. RCI does reveal full transparency on the formula and the underlying numbers on award status and they should do the same for trading power as well.

The trade secret argument made some sense when the whole process was kept hidden, but it makes no sense when it is partially revealed, as the part a competitor would want to copy is the part that is revealed. The part that is kept hidden is the part that is important for fairness to members.

Blue weeks were only relevant to show that the ''majority likes Points Lite'' assertion was nonsense, and only part of that argument. The other part was that a poll on another t/s site showed an even split between those who lost trading power in Points Lite and those who maintained or increased trading power, and that most of those participating would be owners of better weeks. When you add in the blue weeks, that would tilt the equation to the majority getting gored by Points Lite. Then some of the RCI cheerleaders tried to divert the topic to bashing blue weeks.

It was you who brought blue weeks into the discussion. Yet you blast me and others for bringing the thread off topic when we respond. Whatever.

I've not once opposed full transparency. I've only said that the transparency that they provide is better than what any other exchange company provides. The end numbers (what you get for a deposit and what it takes for an exchange) is really all that matters. More detail wouldn't hurt, but it really isn't necessary.

When I buy food at the grocery store, I can see the list of ingredients, the breakdown of carbs/fat/protein, and the total calories. I don't need total transparency of exact portions of each ingredient.

Just like a recipe, exactly how RCI calculates demand and supply is a trade secret. We can get a pretty good idea about how they calculate it, but I don't think they'll ever publicly disclose the entire calculation. (And I doubt it's a static equation, either. I'm sure they update it as they come up with other factors that affect supply and demand.

 

[Carolinian]

Actually that's not true. There are exceptions in both RCI Weeks and RCI Points. In RCI Points, if you deposit something less than 90 days out, you get less points. But if you exchange into something last minute, you still pay full points. Also, if you PFD (put RCI Weeks inventory into RCI Points), you get one schedule for depositing and the points required to grab a last minute RCI Weeks unit is considerably less.

Partial facts as usual. RCI Points members are sent to RCI Weeks for their discounted last minute trades instead of into their own system. It is not that they are denied them, just that RCI would prefer them to raid Weeks for this purpose rather than their own system. And that played a role, along with rentals, in the early draining of the 45 day window pool. If RCI ran an honest system, Points members would be pulling their discounted last minute trades from their own system.

In RCI ''Weeks'' different values in and out are rampant, and at all time periods. All you can point to in RCI Points is that for last minute trades, RCI sends Points members to raid the Weeks system instead of using their own, and to accomplish that does not discount last minute trades. Otherwise in RCI Points, one always gets the same number of points in or out for the same weeks at the same point in time.

 

[ampaholic]

In RCI ''Weeks'' different values in and out are rampant, and at all time periods. All you can point to in RCI Points is that for last minute trades, RCI sends Points members to raid the Weeks system instead of using their own, and to accomplish that does not discount last minute trades. Otherwise in RCI Points, one always gets the same number of points in or out for the same weeks at the same point in time.

I don't see why you are yipping about RCI trying to get as close to 100% utilization as they can.

It seems like you think they are some kind of utility that has to be accountable to the public in general - they are not - they are a for profit business and if what they are "doing" is not illegal, it is between them and their shareholders and customers.

Would you complain if Walmart lowered a price on closeout to less than what the item "cost" them? Well I got news for you - they do it all the time. Walmart also jacks up the price on some items so they can make a profit and guess what - they get to decide which items.

Get over this notion that RCI should do what you consider fair - they are only required to do what is legal.

 

[Beefnot]

As long as they are playing this flim-flam of giving different values for the same week at the same point in time, the transparency of the underlying system is critical. As long as they are systematically underpointing some resorts or resort areas and overpointing others, then full transparency is vital to an honest and fair system. For those who own overpointed weeks, I can see why they would not want full transparency as that would likely mean they would get real trading value of their week instead of the gift of inflated trading power RCI has been giving them.

RCI's system is very transparent. They tell you the TPUs of a deposit and the TPUs of an exchange for a given week. That is transparent. The differential between the two, or the over-/under- pointing of resorts and locations for that matter, are irrelevant.

