So-called "weeks raiding" a one way street? - see this!!

BocaBum99 said:

I'll bet your next argument will have Enron or new Coke in it.

Click to expand...

Don't have to !!!

Hey, if the shoe fits . . .

Carolinian said:

That is real simple to answer.

Anyone who has used the Weeks system knows that all Red weeks do NOT trade the same for a given resort (nor all blue weeks, either, for that matter). In Points all red weeks of a given resorts of the same size are given the same point value, an overaveraging that certainly does not exist with Weeks. Within Weeks, a 2BR red week 27 on the beach is always going to be MUCH more valuable than a ''red'' week 15 on the beach, 2BR at the same resort. In the Points crossover grid, they are given exactly the same value, significantly undervaluing the week 27 while over valuing the week 15. A Points member would have to be nuts to do a crossover trade for a pink week, but makes out like a bandit for the undervalued prime weeks.
]

Click to expand...

OK, but what's your point.

to Roger

with weeks it doesn't matter what color your weeks is. It's yours.
You don't have to compete with anyone for occupancy. If you are not happy with the trading, you can rent it if it's PRIME.

Re: to Roger

e.bram said:

with weeks it doesn't matter what color your weeks is. It's yours.
You don't have to compete with anyone for occupancy. If you are not happy with the trading, you can rent it if it's PRIME.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read up on the rules for some point systems before you continue to post false facts about point systems. It appears that you are simply parrotting other fallacies you've read on the timeshare tabloids.

If you have reviewed the rules for RCI Points, Fairfield Fixed week conversions (not UDI points), Bluegreen, and Hyatt, you would see that owners there get the EXACT benefits of fixed week owners and can elect to use their week as a fixed week prior to the open reservation period.

This makes these systems far superior to floating week reservation systems.

Actually, floating week systems work perfectly fine when done right. I own several and never have problem booking major holidays.

Re: to Roger

BocaBum99 said:

Actually, floating week systems work perfectly fine when done right. I own several and never have problem booking major holidays.

Click to expand...

This is our experience also. We own six floating weeks and one points week. Have never had a problem booking the week that we want.

Dean said:

OK, but what's your point.

Click to expand...

Go back and read the question!''

Re: to Roger

e.bram said:

with weeks it doesn't matter what color your weeks is. It's yours.
You don't have to compete with anyone for occupancy. If you are not happy with the trading, you can rent it if it's PRIME.

Click to expand...

Maybe you have a point, but I'm lost. (What your point is escapes me. Sorry.)

People buy floating red weeks all the time, including in Orlando (red fifty two weeks a year). Are you sayiing that all fifty two owners are going to get a prime March or a prime summer week? ("You don't have to complete with anyone for occupancy.")

Even those who buy fixed weeks often are sold fixed weeks during low seasons but told "It is a red week and that will allow you to trade for anything." (If you don't believe that than you need to look at the sad messages from recemt Florida owners who just bought an early May week and can't figure out why they can't trade. These messages pop up on these boards all of the time.)

I just don't see how Points, with charts telling you exactly how many points you are going to get, put the consumer at a disadvantage when compared to someone who goes to a timeshare presentation where the seller tells you "Look at this book. You can trade red for red. Want to come to your home resort. Noooo problem. You can get any week during the year. They are all red."

Like I say, maybe I am missing you're point. I just don't get why you think giving consumers more information puts them at a greater disadvantage.

Re: to Roger

Roger said:

Maybe you have a point, but I'm lost. (What your point is escapes me. Sorry.)

People buy floating red weeks all the time, including in Orlando (red fifty two weeks a year). Are you sayiing that all fifty two owners are going to get a prime March or a prime summer week? ("You don't have to complete with anyone for occupancy.")

Even those who buy fixed weeks often are sold fixed weeks during low seasons but told "It is a red week and that will allow you to trade for anything." (If you don't believe that than you need to look at the sad messages from recemt Florida owners who just bought an early May week and can't figure out why they can't trade. These messages pop up on these boards all of the time.)

I just don't see how Points, with charts telling you exactly how many points you are going to get, put the consumer at a disadvantage when compared to someone who goes to a timeshare presentation where the seller tells you "Look at this book. You can trade red for red. Want to come to your home resort. Noooo problem. You can get any week during the year. They are all red."

