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



## Cayuga (Apr 15, 2006)

jojoless,

When we confirm Nightly Stays for Weeks members, we are actually using the Points system and using surplus nightly availability from RCI Points. 

Your host resort may charge a housekeeping fee since the stay is not a traditional 7-day check-in/check-out. You would be well advised to contact the resort directly to inquire.
__________________
~ Madge

*************************************************************
I don't mean to jumpstart the debate again but I thought this comment was interesting. There are those who have painted the relationship as one way and predatory. 
Madge's comment appears to contradict that notion! There seems to be some level of equity in who gets what and how! Correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed!!


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 15, 2006)

There is a big difference in pawning off surplus inventory, as Madge states in this situation from giving rights to prime inventory that Weeks members would want for themselves, but Points members can snatch at will through the unfair generic points grids for crossover exchanges for low point levels.

If Weeks members had access to ALL Points inventory, and the crossover terms between the two systems were evenhanded, then there would be no raiding.  Even with this appartently new access to some surplus Points inventory, things are a LONG way from being evenhanded between the systems.


----------



## cancun dish (Apr 16, 2006)

so weeks members can use nightly stays?  Weeks members are gettign a points benefit and you think this is bad and unfair?


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 16, 2006)

No, I am saying that a few crumbs of what is clearly described as surplus inventory does not even come anywhere close to making up for Points members ability to take any prime Weeks inventory they want based on the fraudulent numbers of the unfair generic points grids for the one-way crossover exchanges.

What we need to do is get Points hands out of Weeks pocket entirely.  Who cares about a few surplus nightly stays!  Let their system sink or swim on its own without looting ours to prop it up!


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 16, 2006)

cancun dish said:
			
		

> so weeks members can use nightly stays?  Weeks members are gettign a points benefit and you think this is bad and unfair?


Interesting. This is a good feature, one people like and one that helps sell the idea of points. It is a real benefit to get access to it from the more rigid and inflexible weeks system. That RCI is offering it to the traditional side shows they are making efforts to do what they can to make weeks better than it is by design.  And the benefit is going to timeshare owners. Whats not to like?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 16, 2006)

cancun dish said:
			
		

> so weeks members can use nightly stays?  Weeks members are gettign a points benefit and you think this is bad and unfair?



Let me explain this paradox.

Weeks purists are against anything other than a week-for-week exchange between owners.  They want a closed system so that non-owners cannot participate.  They call this "exclusive" membership.  They only tolerate rentals because there is nothing else to do with inventory about to expire (i.e. check in dates are near).  They prefer that those rentals ONLY go to owners within the system.  Renting to the general public eliminates the exclusivity of the club.

They want trading power formula to be hidden and managed by a benevolent organization who comes up with some type of "fair" trading power formula that enables exchange via something that attempts to mirror actual supply and demand of the underlying weeks within the system.  That supply/demand curve is based on the supply provided by the depositers and the demand for locations to which those depositers wish to exchange.  This supply and demand curve is skewed and different from the overall supply and demand for accommodations in the general rental market because timeshare developers are NOT incented to balance supply and demand of timeshare exchange.  They only develop where there are ample supply of potential buyers.  There is no penalty to developers who oversupply an exchange market since they get their money upfront at highly inflated prices.  So, this skewing of the supply and demand curve for timeshare exchange vs. the general market for accommodations creates a huge opportunity for arbitrage..... for owners AND for renters. 

It is very easy to arbitrage this type of system because the underlying supply and demand curve is not known to the new owner buying into the system.  Those who study the supply and demand behavior of the system quickly learn which resorts in which locations have the highest trading power for the lowest overall price (upfront capital and MFs).  Many less sophisticated owners in such a system get nothing for their deposits and many also have to settle for a trade down in value because they have not yet learned the system as well as the expert exchangers.  So, at the end of the day, this battle is about who actually gets access to and can most effectively capitalize on those poor depositers who got nothing or traded down for their weeks.