What exactly are you clamoring for? What specifically do you want to see from RCI? Do you want them to explain the point disparities between weeks and resorts? Will that make you happy? What if you don't like the answer? Do you then embark on a new tirade?

 

[Beefnot]

What I like most about Caro is that he has never flipflopped, never backpedalled on what he believes in, and has on more than one occasion predicted the next step in RCI's greed.

Maybe I don't agree with Everything he says, but I do like to read his responses as much is right on with what I think about RCI, exchanging, etc.

i don't know that I have ever witnessed a more focused and consistent hatred of another entity than what Carolinian harbors toward RCI. A hatred so pure that it produces nothing less than a blinding rage.

 

[wauhob3]

I for one would be interested to hear if you can get back your week. SFX would be happy to have it and you would get a great exchange.

I deposited with SFX and my week will expire without a exchange. They made it seem that it was very unreasonable to ask for an exchange without at least a 6 month advance notice. Months in advance they literally only had one week available in the United States for May and June and it was in Hawaii. They said they may get some more in San Francisco but we went there last year. I won't be using them again.

 

[MichaelColey]

Grocery store analogies don't flush. You don't go into a grocery store and trade in your carrots from your garden for their T-bone steak. An exchange basis, where fair value is important on both sides of the equation is an entirely different animal from a retail business.

What taken together with the comments about trade secrets, it's a perfect analogy. I can read the ingredients on a Coca Cola can and the calories and carbs, but they're not going to tell me (or their competitors) exactly how they created it. RCI is the same way. They give us the end result (TPUs for depositing and TPUs for exchange) but not how they got to it. If there are inefficiencies between the two, we are the ones who benefit, not RCI, because we can choose to make transactions to take advantage of that inefficiency (either depositing something that you consider overpointed or exchanging for something you consider underpointed, or both). We are not forced to make a transaction that doesn't benefit us (but RCI is, if we take advantage of an inefficiency).

If you'd rather than an analogy that includes exchanges, I'll give one (that I may have given here before -- I can't remember). A couple months ago, my wife cleaned out a bunch of kids clothes that didn't fit any more and took them to a resale shop. The resale shop goes through the clothes, decides what they would take and what they wouldn't, and what price they would sell it at. If you would like to sell it to them, they'll give you 20% of that value in cash or 40% of the value in store credit. We sold them everything they would take, and took store credit. The store owner never told us how she determines what to take, how she prices it, or how she can justify just giving us a fraction of what she'll sell it for. We didn't care about any of that, just what she was willing to give us and what we could get for it.

 

[Beefnot]

What taken together with the comments about trade secrets, it's a perfect analogy. I can read the ingredients on a Coca Cola can and the calories and carbs, but they're not going to tell me (or their competitors) exactly how they created it. RCI is the same way. They give us the end result (TPUs for depositing and TPUs for exchange) but not how they got to it. If there are inefficiencies between the two, we are the ones who benefit, not RCI, because we can choose to make transactions to take advantage of that inefficiency (either depositing something that you consider overpointed or exchanging for something you consider underpointed, or both). We are not forced to make a transaction that doesn't benefit us (but RCI is, if we take advantage of an inefficiency).

If you'd rather than an analogy that includes exchanges, I'll give one (that I may have given here before -- I can't remember). A couple months ago, my wife cleaned out a bunch of kids clothes that didn't fit any more and took them to a resale shop. The resale shop goes through the clothes, decides what they would take and what they wouldn't, and what price they would sell it at. If you would like to sell it to them, they'll give you 20% of that value in cash or 40% of the value in store credit. We sold them everything they would take, and took store credit. The store owner never told us how she determines what to take, how she prices it, or how she can justify just giving us a fraction of what she'll sell it for. We didn't care about any of that, just what she was willing to give us and what we could get for it.

Preach, Mr. Lotto, preach.

 

[vckempson]

In any market, it is inefficiencies that create opportunities. Whether it's stocks, currencies, art, collectibles, commercial real estate, or timeshares, the greater the inefficiency, the greater the opportunity to take advantage of those inefficiencies.

A completely efficient market benefits the masses. Tuggers don't exactly represent the masses. Inefficiencies benefit those that are willing to educate themselves and understand the market dynamics surrounding those inefficiencies. Tuggers fit that category.