Like I say, maybe I am missing you're point. I just don't get why you think giving consumers more information puts them at a greater disadvantage.

Click to expand...

AMEN. The only reason to keep the process murky and behind the scenes is to hide what is really happening. That leaves those willing to dig a method to milk the system and leave the leftovers for the others. Shining a light on that ruins that ability so those who have the insider knowledge hate to see it lost.

Re: to Roger

e.bram said:

with weeks it doesn't matter what color your weeks is. It's yours.
You don't have to compete with anyone for occupancy. If you are not happy with the trading, you can rent it if it's PRIME.

Click to expand...

We own two floating weeks and one fixed week. One of our floating weeks we annually split into two separate floating weeks.

We've never had any problem getting weeks we want as long as we plan reasonably well ahead. I do believe that our ability to get prime weeks is enhanced by the fact that both of our floating ownerships bulk bank.

The big advantage of our fixed week unit is the ability to deposit two years in advance, which gives us a longer window on long range planning. A big disadvantage of the fixed week is that if we are planning to use our unit, but have a change in plans, we could suffer a big drop in trade power due to late deposit. With our floating week ownerships, when we have had a change in plans the bulk bank system gives us a week whose value isn't trashed because of a late deposit.

And we do rent at least one of our floating weeks every year. In fact, by splitting the unit and reserving a prime week for rental, we are able to recover our annual fee from just that unit.

You can't make simplistic blanket condemnations or approbations of fixed weeks, floating weeks, points systems, etc. Each type of ownership will work better or worse for individual owners. The ownership experience will vary greatly among resorts of the same type. As with many things in life, individual cases can be wonderful, rotten, or any other value on a spectrum between those two situations.

Savvy owners will figure out what works best for them, and take their own individual courses of action. They will do so despite the best efforts of moralists to keep other people from having the freedom to make decisions the moralists don't like.

Re: to Roger

When you publish the numbers, on the other hand, those who milk the system are the developers with the clout with RCI to rig the points number in favor of their resorts. The sold out resorts in prime locations, on the other hand, tend to get hosed.

There are two very good reasons not to publish exchange power numbers:
1) to avoid the incentive for developers to politick the exchange company to rig the numbers in their favor; and 2) because keeping tables in a paper and ink format is not flexible enough to allow the numbers to adjust for constantly changing supply and demand factors, and they get stale and inaccurate.

The first problem could be addressed by also publishing the method for establishing the numbers and the data to back that up, which would prohibit a developer from politicking the result. RCI will not do that.

The second could be addressed by publishing in an all-electronic format which would have the flexibility for the numbers to adjust for changes in supply and demand.

Those in overbuilt areas who like the trades up they get with the rigged and frozen RCI Points numbers don't want a market-based system because then they would have to trade at their week's real value rather than its overpointed value. I can see how the above steps to make the numbers honest would also be a threat to them, as would meaningful adjustments for real supply and demand. There are timesharers with a vested interest in the inflated numbers that permeate the RCI Points numbers racket.

timeos2 said:

AMEN. The only reason to keep the process murky and behind the scenes is to hide what is really happening. That leaves those willing to dig a method to milk the system and leave the leftovers for the others. Shining a light on that ruins that ability so those who have the insider knowledge hate to see it lost.

Click to expand...

Carolinian said:

Go back and read the question!''

Click to expand...

The system is not totally fair. Some trades are up trades and some down trades. Isn't this the way the systems works whether it be weeks or points. Seems to me it's working like it should be expected to work.

Since the weeks vs. points debates began, I have argued that trades up within a reason able range are fair, and much better than dealing with an aggravating exact number system.

However, the areas encompassed in the Points ranges, and even more so in the crossover grids, are far too broad. The marginal trades up that are common in Weeks are much less, and trades up that can be done any day in Points would almost never happen in Weeks, there is such a disparity in the value of the weeks. Thats what happens with overaveraging.

Dean said:

The system is not totally fair. Some trades are up trades and some down trades. Isn't this the way the systems works whether it be weeks or points. Seems to me it's working like it should be expected to work.