In the prior paragraph, I mentioned that this situation creates a huge opportunity for arbitrage by owners and for renters.  It is this "AND for renters" clause that is the central magnet for controversy for weeks purists.  That is because in one fell swoop a non-owner can reach into this previously exclusive club and reap the benefits of arbitraging the system without having to own or spend years tracking exchanges on a daily basis to find where the good opportunities are.  This angers weeks purists to a fervor that closely resembles fanaticism.  Some label non-owners as "pillagers" and "thieves" and other negative terms.  They do it in the name of purity, but in reality they are trying to prevent others from capitializing on their arbitrage opportunities.  I have never understood the logic that if a non-owner acquires a week from prime week owner on the cheap that they are thieves.  And yet if an owner does it, they are just smart timesharers?  If one is a thief then both are thieves.

So, how does this relate to the paradox of weeks owners not jumping for joy over being afforded points benefits?  

Point systems, a relatively new innovation in timesharing, represents the antithesis of what a weeks purist wants to see.   It is attempting by design to eliminate as much arbitrage in the system as possible, upfront.  This is a noble goal that makes it fairer for all owners.  Points systems are gaining traction in the timesharing industry.  The majority of new offerings are now point based as opposed to traditional weeks based exchange.  Since free markets trend toward those systems that best match supply and demand, this should continue as currency based systems (i.e. point systems) of trade have proven to be far superior to barter systems (i.e. weeks systems).

Here are some of the reasons why weeks purist loathe point systems:

a) Points represents the elimination of much of the trade up opportunities once available in weeks exchange by assigning differential value for each week in the system.  There are still arbitrage opportunities within point systems since no system is perfect.  But, those opportunities are greatly reduced.

b) Point systems have found ways to aggregate their exchange power.  This aggregation of exchange power have enabled them to negotiate very favorable deals with the weeks exchange companies to afford their members automatic access to top trading power without having to work for it.  This really angers weeks purists because it neutralizes the edge they have developed over the years.  Arbitrage opportunities in greater numbers are going to the point owners rather than the weeks experts.

c) Point systems have figured out how to turn timeshare accommodations into other travel products and nightly rather than weekly stays.  By offering such products, it entitles the point systems to rent weeks to pay for those products.  It doesn't matter if these rentals did represent a fair exchange.  Weeks purists are against them because it allows many more methods for non-experts to arbitrage effectively the inherent weaknesses of the weeks exchange system.

So, at the end of the day, weeks purists see this as a battle between purity and non-purity. Purity leads to exclusive access to those arbitrage opportunities wherEas non-purity of any kind opens the door to sharing the spoils.  

Therefore, weeks purists do not want points benefits because they will then have to admit that there are good aspects of point systems that aren't available in pure weeks systems.  If they did that, then they would be headed down the slippery slope of allowing others to capture value from their righteous province.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 16, 2006)

Great analysis Boca. Every aspect right on the mark.  It's a brave new world.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 16, 2006)

The Points crowd seems to think that this is a huge bone thrown to Weeks that compensates for Points fraudulent access of Weeks prime inventory all the time through the one-way crossover grids.  It isn't. It is a tiny insignificant crumb, especially when it is only excess inventory.

As far as Boca's points:

1)   As to trade up opportunities, there are far more of them in Points than in Weeks, and they are frozen in place all the time, not just market situations when the stars are all in alignment like in Weeks.  One of the most outrageous trade up opportunities in Points, is the ability to loot prime inventory of Weeks through the crossover grids.  Points owners in the overpointed overbuilt areas also love points, because it gives them more trading power in the rigged Points system than a market-based system would ever give them.  They can trade up in Points like they could never imagine in Weeks and they love it.  Boca has it backwards.  The trade up crowd is the Points crowd.  Many of the Points crowd falsely contends that 45-day window trades are ''trades up''.  This is distressed last minute inventory which for that reason legitimately has a lower exchange value.

2)  The problems with publishing trading values are twofold - a) accurate market-based trading values have to adjust constantly for everchanging supply and demand factors.  Publishiing numbers in a paper and ink format would not allow such adjustments.  It may be that an electronic publication format could solve that problem, but RCI still relies heavily on paper and ink; and b) published numbers mean that developers will politick the exchange company for higher numbers, as clearly happens in Points, which leads to the overpointing problem.  This could be solved by also publishing the formula to establish the numbers and all of the data necessary so that anyone could check that the numbers are accurate.  Until that is done pubishing numbers creates a serious intergrity problem.  RCI has always considered formulas and data to be proprietary information.

