# Relieved to make my last RCI weeks exchange



## travelhound (Jan 18, 2007)

I finally managed to find an acceptable exchange for my RCI week (a good week which would be nearly impossible to get back into).  In the old days, I was able to get a nice exchange for my week.  If there was availability I could get an upgrade.  Now I am only offered things equivalent or worse, even though I can see from points (weeks trades) there is plenty of availablity.  With points, I don't feel bad downgrading because I do not spend as many points.  If I want something nicer, I have the option to spend more points.  It makes me mad RCI is skimming off the difference in value.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 18, 2007)

*A loophole closes and a fair system survives*

It's too bad the free upgrade ride ended as you yourself post but it never should have been happening to begin with. You get an equal trade to your deposit which is as it should be. As you also say with points it is easy to get a fair value out of an equal, lesser or better unit by simply adjusting the amount of points needed. Viola! The way the system is supposed to work!  I know your post was lamenting a lost world but it also reinforces the superiority of points based trades.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 18, 2007)

With Weeks, one gets an equivalent trade as determined by the market forces of supply and demand.  The rigged and frozen numbers of RCI Points, too often based on RCI pandering to developers in sales and other insiders, often did not reflect true values when set and certainly do not after market forces have altered the landscape. Overbuilt areas are routinely overpointed, cheating other areas with higher real demand over supply.  Of course that makes developers and members in overbuilt areas love RCI Points. Then there is the problem of overaveraging.  RCI saying a mid-August week 33 at the beach is equal to a week 43 late October week there, as it does in the corrupt numbers racket of RCI Points, is simply nonsense.

Weeks inventory should be for Weeks members and Points inventory for Points members.  RCI is quite simply defrauding its Weeks members when it lets the Points people have access to our inventory, devaluing our system, particularly when we have no similar access to their system.  That's why I have been depositing more with independents and will not renew my RCI membership when it expires.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 19, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> With Weeks, one gets an equivalent trade as determined by the market forces of supply and demand. ...



Just a note about how TUG got started (taken from the ABOUT TUG link on the TUG home page) ....

_Hi, I'm Bill Rogers. I initiated TUG because my wife and I traded our very nice (Gold Crown & 5 Star rating) resort for what can only be described as a run-down converted motel. To say that we were upset, is to put it mildly

The picture in the Exchange Resort Directory looked great! The description had everything we were looking for, even tennis. But when we got there...... The condo was probably WW II vintage and still had the original furniture (I have seen better thrown away on the street). But the straw that broke the camel's back was the tennis court (we love tennis and all our trades usually have tennis available). The only court was over grown with weeds and did not even have a net!) When we asked about it, we were told it had not had a net for years! So much for Resort Directory pictures and write-ups! We vowed we would never be ripped off again! From that time on, when we are in an area (and have time) we tour the timeshare resorts to find out what they are really like. We will no longer rely only on the Exchange companies for this information! ...._


----------



## PigsDad (Jan 19, 2007)

travelhound said:


> Now I am only offered things equivalent or worse,



I am new to timesharing, and I have always been baffled by comments regarding how people are so upset with RCI because they cannot get an "upgrade" from the unit they are trading with.  Am I the only one who thinks this is not surprising?

I see people complaining that they can't get a 2BR for a 1BR trade.  Well, duh!  For every one of those trades, there would have to be an equivalent 1BR for a 2BR trade.  Who would do that?  If everyone is looking for an "upgrade" on their trade, the system will simply not work.  How could it?

Maybe I am missing something here (and please enlighten me), but I think the norm should be an equivalent trade.  When people complain about being offered that, it just seems like they have unrealistic expectations.

Kurt


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jan 19, 2007)

PigsDad said:


> I see people complaining that they can't get a 2BR for a 1BR trade.  Well, duh!  For every one of those trades, there would have to be an equivalent 1BR for a 2BR trade.  Who would do that?  If everyone is looking for an "upgrade" on their trade, the system will simply not work.  How could it?
> Kurt




That really depends on how each exchange system look at the so call equivalent.  Use simple a hotel room model.  The room that can see beach in the summer may priced at $400 a night.  In Winter, it will be $90 a night.  So one room in summer will equal 4 bed in winter.  The room in Las Vagas at weekend, a no star motel will ask for 100.  At weekday, a 4 star or 5 star will ask for 39.  So 1 room equeal 2 1/2.  Also, if there is avail, at the last min, you will get in Priceline 1/2 price.

It all depends on how exchange system "price" each deposit.  Apprently, no unit are really equal.  II is more on room size, RCI is more on season (demand/supply).  SFX is stricky room size with certain season only.  I am pretty sure if today white house willing to make it a TS, a hotel unit there one night probably will demand 3 or 4 bed beach summer unit.