Click to expand...

Steve - You keep ignoring the simple fact that published numbers allow the owners to decide what is a value and what isn't while the hidden numbers (and they are at least as rigged by developers as the points - maybe more so since no one knows what the values are!) play to the lack of knowledge the typical buyer/owner brings to the party. While I would not argue that points values are perfect (I'm sure they are not) they are a best guess, publically available and subject to adjustment if the free market - remember the owners control the final use of their points not the backroom at some exchange company - decide the values are out of line. They have been adjusted when the original assignment turned out to be high or low. That is a chance the weeks owners never get as they have no say just a secret society telling them your week taded or it didn't. That is not and cannot be called a free market of any type.

When the weeks system publishes the values used - ever changing or not that can be done - then you'd have a freemarket that can decide if the values are fair or not. No weeks system exists today that does that while points at least makes the attempt and owners are better informed for it.

Weeks purist theory predicts that trading power formulas must be hidden.

Weeks exchange only works because the apathetic majority willingly accepts trade downs and expired deposits. Otherwise, the exchange system doesn't balance.

Ignorance is bliss in weeks trading. As soon as people start arbitraging the system (as happens in EVERY market), then the system breaks down. That is what happened to RCI and will happen to II.

The most efficient and strongest markets have the following attributes:

a) it gets stronger and more efficient as MORE information is provided

b) businesses emerge to capitalize on arbitrage opportunities and the process of so doing makes it even more efficient.

c) competition keeps businesses in check

d) government stays out of the process as much as possible.

Re: to Roger

The rules may look nice on paper, but lets look at the reality:

1) There is currently a thread going about how Fairfield is renting inventory to non-members, which is squeezing out members. If they were fixed weeks, management could NOT get away with that.

2) Fairfield is also being sued in a class action lawsuit in the US because its members cannot use their points to get the vacations they were promised.

3) Sunterra's points program is also being sued in a class action in Scotland because its points members cannot get the vacations promised. Their weeks operation, which is larger than their points operation, is NOT made part of the suit. It seems to be working fine.

4) The respected Timeshare Consumers Association is working to develop another class action in England against Sunterra, again only directed toward their points operation, not weeks. see www.vogas.org Again, points members are not getting the vacations promised.

BocaBum99 said:

Perhaps you should read up on the rules for some point systems before you continue to post false facts about point systems. It appears that you are simply parrotting other fallacies you've read on the timeshare tabloids.

If you have reviewed the rules for RCI Points, Fairfield Fixed week conversions (not UDI points), Bluegreen, and Hyatt, you would see that owners there get the EXACT benefits of fixed week owners and can elect to use their week as a fixed week prior to the open reservation period.

This makes these systems far superior to floating week reservation systems.

Actually, floating week systems work perfectly fine when done right. I own several and never have problem booking major holidays.

Click to expand...

Weeks trading powers rigged by developers????? Think a minute! When they are not published, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason or advantage for anyone to do this. Developers have no way to use an unpublished number as a sales tool. Use your common sense! Why it the world would anyone go through the trouble to do that when they get no benefit?

You contend that points numbers have been adjusted. While there was some tinkering with the fraudulent numbers of the crossover grids, how many Points resorts have had their numbers changed at all? Any?

A system of rigged and frozen numbers that cannot move freely in response to supply and demand is certainly not a free market of any type. When publishing numbers mean they cannot move freely with market forces, then publishing numbers is an anti-market practice. That is what is happening with points systems as they exist today.

I have no inherent problem with making numbers public as long as 1) they can move with supply and demand changes on a frequent basis; and 2) the system of establishing them is also made public to prevent manipulation by developers. To avoid to arbitrariness and aggravation of an exact number, I would also like to see a trading range, where you could make a clean one-for-one trade for another week with a value up to say 110% or 115% of your week.

timeos2 said:

Steve - You keep ignoring the simple fact that published numbers allow the owners to decide what is a value and what isn't while the hidden numbers (and they are at least as rigged by developers as the points - maybe more so since no one knows what the values are!) play to the lack of knowledge the typical buyer/owner brings to the party. While I would not argue that points values are perfect (I'm sure they are not) they are a best guess, publically available and subject to adjustment if the free market - remember the owners control the final use of their points not the backroom at some exchange company - decide the values are out of line. They have been adjusted when the original assignment turned out to be high or low. That is a chance the weeks owners never get as they have no say just a secret society telling them your week taded or it didn't. That is not and cannot be called a free market of any type.