3)  Other products don't add value to the system.  They are overpriced, and lead to the explosion of rentals which undermine the ownership/exchange system.  Timesharing is much better off without them.

4)  As to rentals, most if not all of the comment about looting has been directed at the exchange companies looting the exchange system to put the money in their own pocket, rather that at the actual person renting.  You have cleaverly tried to twist this in another direction.

5)  When non-owners get equivalent of better access to timeshare inventory as owners, there will no longer be any reason to own, and timesharing will collapse.  This is also true if these conditions come into play in any significant part of the timeshare year for a resort.  Winter bailouts in CapeCod or hurricane season bailouts in Florida can create a chain reaction that destroys the resort as increasing m/f's for other weeks to pick up the slack drives even more bailouts.   Who is going to buy the cow when RCI is providing the milk for pennies?  This is one question that Boca always seems to sidestep.

So often, the loudest Points advocates own at places that are not that highly valued by a market-based system, and they love the rigged and frozen numbers at RCI Points that allow them to make trades up that a market based system would not.






			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Let me explain this paradox.
> 
> Weeks purists are against anything other than a week-for-week exchange between owners.  They want a closed system so that non-owners cannot participate.  They call this "exclusive" membership.  They only tolerate rentals because there is nothing else to do with inventory about to expire (i.e. check in dates are near).  They prefer that those rentals ONLY go to owners within the system.  Renting to the general public eliminates the exclusivity of the club.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dean (Apr 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> There is a big difference in pawning off surplus inventory, as Madge states in this situation from giving rights to prime inventory that Weeks members would want for themselves, but Points members can snatch at will through the unfair generic points grids for crossover exchanges for low point levels.
> 
> If Weeks members had access to ALL Points inventory, and the crossover terms between the two systems were evenhanded, then there would be no raiding.  Even with this appartently new access to some surplus Points inventory, things are a LONG way from being evenhanded between the systems.


No one has access to any given week evenly.  Higher demand weeks are simply less available for a number of reasonsand for exchanges this is likely even more true.  This will be doubly true for a points system since the inherent nature of points systems is that essentially all of the high demand times fill up with "owners" and those who come in later will have lower and mid seasons available.  Plus, it's likely that any points given up for cash equivilents (cruises, etc), will be used to reserve higher demand weeks for rental to recoup the money paid for those cash options.  

Some ways to do away with the crossover grids include a total separation (possibly with RCI totally dropping weeks) or all resorts converting to points at least on paper.  As long as there are crossover grids, there will be some inequity with some weeks being higher and/or lower than your or I might think they should be.  Just remember that having a full weeks points at a resort you could book day by day IS NOT the same as a weeks points you could only book for a week at a time.  They may be the same number of points or not, but I'm just saying it's not the same.  Even if person a is staying for a week, the fact of having the possibility of shorter or day by day stays means higher costs.  I'm sure you will say those costs are already being paid by the points members when they pay maint fees and I'd agree but only partially.  I also have no doubts that it's RCI's goal to change the resorts over and they will tend to give points members advantages.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The Points crowd seems to think that this is a huge bone thrown to Weeks that compensates for Points fraudulent access of Weeks prime inventory all the time through the one-way crossover grids.  It isn't. It is a tiny insignificant crumb, especially when it is only excess inventory.
> 
> As far as Boca's points:
> 
> 1)   As to trade up opportunities, there are far more of them in Points than in Weeks, and they are frozen in place all the time, not just market situations when the stars are all in alignment like in Weeks.  One of the most outrageous trade up opportunities in Points, is the ability to loot prime inventory of Weeks through the crossover grids.  Points owners in the overpointed overbuilt areas also love points, because it gives them more trading power in the rigged Points system than a market-based system would ever give them.  They can trade up in Points like they could never imagine in Weeks and they love it.  Boca has it backwards.  The trade up crowd is the Points crowd.  Many of the Points crowd falsely contends that 45-day window trades are ''trades up''.  This is distressed last minute inventory which for that reason legitimately has a lower exchange value.