It is upto the exchange company to get determine how it worth and make it works.  The problem for week, is it is hidden, and nobody will be able to tell for sure if it really work.  With point, everyone can complain that the point is not given right, but at least everyone will know, so it force the exchange company to adjust it to make it work.  Otherwise, they one that constantly will be on the disadvantage side will simply refuse to do business with the company.

Jya-Ning


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 19, 2007)

*The Best Of Both.*




Jya-Ning said:


> The problem for week, is it is hidden, and nobody will be able to tell for sure if it really work.  With point, everyone can complain that the point is not given right, but at least everyone will know, so it force the exchange company to adjust it to make it work.  Otherwise, they one that constantly will be on the disadvantage side will simply refuse to do business with the company.


Well said.  And not only that, with 1 foot in points & the other in weeks, it is possible to keep checking both ways to see what's available for exchange at different times for different points/weeks values, & then go for the timeshare swap that's most advantageous at the time -- the best of both systems. 

Moreover, by watching for those _Last Call_ & especially those _Instant Exchange_ bargains, it's possible for points folks to _Raid The Weeks Inventory_ favorably.  I mean -- shucks -- if you can't beat'm, join'm.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## travelhound (Jan 19, 2007)

PigsDad said:


> I see people complaining that they can't get a 2BR for a 1BR trade.  Well, duh!  For every one of those trades, there would have to be an equivalent 1BR for a 2BR trade.  Who would do that?  If everyone is looking for an "upgrade" on their trade, the system will simply not work.  How could it?
> 
> Kurt



I have taken downgrades many times because it fit into my plans.  The old system worked because other RCI members benefited from these cases with the occasional upgrade.  Now RCI (and points members) benefit from this.  That is why I am glad to make my last weeks exchange.  From now on its only points for me.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 19, 2007)

RCI has essentially cheated its Weeks members by giving a preference to Points.  The generic points grids for crossover trades are rigged to shortchange the Weeks system.  Some of these issues were involved with one of the class action lawsuits, and hopefully will be fully pressed there.  It would restore fairness in the Weeks system to get Points out of our pockets.
Let Points try to stand on its own two feet without mooching off of Weeks.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 19, 2007)

Jya-Ning said:


> ...It is upto the exchange company to get determine how it worth and make it works.  The problem for week, is it is hidden, and nobody will be able to tell for sure if it really work.  With point, everyone can complain that the point is not given right, but at least everyone will know, so it force the exchange company to adjust it to make it work.  ...
> 
> Jya-Ning


Exactly right!


----------



## travelguy (Jan 22, 2007)

*I’m Replacing RCI with HGVC, High Country Club & SFX*

While I would agree that the ability to “upgrade” RCI exchanges has been deteriorating for years, it is still possible to get those “holy grail” trades but takes MUCH more time and effort.  I have two weeks left in spacebank with RCI to trade and a RCI membership paid till 2010.  I’ve become spoiled with the ease of reservation and quality of property since I joined HGVC.  Now that I joined a growing Destination Club (High Country Club) with easy reservation and high-end luxury properties, I’m contemplating selling all my timeshares that trade through RCI and canceling my RCI membership.  I’ll still be able to trade my HGVC weeks through RCI and triple-up on SFX exchanges if I want to.  There are even exchange options developing for the high-end properties of Residence Clubs, Fractionals, Condotels and Destination Clubs.  That may allow me to trade one or more of my six High Country Club weeks for comparable luxury properties.

Maybe it’s that the thrill of trying to get the “steal” of an exchange is gone, but I just don’t want to make the effort to get a good RCI trade anymore when so many better options are available.  

And then there’s this …. what if there are a large number of RCI members with upscale properties who have the same thought as me and won’t exchange through RCI anymore?  What will that do to the average quality of available properties to trade through RCI?


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 22, 2007)

*It happened a few years back*



travelguy said:


> And then there’s this …. what if there are a large number of RCI members with upscale properties who have the same thought as me and won’t exchange through RCI anymore?  What will that do to the average quality of available properties to trade through RCI?



That change started 4 or 5 years ago and has greatly accelerated in the past two years. The quality and/or high demand units are beelining for points, SFX or other options to RCI weeks.  RCI has been encouraging the move so its no surprise. II has also suffered the same issue but not as directly (they have no points program of their own).  In II's case it has been the exodus of the individual week owners to the multi-resort systems (most based on internal points programs) leaving the non-anointed individual owner with greatly reduced trade power or artificial limits on what is placed with II from the big systems compared to what those systems get to take out. 