RCI currently has enough transparency to avoid bad choices and benefit from good ones. It has just enough transparency to make informed decisions and just enough inefficiencies to creat great opportnuities and beneficial outcomes for us all. All we have to do is do our homework and take the necessary steps to make it work in our favor. It almost becomes a type of timeshare arbitrage.

To the OP, if the spread on TPU's doesn't benefit you, don't do it. (though I'm not sure exactly how you've been injured) When it does, jump on it. Carolinian is absolutely correct, I don't want full transparency... if that ends the inefficiencies, and neither really should any tuggers. Why would we want to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Right now is the best time ever to squeeze a lot from a little with timeshares thru RCI. And that you can take to the bank.

 

[ronparise]

In any market, it is inefficiencies that create opportunities. Whether it's stocks, currencies, art, collectibles, commercial real estate, or timeshares, the greater the inefficiency, the greater the opportunity to take advantage of those inefficiencies.

A completely efficient market benefits the masses. Tuggers don't exactly represent the masses. Inefficiencies benefit those that are willing to educate themselves and understand the market dynamics surrounding those inefficiencies. Tuggers fit that category.

RCI currently has enough transparency to avoid bad choices and benefit from good ones. It has just enough transparency to make informed decisions and just enough inefficiencies to creat great opportnuities and beneficial outcomes for us all. All we have to do is do our homework and take the necessary steps to make it work in our favor.

To the OP, if the spread on TPU's doesn't benefit you, don't do it. (though I'm not sure exactly how you've been injured) When it does, jump on it. Carolinian is absolutely correct, I don't want full transparency if that ends the inefficiencies, and neither really should any tuggers. Why would we want to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Right now is the best time ever to squeeze a lot from a little with timeshares thru RCI. And that you can take to the bank.

Oh My!

More facts, this time with a little common sense..

Im so confused

 

[vckempson]

I might add that sooner or later, the market reduces or eliminates known inefficiencies. That happened with Blue weeks, South African timeshares, Wyndhams 28k point deposits for RCI weeks, and countless others. As more and more capitalize on known inefficiencies, the market eventually eliminates them. Many are guarded about their very best strategies, for fear of losing their advantage. Eventually, though, enough will know them and it will disappear, just like it always has.

That nothing lasts forever is why some see it as pure folly to buy something for the purpose of trading. Au contraire. There will almost ALWAYS be inefficiencies. Here at TUG, we know better than most how to prick and poke and prod the system to find them. You just have to be flexible enough and ready to change strategies when necessary.

 

[VacationForever]

When you search feedback on RCI on the internet you will find that 99% of the complaints were from blue or undesirable timeshare resort owners complaining about being cheated by RCI because they were not able to exchange into a week that they wanted. RCI is just an exchange body, the mechanics of whether one gets a week or not is the result of demand and supply. I have no issues about how TPUs are determined or even when there is a spread between trading in and out for the same week/resort. The issue I have with RCI is that the fees keep going up and it's the highest amongst all exchange companies that I am aware of.

 

[MichaelColey]

I don't want full transparency... if that ends the inefficiencies, and neither really should any tuggers. Why would we want to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Cullen puts this so clearly that I've changed my mind about full transparency. I now oppose it.

 

[Carolinian]

Do you even understand the issue here? There is nothing at all wrong with reducing the trading value at a later time when supply and demand factors have changed. I have always supported that, for years, on these boards. Supply and demand are constantly changing.

Giving a different value AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME to the very same week, depending on whether it is a deposit or taken for exchange is the issue.

You also do not seem to understand consumer protection laws, which exist in most states with very similar language. As an example, North Carolina's provides that ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerce are unlawful''. Get that? unfair = illegal. RCI is NOT exempt from consumer protection laws. In fact, it was the New Jersey consumer protection law that they were sued under in the class action (the one where the lawyers took a million dollar payout for themselves to stab their clients in the back). What matters of course, is what the court determines to be fair or unfair.

Walmart is a retail business not an exchange company, which is not at all applicable to this situation.

I don't see why you are yipping about RCI trying to get as close to 100% utilization as they can.