This argument has been repeated over and over again but doesn't hold water. The "looting" of weeks can only occur if the weeks are available in the system , the points owner wants that specific time/resort AND has the points required to claim it.  To get the number of points needed they must place into the system a use period or multiple periods of equal or greater value as defined by the points system used. This is the investment they have made in timesharing just as it would be if they traded a single week for that same week they are claiming. Now people can disagree as to whether or not the assigned points value are indeed reflective of the value of the use period claimed but that works both ways. It's easy to take pot shots at the points owners for doing this as the value is an open book.  In weeks the same "underpaid" argument can be made but is much harder to document as the process, and values used, are hidden.  Those hidden values have long covered up the exact same type of "raiding" that is claimed for points under the guise of "trade power and VEP".  No difference except one is published and is being adjusted over time to better reflect the true value of the ownerships while the other is hidden and only utilized by those willing to make a study of how to play the system to their advantage. 

One side always points to an east coast area as being undervalued by points as the example of the "unfair" system. I would look to more popular areas in the south and say the weeks system obviously "overvalues" the east coast deposits in the secret system as it once allowed easy upgrades to those owners at the expense of the southern depositors. As the real market speaks - those who have control of the system in their hands not the secret value procedure - it is clear where the true values reside. It is not with the septic tank equipped motel conversion on a beach.  Nice to visit in a prime summer week - not much value 9 months of each year. 



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 2)  The problems with publishing trading values are twofold - a) accurate market-based trading values have to adjust constantly for everchanging supply and demand factors.  Publishiing numbers in a paper and ink format would not allow such adjustments.  It may be that an electronic publication format could solve that problem, but RCI still relies heavily on paper and ink; and b) published numbers mean that developers will politick the exchange company for higher numbers, as clearly happens in Points, which leads to the overpointing problem.  This could be solved by also publishing the formula to establish the numbers and all of the data necessary so that anyone could check that the numbers are accurate.  Until that is done pubishing numbers creates a serious intergrity problem.  RCI has always considered formulas and data to be proprietary information.



We are arguing only over timeframes. The published values are being reviewed year round and adjusted when needed annually (in the RCI system). That gives a nice, long term view that should better reflect true value over the long haul not the alledged "minute by minute" adjustments claimed for the older system. That simply isn't happening in weeks based trades. It is the informed trader that is grabbing the good stuff and leaving the dregs for the average user. The "balance" of that system is a pipe dream and heavily tilted toward making the developers look good then leaving the uninformed buyers to twist in the wind.  If the balance factors claimed was being applied to weeks trades it still doesn't make it better than a less frequent adjustment applied under the open published points system. Hidden is bad no matter how often it may be adjusted as the user has no knowledge of what is going on or how to maximize their value in that system.  

As for formulas to assign those values neither side is disclosed so do each user has to ask am I better with a secret value being applied once or twice?  One is secret and then you decide of the values are fair and how to use them. The other is secret and then has additional hidden factors applied in a "trust us" barter you cannot see or influence.



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 3)  Other products don't add value to the system.  They are overpriced, and lead to the explosion of rentals which undermine the ownership/exchange system.  Timesharing is much better off without them.



They don't add value IMO.  But some think they do and why should us non-believers tell them what they can and cannot do with their ownership? The weeks believers want to sound like the champions of free enterprise but they are really for secret values and total control of ownership rights. No points, no outside user, no outside products - you take the trade we give you and you will like it!   What could be more closed and dicatorial than that? 



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 4)  As to rentals, most if not all of the comment about looting has been directed at the exchange companies looting the exchange system to put the money in their own pocket, rather that at the actual person renting.  You have cleaverly tried to twist this in another direction.



Until the flow of poor value weeks that make up the vast majority of deposits are stopped there will always be an abundence of rentals needed to clear out inventory. Once the system goes to a majority of points based weeks those will only get the real, lower value they are worth and the system will self balance.  If you only have a limited amount of points you will do what you can to make them useful.  Unlike the sulking weeks owners who bemoan the lack of a great trade up and simply let the time go unused, points owners have options to take low value time or options for non-timeshare related goods and services to get value out. Rentals pay for those options. I don't deny there is a stiff overhead cost involved as basically the exchange system is doing the work for the owners. You do pay for that service. 