The average quality of weeks trades in II and RCI Weeks are headed down and aren't going to turn around ever again.  SFX benefits in their limited niche , the multi-resort systems own the market and RCI Points offers the independent resorts entry into the new game.  Individual II weeks are the real losers as II has no option to offer like RCI does.  Just look at how the market has changed in just the past 3 years.  By the time the hallowed "class action" reaches any decision - even if it was to be the highly unlikely total victory old weeks lovers hope for - the changing market would render it a meaningless win.  RCI either saw the writing on the wall (seems most likely) or has pushed things toward a new model but either way the ball is rolling downhill and gathering unstoppable momentum.  RCI is already in position to benefit from the change so if weeks continue to founder they couldn't care less.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 22, 2007)

AwayWeGo said:


> Well said.  And not only that, with 1 foot in points & the other in weeks, it is possible to keep checking both ways to see what's available for exchange at different times for different points/weeks values, & then go for the timeshare swap that's most advantageous at the time -- the best of both systems.
> 
> Moreover, by watching for those _Last Call_ & especially those _Instant Exchange_ bargains, it's possible for points folks to _Raid The Weeks Inventory_ favorably.  I mean -- shucks -- if you can't beat'm, join'm.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Alan, this is going to go away soon, I would guess.  RCI gets us used to a great benefit and then takes it away.  Don't count on this to last much longer.  As an example, consider the fact that those last minute points exchanges used to pull anything, even the points resorts, then they took that away about two years ago.  

I don't understand the defense of RCI by some posters here.  They are renting weeks that could go to exchangers.  

I have figured out the last-minute weeks' exchanges are pretty abundant, so I take advantage of that and am okay with RCI at the current time, but I definitely see where Carolinian is coming from.  

Alternate systems are going to be the future.  Bluegreen, HGVC, Wyndham, Worldmark, Sunterra, Shell and the myriad of other systems will replace RCI and II.  Even Marriott is working on an internal trading system, and VRI is working on their new exchange system they are calling VRIety.  This is what the future holds, along with the various exchange systems around that are great alternatives.  Donita with Dial An Exchange is a wonderful person, with a customer service attitude that is superior to anything the big companies offer, and it was a delight talking to her about our II exclusivity contract.  HTSE has a great product and service to match.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 22, 2007)

*Don't think RCI or II has the answer*



rickandcindy23 said:


> Alternate systems are going to be the future.  Bluegreen, HGVC, Wyndham, Worldmark, Sunterra, Shell and the myriad of other systems will replace RCI and II.  Even Marriott is working on an internal trading system, and VRI is working on their new exchange system they are calling VRIety.  This is what the future holds, along with the various exchange systems around that are great alternatives.  Donita with Dial An Exchange is a wonderful person, with a customer service attitude that is superior to anything the big companies offer, and it was a delight talking to her about our II exclusivity contract.  HTSE has a great product and service to match.



Cindy -Thats the point (pardon the pun). RCI realized many years ago now that a system of voluntary and unreliable one by one weeks deposits wasn't going to be viable vs the Fairfields, Sunterra's, Bluegreens, Shells, Disney, etc.  Those systems had managed to get control of the prime inventory and were able to drive hard deals to dole it out. II caved in to nearly every demand and the whole base of week for week exchange was imploding fast. I never liked the idea that RCI could take what it basically got paid to take - our weeks - and then would rent it to non-owners. But the alternative, letting owners buy into weeks cheap and burying the system in undesirable blue and generally off season, low quality time and resorts while those owners snatched up the cream of deposits wasn't any better. The knowledge of working an unbalanced system with values hidden from most owners was killing the golden goose. RCI had to tighten the game and did by expanding rentals beyond just trying to move that unwanted glut of time into maximizing not the owners value but their own. Like an addict they got hooked on the easy money and the weeks system was doomed. At least with points or other, boutique exchange venues like SFX the value was known and a fair trade almost assured. The crap shoot of weeks held no appeal especially when the multiresort points systems showed how much better it could be done. 

There is no defense for the actions of RCI and rentals but I can understand why they felt they had to take that route. Fortunately we have options and one of them is RCI's Points which still falls far short of the better multiresort groups but beats the old weeks game by a huge margin.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 23, 2007)

Those ''beelining'' for Points are the ones in the overbuilt / overpointed areas, because RCI has skewed the numbers to overvalue such areas.  Those NOT doing so are the areas that are systematically cheated in RCI Points by undervaluation.  Areas that are high demand due to the most important driving factor of demand, location, as well as sold out resorts (a term that has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI point assignment) are high on the list of those cheated by RCI in this manner.

ARtificially high numbers for overbuilt areas resulting from RCI pandering to developers selling weeks there makes the numbers racket of RCI Points a complete fraud, but I can see why those whose resorts benefit from it are such avid supporters and advocates of points.  It does after all save their resorts from the realities of supply and demand by rigging trade values artificially high.



timeos2 said:


> That change started 4 or 5 years ago and has greatly accelerated in the past two years. The quality and/or high demand units are beelining for points, SFX or other options to RCI weeks.  RCI has been encouraging the move so its no surprise. II has also suffered the same issue but not as directly (they have no points program of their own).  In II's case it has been the exodus of the individual week owners to the multi-resort systems (most based on internal points programs) leaving the non-anointed individual owner with greatly reduced trade power or artificial limits on what is placed with II from the big systems compared to what those systems get to take out.
> 
> The average quality of weeks trades in II and RCI Weeks are headed down and aren't going to turn around ever again.  SFX benefits in their limited niche , the multi-resort systems own the market and RCI Points offers the independent resorts entry into the new game.  Individual II weeks are the real losers as II has no option to offer like RCI does.  Just look at how the market has changed in just the past 3 years.  By the time the hallowed "class action" reaches any decision - even if it was to be the highly unlikely total victory old weeks lovers hope for - the changing market would render it a meaningless win.  RCI either saw the writing on the wall (seems most likely) or has pushed things toward a new model but either way the ball is rolling downhill and gathering unstoppable momentum.  RCI is already in position to benefit from the change so if weeks continue to founder they couldn't care less.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 23, 2007)

The Chritel de Hahn (founder of RCI) model for exchanging worked just fine until the greedy goons of Cendant took over RCI and started looting the system.  Rentals to the general public and points are two of the evils they brought to RCI.

As to weeks that are clogging the system, I think you are missing where a great many of them come from and that is the overbuilt areas.  RCI employee Bootleg, long respected poster on these boards, with his access to RCI's computers told us where the vast oversupply was: Orlando, Williamsburg, Branson, and Massanutten.  He also told us that the two resorts with the greatest oversupply in the entire RCI system were both Gold Crowns in Orlando.  In contrast to your theories, Bootleg had access to the facts.





timeos2 said:


> Cindy -Thats the point (pardon the pun). RCI realized many years ago now that a system of voluntary and unreliable one by one weeks deposits wasn't going to be viable vs the Fairfields, Sunterra's, Bluegreens, Shells, Disney, etc.  Those systems had managed to get control of the prime inventory and were able to drive hard deals to dole it out. II caved in to nearly every demand and the whole base of week for week exchange was imploding fast. I never liked the idea that RCI could take what it basically got paid to take - our weeks - and then would rent it to non-owners. But the alternative, letting owners buy into weeks cheap and burying the system in undesirable blue and generally off season, low quality time and resorts while those owners snatched up the cream of deposits wasn't any better. The knowledge of working an unbalanced system with values hidden from most owners was killing the golden goose. RCI had to tighten the game and did by expanding rentals beyond just trying to move that unwanted glut of time into maximizing not the owners value but their own. Like an addict they got hooked on the easy money and the weeks system was doomed. At least with points or other, boutique exchange venues like SFX the value was known and a fair trade almost assured. The crap shoot of weeks held no appeal especially when the multiresort points systems showed how much better it could be done.
> 
> There is no defense for the actions of RCI and rentals but I can understand why they felt they had to take that route. Fortunately we have options and one of them is RCI's Points which still falls far short of the better multiresort groups but beats the old weeks game by a huge margin.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 23, 2007)

*If weeks supporters ever got what they asked for look out*



Carolinian said:


> The Chritel de Hahn (founder of RCI) model for exchanging worked just fine until the greedy goons of Cendant took over RCI and started looting the system.  Rentals to the general public and points are two of the evils they brought to RCI.
> 
> As to weeks that are clogging the system, I think you are missing where a great many of them come from and that is the overbuilt areas.  RCI employee Bootleg, long respected poster on these boards, with his access to RCI's computers told us where the vast oversupply was: Orlando, Williamsburg, Branson, and Massanutten.  He also told us that the two resorts with the greatest oversupply in the entire RCI system were both Gold Crowns in Orlando.  In contrast to your theories, Bootleg had access to the facts.



Even if every statement here was fact, and I would have to argue it is not, it doesn't change the reality that RCI isn't the 1000 pound gorilla anymore. They can't run things as they once were because the timeshare landscape has changed so dramatically. Its not a few hundred mostly converted motels in a few areas of the US and world but thousands of often purpose built and amenity laden resorts especially in high demand areas. Its not the old model of build or convert one resort, sell it out, turn it over to the owners and go on to the next project anymore. It's build or buy 20 or 30 or even a 100 or more resorts and run them under a common banner - shut out RCI/II except as a back up to the areas the multiresort system has no presence in. It's those multiresort groups that are the power in timesharing now not RCI and certainly not II.  RCI and II fear the day when the big multi's start to direct trade between themselves further isolating RCI/II from the majority of inventory. 

If we woke up tomorrow back in a "pure" system of weeks only exchanges the pool of weeks to pull from would be smaller than it was 25 years ago. Thats because many of those weeks either got absorbed into the multiresort groups or the owners use them don't trade them.  Mostly you'd have a diverse bunch of single resorts - mostly older and many conversions - to choose from. The vast majority of timeshare locations and most notably those in what may be called overbuilt but certainly high demand areas would no longer be available. They aren't participants in pure weeks but have been available to weeks trades only because the multiresort groups have chosen to allow crossover trades. The owner group that would be devastated by the end of "crossover" use isn't the multiresort groups and points owners as they would still have the majority and almost all the resorts built in the past 15 years as their pool. It would be the independent week owner who, without realizing it, has become dependent on the newer and bigger groups to supply the majority of inventory they do get to use. Pull the plug on crossovers and the weeks world is mighty bleak.