When the weeks system publishes the values used - ever changing or not that can be done - then you'd have a freemarket that can decide if the values are fair or not. No weeks system exists today that does that while points at least makes the attempt and owners are better informed for it.

Click to expand...

Re: to Roger

Carolinian said:

The rules may look nice on paper, but lets look at the reality:

1) There is currently a thread going about how Fairfield is renting inventory to non-members, which is squeezing out members. If they were fixed weeks, management could NOT get away with that.

2) Fairfield is also being sued in a class action lawsuit in the US because its members cannot use their points to get the vacations they were promised.

3) Sunterra's points program is also being sued in a class action in Scotland because its points members cannot get the vacations promised. Their weeks operation, which is larger than their points operation, is NOT made part of the suit. It seems to be working fine.

4) The respected Timeshare Consumers Association is working to develop another class action in England against Sunterra, again only directed toward their points operation, not weeks. see www.vogas.org Again, points members are not getting the vacations promised.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read the complaint against FF. The complaint was limited to the FF UDI points. The converted weeks get Advance Reservation Priority that gives those owners exclusive access to their home week 13-months in advance of checkin. This gives them the same rights as fixed week owners.

And, UDI points even have ARP. But, the ARP works like a floating week system during that period. As others have suggested on this board, it is more likely that the owners refused to accept alternatives that were available to them. It's the same with an exchange company. RCI gives options to every exchanger. Nobody is left without an exchange option. The only issue is whether or not they want what is offered.

I don't know much about Sunterra, but notice I didn't offer them as an example.

My example of point systems offering fixed week protection is still valid.

Carolinian said:

Weeks trading powers rigged by developers????? Think a minute! When they are not published, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason or advantage for anyone to do this. Developers have no way to use an unpublished number as a sales tool. Use your common sense! Why it the world would anyone go through the trouble to do that when they get no benefit?

Click to expand...

Once again, you are focused on a non sequitur in a futile attempt to prove your point.

Unpublished trading power numbers are source of the SINGLE biggest LIE in ALL of timesharing.

When trading power numbers are NOT published, it allows developers to IMPLY that a buyer who purchases at this resort today can exchange for ANY available resort at ANY TIME in this entire directory. The world is your oyster.

As we all know, that statement is technically not a lie, so they don't get shut down for saying it. The qualifier of "available" prevents that. But, common sense tells you the developer will imply that the exchanger can go anywhere at anytime.

Going anywhere, anytime was never a possibility.... even in the hey day of the DeHaan model of weeks exchange.

To me, an intentionally misleading statement is a lie. So, I claim that this lie has created an unrealistic expectation in exchangers minds that is the primary source of discontent in exchanging. The fact that exchange availability is getting worse over time simply exacerbates their anger. The fact that rentals are happening is making them even angrier.

Whether or not RCI is renting spacebank weeks is irrelevant to the fact that a weeks based exchange system is not fundamentaly sound. The more information it provides to its members, the quicker it collapses. Fundamentally sound systems want more information and transparency and they allow business to make money.

Why does RCI and II and other WEEKS exchange companies NOT allow rentals? Because it will attract more arbitrageurs to the system and hasten its collapse.

Why does eBay and point systems allow rentals? Because it strengthens the system by atracting arbitrageurs who will make the system more efficient. That's the way markets work and what drives capitalism.

Re: to Roger

Carolinian said:

1) There is currently a thread going about how Fairfield is renting inventory to non-members, which is squeezing out members. If they were fixed weeks, management could NOT get away with that...

Click to expand...

There is some need for clarification (and correction) here.