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> 5)  When non-owners get equivalent of better access to timeshare inventory as owners, there will no longer be any reason to own, and timesharing will collapse.  This is also true if these conditions come into play in any significant part of the timeshare year for a resort.  Winter bailouts in CapeCod or hurricane season bailouts in Florida can create a chain reaction that destroys the resort as increasing m/f's for other weeks to pick up the slack drives even more bailouts.   Who is going to buy the cow when RCI is providing the milk for pennies?  This is one question that Boca always seems to sidestep.
> 
> So often, the loudest Points advocates own at places that are not that highly valued by a market-based system, and they love the rigged and frozen numbers at RCI Points that allow them to make trades up that a market based system would not.



With points and the averaging of values those systems bring to the table the ownership of a hurricane or winter time becomes irrelevent.  It is a key to the points systems that a prime fixed week owner might see as a negative (although they shouldn't as they get the top value out of a points system - just not quite as high as it would be if it was a fixed, July 4 week vs an averaged, mid-June to late August period). By using those averaged values it makes the whole year a viable and cost effective way to own.  Rather than concentrate the value into a select group of 8-10 weeks per year and let the rest hope for free upgrades via trade everyone gets the blended value and thus a good return for their investment. It is a reason to continue to own even poor value time and pay those annual fees.

Weeks owners want to maintain the super advantage of a few weeks of the year that they pay subsidized rates for. Points owners would rather see a healthy resort with happy owners all benefitting from the location and features of their ownership.  Points accomplish that in a way weeks never could.  Having value in every ownership is why owners prefer points over weeks and why developers have moved to a points based model that makes it easier to clearly identify that value. While it may threaten the false "you can trade anywhere" model many older,  more seasonal areas were sold with in the long run a good points based system is more viable as every owner can clearly identify what they own and what it can get.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 16, 2006)

Looting of weeks that are there is what matters, and if Points owners take them for the rip-off generic crossover grid values out of the Weeks system, they certainly won't be there for Weeks members.

The crossover grids use a systematic methodology of overaveraging to undervalue the prime Weeks inventory so it can be looted by Points members.  Carriage Manor at Lake Royale, a dumpy resort on a small manmade lake in the boondocks of red clay Franklin County in central North Carolina is given the same value as an oceanfront NC resort.  A pink week 15 or 41 on the beach is given the same value as a prime red week 27.  By averaging all of this together, the Points members are given a bargain basement price on prime weeks at the best resorts.  Also, since nothing is taken into account for location, which is the main driver of demand, location resorts are also systematically undervalued.  The whole crossover grid system is a massive fraud being perpetrated by RCI on its Weeks members.

Even within Points, overaveraging is still a problem, although not nearly as bad as with the crossover grids.  On the OBX, they give the same value within Points to a mid August week 33 as a late October week 43.  That is just plain nuts.

Yes, I do use the OBX often for examples, as I am most familiar with this area, but it is hardly the only area getting hosed by the crossover grids.  Anyother Tugger who is familiar with southern California has said that area is systematically cheated.  I have posted quite a  few examples from other areas including Europe and the Caribbean.  These problems exist all over the landscape with RCI, not just the OBX.

As to a partly open and partly closed system being better than a totally closed system, you are simply wrong.  It encourages developer politicking of the exchange company for higher numbers.

A system where the resulting number is published but not the methodology gives both the incentive (published number) and oportunity (closed methodology) to cheat.  It is the worst of all worlds.  A totally open system lacks the opportunity to cheat since the whole process is out in the open, while a totally closed system lacks the incentive, since there is no benefit to rigging a number that will not be known and thus not be usable as a sales incentive by developers.