The weeks side concentrates on the fact, and I will agree this one is true, that the few really great units/weeks/locations they have to offer are overwhelmed by the demand from the massive value assigned to the multiresort groups deposits. There are SO many of them and the valuation both in points or in relative value in straight weeks are so high - even after the quantity is figured in - that those few high value times the pure weeks side has to offer are quickly absorbed. That occurs because the multiresort groups only want to give up their massive deposits to the weeks side if they get more back than they put in (sound familiar?).  And they have the clout to do just that. So whats left for weeks exchange are weeks that certainly aren't as good as those few summer beach units the weeks side has to offer but plenty of nearly as good, warm weather, larger and/or higher quality units in high demand areas at both high and midrange demand times. It is a fair exchange by the rules II and RCI have set up with the multi groups. But most of what the weeks side has to offer is off season, lower value time. That used to get upgraded because if no exchange was made for it RCI/II got no fees. They didn't mind free upgrades if it generated income. But the multiresort groups aren't buying into those types of downward trades. They demand at least an equal if not slightly better use for each one they give up. Again RCI/II can't control that anymore. So rather than give away upgrades and be stuck with all that low value time they can't rent RCI/II have moved to enforcing the like for like far more strictly than before and renting the very time those lower weeks used to claim for the cost of a trade. It isn't right but thats fact.  You can bemoan it or take steps to be sure you aren't using the wrong system. There are plenty of options for the individual to maximize the value of their ownership whatever type it may be. Simply hoping that the old model will suddenly resurface isn't a good plan IMO.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 23, 2007)

*Food for thought*

This thread is already splintering, so I will splinter it some more with a couple of observations (and, hopefully, then let it go)...


About six or seven years ago, when TUG was much smaller, everyone was bemoaning that there would only be one exchange company left standing - RCI.  I posted a note entitled the Balkanization of timesharing expressing an opposing concern.  I noted how timeshare groupings such as Sunterra, Marriott, Worldmark, Bluegreen, etc. were the new competition to the exchange companies -- that people could make most (not all) of their trades within these systems.  I wondered out loud whether it was going to become harder and harder to trade for the full panoply of timeshares in that most of the units would be tied up within these resort groups.  (I don't want to make too much of it, but that posting was responsible for the creation of the phrase "min-system." was coined.  I guess that will be my lasting contribution to TUG.)  

In retrospect, it is clear that RCI had the same concern.  They created Points (basically, it is a mini-system for independents) and bought out Fairfield and Worldmark (technically, Trendwest).  

I have to wonder what the next step will be.  My best guess is that you might start seeing some alliances between the mini-systems which will further marginalize the need for large exchange companies.  Marriott, for example, might make a deal with Hyatt so that the first spill over from each system goes to the other hotel group.  (In line with this, it is very easy to imagine some sort of alliance of this sort between Worldmark and Fairfield).
Years ago, I was talking to a developer who had a reputation as a straight shooter.  He said that RCI would do what it could to keep the very high end users happy, because ultimately they are what create the most money for them.  (In the same breath, he mentioned that this was the basis for SFX -- cater to only high end users.)  

We keep seeing on these board how people can't get the trades that they used to, and, the conclusion is that the high end users will be deserting RCI.  Yet, as often as not, when further postings occur, what people are not getting are the trade ups to the high end resorts.  Not knowing, I am curious how RCI is treating the very top users.  My suspicion is that the really high end trades are still available to them.  In fact, part of the RCI tighter restriction policy might be to placate the high end users -- to make sure that the really top trades are available to them and not taken by savvy, but lower worth traders.  The other possiblity is to really court these resorts to become part of Points, rewarding them with mucho, mucho points.  Keep the high end users happy!
When I first started on TUG, Orlando was "overbuilt."  Over ten years later, I bet there are four times the number of units in Orlando as when I joined TUG.  How can this be when it was "overbulit" then?  

Part of the explanation might be in a short news article I saw mid to late December.  Hotel occupancy was up all across the country except for Orlando.  The speculation in the article was that people who used to use hotels in Orlando are driftiung in significant numbers to timeshare units.  

For now, taht makes it easy to sell (and rent) Orlando units to people not acquainted with timesharing.  As long as this continues (and, it won't last forever) expect to see even more timeshare units added to Orlando (and, soon to follow, other "overbulit" areas).  

In light of that, my advise to the savvy timesharers is what is often posted here on TUG -- don't buy into those areas and enjoy the cheap trades and rentals while you can.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 23, 2007)

*Revisionist History?*

The advocates of the mini-systems, particularly points-based mini-systems seem to believe, or at least assert, that they are a ''new'' model that will drive the ''old'' weeks based system into the ground.  Looking at the history of timesharing, it is easy to say ''not so!''