1. Both in the Fairfield thread and here you are suggesting that timesharing could avoid problems like this if they were limited to just fixed weeks. Is this a new position of yours? We need to get back to the old days, before points and before floating weeks?
2. If you look at the OP in the Fairfield thread (someone known to be as angry at the current state of timesharing as you are), he never (NEVER) said that the problem arose because of Fairfield renting out to non-members (as you post here). He said that Fairfield has a policy that allows a person to cancel with no penalty the day before occupancy. That is the policy has led to the decision to overbook (in much the same manner that airlines overbook to cover no-shows).

[Please note: I am no more happy than Carolinian about the possibility of "overbooking."]

I was sitting here this morning, wondering how it could be that so many TUGgers are satisified with their ownerships in point systems and floating weeks, yet we are assured on such good authority that those systems are inherently vile and evil.

Suddenly, understandiing flashed into my consciousness and I jolted into awareness. It's not a crossover grid, it's a Crossover Matrix.

We poor owners of points and floating weeks are actually living in a world where all of our ownership rights have been taken away from us and are being used to sustain hordes of non-timeshare owner vacation plans. All of the wonderful experiences we've had - they're entirely an illusion, a dreamworld supported and maintained by developers and exchange companies to keep us content while they drain away all of our rights.

We need to recognize Carolinian for what he is - he's the Morpheus of timeshares. He's got the blue pills and the red pills. Do you, dear Points or floating week owner, want to stay in the bliss of your dream world, content but unaware that your ownership is being stripped away from you and that your developer will ulitmately discard and dispose of you and your unit like a piece of trash when they can't get any more value from you? Then remain with your points and floating week ownerships - that's the blue pill.

Or would you rather become aware of your true situation? Do you want enlightenment and do you want to fight the evil developers and exchange companies tricking you and sapping your rights? If you're a true warrior, then you will pick the red pill and convert to fixed week ownership, where your rights haven't been stripped away as long as you don't convert your ownership.

Timeshare owners - we are being called to make one of life's eternal choicies. The trade-off is clear: comfortable fantasy or harsh reality? What do you choose, and why?

*********

I fear this post been intercepted by some Points conversion agent named Smith - gotta run and make a phone call now to get directions out of this maze in which I'm trapped.

But remember - it's not a crossover grid. It's a Matrix.

LOL. That's an awesome parody. I must say, that little blue pill works pretty well.

Carolinian said:

Since the weeks vs. points debates began, I have argued that trades up within a reason able range are fair, and much better than dealing with an aggravating exact number system.

However, the areas encompassed in the Points ranges, and even more so in the crossover grids, are far too broad. The marginal trades up that are common in Weeks are much less, and trades up that can be done any day in Points would almost never happen in Weeks, there is such a disparity in the value of the weeks. Thats what happens with overaveraging.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, apparently most don't feel the same as you do and that's OK.

Carolinian said:

Since the weeks vs. points debates began, I have argued that trades up within a reason able range are fair, and much better than dealing with an aggravating exact number system.

However, the areas encompassed in the Points ranges, and even more so in the crossover grids, are far too broad. The marginal trades up that are common in Weeks are much less, and trades up that can be done any day in Points would almost never happen in Weeks, there is such a disparity in the value of the weeks. Thats what happens with overaveraging.

Click to expand...

You cannot possibly believe this statement, can you? Come on. You are saying that only marginal trade ups are possible in weeks?

I doubt that very many of your staunchest supporters would agree with you on this point.

Be honest with us. I know you get a lot of emails from your supporters. On this topic, at least a couple of them must have said, "you know, Carolinian, I have always supported you, but there are some pretty darn good trade ups available in weeks."

Would you consider a Branson white studio for a 2 BR GC in Hawaii a marginal trade up? That is what I did.

BocaBum99 said:

there are some pretty darn good trade ups available in weeks."

Click to expand...

What are you rights

All points enthusiasts support thie position with anectdotal stories. As a FIXED weeks person my rights come from the deed and my direct ownership not leased to be leased back properties which is the underpinning of all points systems. Once you assign your rights by leasing you property in exchenge for points you are at the mercy of the point controlling entity. This entity can do whatever it wishes with your property leaving you little contractual recourse. When that entity is the developer or tied to the developer, I have little confidence that they have your interest first, especially since their dual role already represents a inherent conflict. This is also true in floating weeks where the developer controls the managment and reservation system