			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> This argument has been repeated over and over again but doesn't hold water. The "looting" of weeks can only occur if the weeks are available in the system , the points owner wants that specific time/resort AND has the points required to claim it.  To get the number of points needed they must place into the system a use period or multiple periods of equal or greater value as defined by the points system used. This is the investment they have made in timesharing just as it would be if they traded a single week for that same week they are claiming. Now people can disagree as to whether or not the assigned points value are indeed reflective of the value of the use period claimed but that works both ways. It's easy to take pot shots at the points owners for doing this as the value is an open book.  In weeks the same "underpaid" argument can be made but is much harder to document as the process, and values used, are hidden.  Those hidden values have long covered up the exact same type of "raiding" that is claimed for points under the guise of "trade power and VEP".  No difference except one is published and is being adjusted over time to better reflect the true value of the ownerships while the other is hidden and only utilized by those willing to make a study of how to play the system to their advantage.
> 
> One side always points to an east coast area as being undervalued by points as the example of the "unfair" system. I would look to more popular areas in the south and say the weeks system obviously "overvalues" the east coast deposits in the secret system as it once allowed easy upgrades to those owners at the expense of the southern depositors. As the real market speaks - those who have control of the system in their hands not the secret value procedure - it is clear where the true values reside. It is not with the septic tank equipped motel conversion on a beach.  Nice to visit in a prime summer week - not much value 9 months of each year.
> 
> ...


----------



## boyblue (Apr 17, 2006)

I'll say it again.  The guys that came up with the points grid are the same guys that came up with the hidden weeks formula.

Who's to say that it's not the same tool used for weeks trades?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 17, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> A system where the resulting number is published but not the methodology gives both the incentive (published number) and oportunity (closed methodology) to cheat.  It is the worst of all worlds.  A totally open system lacks the opportunity to cheat since the whole process is out in the open, while a totally closed system lacks the incentive, since there is no benefit to rigging a number that will not be known and thus not be usable as a sales incentive by developers.



I agree totally.  It's really aggravating to go to the grocery store, and see the prices posted for everything but not have any idea how the store came up with those prices. 

Grocery stores should just remove all of the prices from the items and the shelves and have us bring our loaded carts to the cash register.  We would then open our wallet and put all our cash on the counter (no credit cards).  The store will take all of our money, put it in the cash register, and then tell us whether there was enough money for everything in our carts.  If we don't have enought money to satisfy them, they take our cart from us and return everything to the shelf. Then they give us a magnetic card in exchange for our cash.  The value of our cash, of course, is encrypted in the receipt and can only be read in registers at their checkout counters.  And the only way we can use the receipt is to bring a cart full of goods to the counter again, give them our card, and see if they will take back their card in exchange for our cart full of goodies.

Now that's a system that can rrespond instantly to changes in supply and demand.  With the old pricing system, you have to send employees out into the aisles to manually change the price on the shelf or on the items.  With a "no disclosed price" system, the store can sense instantly if five people have hit the checkout stand with similar items in the last ten or fiftenn minutes.  Then the price for that item can be instantly adjusted for the sixth and succeededng customers until demand slacks.  It's beautiful, because the customers won't even know that the store just jacked up the price.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 17, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> I agree totally.  It's really aggravating to go to the grocery store, and see the prices posted for everything but not have any idea how the store came up with those prices.
> 
> Grocery stores should just remove all of the prices from the items and the shelves and have us bring our loaded carts to the cash register.  We would then open our wallet and put all our cash on the counter (no credit cards).  The store will take all of our money, put it in the cash register, and then tell us whether there was enough money for everything in our carts.  If we don't have enought money to satisfy them, they take our cart from us and return everything to the shelf. Then they give us a magnetic card in exchange for our cash.  The value of our cash, of course, is encrypted in the receipt and can only be read in registers at their checkout counters.  And the only way we can use the receipt is to bring a cart full of goods to the counter again, give them our card, and see if they will take back their card in exchange for our cart full of goodies.
> 
> ...



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :whoopie:  :whoopie:


----------



## G. B. Wayne (Apr 18, 2006)

We have all traded up on occasion and sometimes we have been forced to trade down.  It happens with points as well.  I used a 154,000 FF point deposit (2-BD, red week) to search for a 1-BD Manhattan Club in the spring with a 9 week window and started the search about 10-12 months in advance.  In spite of seeing TUG members that got bulk banked Manhattan Club weeks, I was never offered the MC.  I ended up settling for a one bedroom unit in Lake Tahoe that I could have gotten with a very modest week trader.  This isn't the first time my "points" failed to get the desired resort.  I didn't get any points refunded for taking a smaller unit, so perhaps the weeks system 
benefitted.  As a result, I don't believe "weeks raiding" is a one-way street.  