Indeed, the very FIRST timeshare was a points-based mini-system.  It is called Hapimag, is based in Switzerland, and is still going strong.  Last year when I was in Budapest, I had the opportunity to visit Hapimag's new resort on castle hill in the medieval section of the city.  Far from being new, the points-based mini-system concept has been around since the dawn of timesharing.

The slightly newer Weeks concept was a response from French developers.
In that head to head competition in the early days of timesharing, it was the superior weeks-based model that won the day and became dominant in the industry.  The US market followed suit, with weeks-based timesharing predominating, when timesharing crossed the Atlantic.

That is not to say that points-based mini-systems do not have a substantial niche market.  They do, as illustrated by Hapimag, but they are an ''also ran''.

If points-based mini-systems were going to blow away the weeks-based system, Hapimag would ruled the roost from the begiinnig and those pesky French developers would have never gotten off the ground with their weeks-based concept, much less dominated the market.

Resistance to points by individual members is well illustrated by Sunterra.  For years they have not even offered a weeks-based product and have pressured existing weeks-based owners to convert to points.  Even so, the current membership figures for Sunterra Europe on the Vogas site, show that a solid MAJORITY of Sunterra Europe owners are STILL weeks-based.

One reason that people like the weeks-based concept is that in many areas (on the OBX it is around 70%) the majority of timeshare owners own to use. The points concept is an exchange-oriented concept that does not fit well with the own to use folks.  Most of these people turn up their nose at even belonging to an exchange company.  With a weeks-based system, they know they will have the week and unit they have selected.  With points, they are not going to be certain, especially a first time buyer.

For many exchangers, mini-systems as a stand alone (i.e. not using an exchange company) are far too limited by themselves in what they have to offer.  Many are particularly weak when it comes to the Caribbean and Europe.  The biggest foothold in Europe for a mini-system that operates in the US has been Sunterra, but they are in the process of selling their European operation and becoming even more parochial.

As to resort amenities, the most important amenity of all is location, and many of these new resorts you speak of skimp on that to pay for the bells and whistles like exerecise rooms.  In terms of demand, it is still going to be location that rules the market, if the market is allowed to work freely.  A good example is on the Outer Banks.  The newest resort, the only one there still in developer sales, and with the most resort amentities is Barrier Island Statiion Kitty Hawk, a Gold Crown.  Longtime timeshare resale/rental brokers on the OBX, however, will tell you that owners at BIS-Kitty Hawk would regularly price their rentals $100 less than those offered at older standard beach-front resorts, but could not rent them unless all of the older beachfront weeks had already been rented.  That is clear evidence that in the market location trumps ''luxury amentities'' for most people.  Yes, there are some who feel the other way, but they are clearly the minority.

If you count the RCI directory, the minis together are still a small minority of resorts.  It looks like it will stay that way.  There was an article in a developers magazine quoted in Street Talk that I posted here a year or so ago that reported survey results of timeshare units currently in the pipeline showed that a substantial majority of them were from unbranded independent developers, not from the mini-systems.

You don't seem to understand crossovers.  This is a one-way system.  Points people can take anything in the Weeks inventory, but Weeks owners have no corresponding access to Points inventory.  RCI does claim they put inventory back, but won't give a straight answer as to how (maybe that will come out in the class action discovery), and an RCI employee posting on the Timesharetalk board says he has looked at the RCI computers and in fact they do NOT really put anything back.  Further the numbers racket used for the crossover, the generic points grid is skewed to cheat the Weeks system, particularly as to prime weeks.

The reason that prime inventory is getting harder to find in Weeks is undoubtedly due to raiding of this inventory by Points members at the fraudulently low generic points numbers.  RCI has created a bargain basement for Points members to raid our inventory.  They have a HUGE conflict of interest in managing both systems, when they rig one to be the parasitical vistim of the other.  Pull the plug on the crossovers, and Weeks no longer hemorages this inventory to Points.  Who cares if we lose whatever scraps RCI might or might not decide to toss back from Points inventory.