It seems like you think they are some kind of utility that has to be accountable to the public in general - they are not - they are a for profit business and if what they are "doing" is not illegal, it is between them and their shareholders and customers.

Would you complain if Walmart lowered a price on closeout to less than what the item "cost" them? Well I got news for you - they do it all the time. Walmart also jacks up the price on some items so they can make a profit and guess what - they get to decide which items.

Get over this notion that RCI should do what you consider fair - they are only required to do what is legal.

 

[Carolinian]

When so many values are clearly skewed, with hard to get weeks often underpointed while weeks in overbuilt areas with a glut of inventory are overpointed, they are very clearly playing games with valuations. Full transparency means doing what they already do on award status - reveal both the formula and the underlying numbers that support it.

What the RCI cheerleading squad seems to have in common is owning in overbuilt, overpointed areas, and that is the reason for the brownnosing tirades in support of anything RCI does. They clearly like the idea of keeping their gold mine while other timesharers get the shaft. It makes sense for them to stay in a system where they get more than they deserve, but those on the short end of the stick need to wise up and find a different exchange company or mix of exchange companies.

And they do NOT tell you how many points lite an exchange will take if you do an ongoing search. The value in the points calculator is not something you can go by as the actual number of points they want for the exchange may well turn out to be different. So using an ongoing search is a real crapshoot with Points Lite. RCI can charge you anything they like.

RCI's system is very transparent. They tell you the TPUs of a deposit and the TPUs of an exchange for a given week. That is transparent. The differential between the two, or the over-/under- pointing of resorts and locations for that matter, are irrelevant.

What exactly are you clamoring for? What specifically do you want to see from RCI? Do you want them to explain the point disparities between weeks and resorts? Will that make you happy? What if you don't like the answer? Do you then embark on a new tirade?

 

[Carolinian]

Blue weeks trading for last minute inventory was never an ''inefficency'' as they were like for like in terms of supply / demand curve. Neither was South Africa. The overbuilt overpointed Orlando resort you own at, BY ITSELF, usually has about the same number of weeks availible at RCI as all ~200 SA resorts COMBINED. RCI employee Bootleg told us that your resort had the largest glut of oversupply in the entire RCI system. Also, when RCI arbitrarily whacked trading power of SA in Points Lite for members outside of SA who owned in SA, they DID NOT do so for SA owners who live in SA. That tells you that it is corporate flim-flam, not a reflection of the market. In an honest and fair system, why should the trading power of ANY week depend on where the owner of it lived?

I might add that sooner or later, the market reduces or eliminates known inefficiencies. That happened with Blue weeks, South African timeshares, Wyndhams 28k point deposits for RCI weeks, and countless others. As more and more capitalize on known inefficiencies, it clears them out. That's why so many are guarded about their very best strategies. Eventually, though, enough will know them and it will disappear, just like it always has.

That's why some see it as pure folly to buy something for the purpose of trading. Au contraire. There will almost ALWAYS be inefficiencies. Here at TUG, we know better than the most how to prick and poke and prod the system to find them. You just have to be flexible enough and ready to change strategies when necessary.

 

[Carolinian]

How is that an ''exchange''? Did you trade them in at the shop for other clothes? It does not appear so. You are just hiring an agent to sell for you things you no longer want. That is NOT an exchange transaction.

If you'd rather than an analogy that includes exchanges, I'll give one (that I may have given here before -- I can't remember). A couple months ago, my wife cleaned out a bunch of kids clothes that didn't fit any more and took them to a resale shop. The resale shop goes through the clothes, decides what they would take and what they wouldn't, and what price they would sell it at. If you would like to sell it to them, they'll give you 20% of that value in cash or 40% of the value in store credit. We sold them everything they would take, and took store credit. The store owner never told us how she determines what to take, how she prices it, or how she can justify just giving us a fraction of what she'll sell it for. We didn't care about any of that, just what she was willing to give us and what we could get for it.

 

[e.bram]

i agree with Caro. Walmart is a dumb analogy. You don't go into Walmart, give them your money(deposit TS unit) and see waht they will give you in exchange. With II at least you can look first before you deposit your TS.