As to purpose built resorts, none of them can hold a candle to conversions like Schloss Grubhof, a 14th century Austrian Castle, a couple of French chateau conversions, or the English manor house conversions.  





timeos2 said:


> Even if every statement here was fact, and I would have to argue it is not, it doesn't change the reality that RCI isn't the 1000 pound gorilla anymore. They can't run things as they once were because the timeshare landscape has changed so dramatically. Its not a few hundred mostly converted motels in a few areas of the US and world but thousands of often purpose built and amenity laden resorts especially in high demand areas. Its not the old model of build or convert one resort, sell it out, turn it over to the owners and go on to the next project anymore. It's build or buy 20 or 30 or even a 100 or more resorts and run them under a common banner - shut out RCI/II except as a back up to the areas the multiresort system has no presence in. It's those multiresort groups that are the power in timesharing now not RCI and certainly not II.  RCI and II fear the day when the big multi's start to direct trade between themselves further isolating RCI/II from the majority of inventory.
> 
> If we woke up tomorrow back in a "pure" system of weeks only exchanges the pool of weeks to pull from would be smaller than it was 25 years ago. Thats because many of those weeks either got absorbed into the multiresort groups or the owners use them don't trade them.  Mostly you'd have a diverse bunch of single resorts - mostly older and many conversions - to choose from. The vast majority of timeshare locations and most notably those in what may be called overbuilt but certainly high demand areas would no longer be available. They aren't participants in pure weeks but have been available to weeks trades only because the multiresort groups have chosen to allow crossover trades. The owner group that would be devastated by the end of "crossover" use isn't the multiresort groups and points owners as they would still have the majority and almost all the resorts built in the past 15 years as their pool. It would be the independent week owner who, without realizing it, has become dependent on the newer and bigger groups to supply the majority of inventory they do get to use. Pull the plug on crossovers and the weeks world is mighty bleak.
> 
> The weeks side concentrates on the fact, and I will agree this one is true, that the few really great units/weeks/locations they have to offer are overwhelmed by the demand from the massive value assigned to the multiresort groups deposits. There are SO many of them and the valuation both in points or in relative value in straight weeks are so high - even after the quantity is figured in - that those few high value times the pure weeks side has to offer are quickly absorbed. That occurs because the multiresort groups only want to give up their massive deposits to the weeks side if they get more back than they put in (sound familiar?).  And they have the clout to do just that. So whats left for weeks exchange are weeks that certainly aren't as good as those few summer beach units the weeks side has to offer but plenty of nearly as good, warm weather, larger and/or higher quality units in high demand areas at both high and midrange demand times. It is a fair exchange by the rules II and RCI have set up with the multi groups. But most of what the weeks side has to offer is off season, lower value time. That used to get upgraded because if no exchange was made for it RCI/II got no fees. They didn't mind free upgrades if it generated income. But the multiresort groups aren't buying into those types of downward trades. They demand at least an equal if not slightly better use for each one they give up. Again RCI/II can't control that anymore. So rather than give away upgrades and be stuck with all that low value time they can't rent RCI/II have moved to enforcing the like for like far more strictly than before and renting the very time those lower weeks used to claim for the cost of a trade. It isn't right but thats fact.  You can bemoan it or take steps to be sure you aren't using the wrong system. There are plenty of options for the individual to maximize the value of their ownership whatever type it may be. Simply hoping that the old model will suddenly resurface isn't a good plan IMO.


----------



## Patti (Jan 24, 2007)

*Bye bye RCI...*

I have been with RCI for 20 years and have decided to switch completely to II.

I am sick of RCI guides asking me to expand my search. I have been searching for almost 2 years for a 1 BR at 20 or so resorts since 2005, exchanging a 2 BR Gold Crown summer high demand resort. :annoyed: 

I am sick of RCI guides trying to persuade me to deposit more of my weeks and extending my membership for the next million years.  

I am sick of their silly web site where I can't search for availability anywhere anytime.  

I LOVE that I can search with II without depositing, can search for extended periods, and I am able to see actual resorts that are available for my timeframe without seeing: Sorry, no results...try this or that, and that I am able to exchange for nice Marriotts.

I will be taking with me 12 desirable weeks (8 red weeks at high demand/low supply resorts). I look forward to working with II and obtaining comparable exchanges into nice resorts without waiting an eternity...


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 24, 2007)

I would beg to differ on whether or not it is the more desirable weeks that make the most money for RCI.  Money comes from volume of membership fees and volume of exchange fees.

The most desirable weeks on the OBX and similar beach areas are mid-June to mid-August.  Looking at actual resort records at one OBX resort and talking to managers and board members at others, it is easy to see the pattern of exchange company usage.  Only about a third as many of these summer owners participate in exchanging as owners of other times of the year.  Many are longtime owners who bought originally from the developer, specifically to use, and have absolutely no interest in exchanging, no matter how an exchange company was organized.

The volume for an exchange company is NOT in the most desirable weeks but in the middling and lesser weeks.

Now the one way that an exchange company that loots its exchange deposits to rent to the general public COULD make more money off of the high end is to snatch them from the system for such rentals.







"Roger" said:


> This thread is already splintering, so I will splinter it some more with a couple of observations (and, hopefully, then let it go)...
> 
> 
> About six or seven years ago, when TUG was much smaller, everyone was bemoaning that there would only be one exchange company left standing - RCI.  I posted a note entitled the Balkanization of timesharing expressing an opposing concern.  I noted how timeshare groupings such as Sunterra, Marriott, Worldmark, Bluegreen, etc. were the new competition to the exchange companies -- that people could make most (not all) of their trades within these systems.  I wondered out loud whether it was going to become harder and harder to trade for the full panoply of timeshares in that most of the units would be tied up within these resort groups.  (I don't want to make too much of it, but that posting was responsible for the creation of the phrase "min-system." was coined.  I guess that will be my lasting contribution to TUG.)
> ...


----------



## travelhound (Jan 24, 2007)

Patti said:


> I LOVE that I can search with II without depositing, can search for extended periods, and I am able to see actual resorts that are available for my timeframe without seeing:



I just discovered IIs search all location feature.  I almost dropped RCI to move to II, until I moved to points.  Then I considered dropping II, but that seach feature keeps me going.  It is great.


----------



## Colorado Belle (Jan 25, 2007)

I have timeshare points at Disney DVC and Paradise Village . I have weeks in Playa Del Sol Grande.

I seem to be able to find availability with my points, but a harder time with the weeks. I bought because I wanted to use my weeks at the resort I bought at.  BUt when I can't get time at my own resort, I worry that if I deposited weeks that I'd find nothing at another resort.  I've decided that my PDSG keeps a lot of weeks for exchange...bringing in new meat to purchase and that's why I can't get a week at my own resort!

Not sure if I want to pay the fees for exchanging in to II or RCI tho.  I wonder now how hard it is to find an exchange?

Is there any way to check the exchange group's offerings without joining first?


----------



## Mimi (Jan 27, 2007)

I realize things have changed with RCi, but I know we snagged a 2br points based Hacienda del Mar unit in Cabo a couple of years ago with a 1br standard week deposit from SA.  We were actually surprised to learn HDM was a points based resort when we got there. The previous threads suggest that points owners are taking inventory away from owners of weeks, but we found it went both ways. With all the changes, however, we now own weeks at resorts we plan to use.  If we choose to trade, it will no longer be with RCI.  We are II members and also use the independent trading companies.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 27, 2007)

Mimi said:


> I realize things have changed with RCi, but I know we snagged a 2br points based Hacienda del Mar unit in Cabo a couple of years ago with a 1br standard week deposit from SA.  We were actually surprised to learn HDM was a points based resort when we got there. The previous threads suggest that points owners are taking inventory away from owners of weeks, but we found it went both ways. With all the changes, however, we now own weeks at resorts we plan to use.  If we choose to trade, it will no longer be with RCI.  We are II members and also use the independent trading companies.



Mimi,

It's amazing what you learn when you actually own and use the systems instead of just speculating about them, isn't it?


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 28, 2007)

Mimi said:


> ... The previous threads suggest that points owners are taking inventory away from owners of weeks, but we found it went both ways. ....


People who own in both systems have constantly said the same thing.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 28, 2007)

It CAN'T go both ways because the crossover system is one-way.  Points owners can take anything in Weeks, but Weeks owners have no rights to take anything at all in Points.  RCI may or may not give some payback for what they take out, and it so it may or may not be anything like what the took.

There are usually many Weeks members at a resort that has gone to RCI Points.  Even though it is a ''Points resort'' what you got was almost certainly a Weeks system deposit from one of those many remaining Weeks members.

Indeed there are sometimes Points members at a Weeks resort, like in Australia where quite a number of resorts have bailed out of Points and rejoined Weeks.  The Points members at those resorts can remain in Points, even though their resort is back to Weeks.




Mimi said:


> I realize things have changed with RCi, but I know we snagged a 2br points based Hacienda del Mar unit in Cabo a couple of years ago with a 1br standard week deposit from SA.  We were actually surprised to learn HDM was a points based resort when we got there. The previous threads suggest that points owners are taking inventory away from owners of weeks, but we found it went both ways. With all the changes, however, we now own weeks at resorts we plan to use.  If we choose to trade, it will no longer be with RCI.  We are II members and also use the independent trading companies.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 28, 2007)

*Points deposits do go back to the weeks syatem*



Carolinian said:


> It CAN'T go both ways because the crossover system is one-way.  Points owners can take anything in Weeks, but Weeks owners have no rights to take anything at all in Points.  RCI may or may not give some payback for what they take out, and it so it may or may not be anything like what the took.



As others have just posted the weeks side in fact does get points based deposits. RCI would be inviting problems if they never followed up on making those returns they promised. Of course you must remember that the same brain trust that values the secret weeks trade power, in real time no less, would also be accepting the deposits and determining the correct value.  Maybe they play the same game knowledgeable weeks owners knew and happen to time the deposits at the exact moment of peak value. If they can't figure that out who could? 

The arguments get stale when they are always based on conjecture rather than experience. Although there are other claims thrown around the fact is that points based trading is rising in volume while weeks is stagnate at best and most likely dropping.  Again the real action in timeshare is in the mini-systems with both II and RCI looking in.  In another five years the landscape will be completely different than today and it won't be a return to 1995.


----------