Mrs. Gypsy B. Wayne
Tug Member


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

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.
]



			
				boyblue said:
			
		

> I'll say it again.  The guys that came up with the points grid are the same guys that came up with the hidden weeks formula.
> 
> Who's to say that it's not the same tool used for weeks trades?


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

Ah, comrade, welcome to the Peoples Points Cooperative.  Capitalist notions like the market are abolished.  Who cares about supply and demand as long as the points politburo is there to protect the proletariat consumers.  We will decide what everything is worth so those nasty capitalists won't oppress you with their market nonsense like supply and demand.  So what if we siphon off the best items for a special store only the politburo can use for ourselves?  Didn't you see that even in that capitalist movie you are supposed to ignore the man behind the curtain?  Yes, we will tell you how many roubles you are supposed to pay for everything, and if arbitrary prices often means that no items of certain types are availible, that is just one of the joys of living in the proletarian points utopia. Oh, we still do let those revisionists who still want to do things on their own have their little market, but if a good member of the proletarian points cooperative goes to their market, he gets a special price that the politburo sets where the market based revisionists have to hand over their best goods for a lot less than they are really worth to the good proletarians. Yes, we say we give them something back, but hey, where do you think we dump the shoddiest goods from our collective farms and factories.  Let those market-based capitalist pigs have our rotten tomatoes while our proletarians take their best goods (that is, except for the very best which we keep for out special store for the politburo).  And a good proletarian member of the Peoples Points Cooperative should not complain when the Politiburo decrees that his August beach week is worth the same as another proletarians late October week.  Remember, the politburo makes the rules for the greater good of the collective, and our hero Karl did give us that glorious slogan ''from those according to their ability, to those according to their need''.

And, and please do report any counter-revolutionary Weeks revisionists to the KGB!





			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> I agree totally.  It's really aggravating to go to the grocery store, and see the prices posted for everything but not have any idea how the store came up with those prices.
> 
> Grocery stores should just remove all of the prices from the items and the shelves and have us bring our loaded carts to the cash register.  We would then open our wallet and put all our cash on the counter (no credit cards).  The store will take all of our money, put it in the cash register, and then tell us whether there was enough money for everything in our carts.  If we don't have enought money to satisfy them, they take our cart from us and return everything to the shelf. Then they give us a magnetic card in exchange for our cash.  The value of our cash, of course, is encrypted in the receipt and can only be read in registers at their checkout counters.  And the only way we can use the receipt is to bring a cart full of goods to the counter again, give them our card, and see if they will take back their card in exchange for our cart full of goodies.
> 
> ...


----------



## e.bram (Apr 18, 2006)

*Why points exist*

The reason for points(and it's close cousin floating weeks) existance is to allow developer to sell 10 prime(bright red) weeks to 30 buyers, letting all 30 believe that they have prime weeks. End of story!


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 18, 2006)

*Re: Why points exist*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> The reason for points(and it's close cousin floating weeks) existance is to allow developer to sell 10 prime(bright red) weeks to 30 buyers, letting all 30 believe that they have prime weeks. End of story!


That doesn't make any sense (at least to me).  

30 weeks are declared red (in the Weeks system) and the developer sells them ALL to people who think that they have bought a prime (bright red) week.  Points comes into existence and the "fixed point charts" only have ten listed as having the highest point values.  (You can quibble about this week or that, but in the end, the range of highest value weeks within the Points system are narrower than the "red" week classifications.)  

By going to Points, the developer is *less *able to pull off the deception that you refer to that what he could do within Weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

*Re: Why points exist*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> The reason for points(and it's close cousin floating weeks) existance is to allow developer to sell 10 prime(bright red) weeks to 30 buyers, letting all 30 believe that they have prime weeks. End of story!



You can expand that even further if you go to overbuilt Orlando and declare all 52 weeks red!  And then set point values that are completely unrelated to supply and demand, including in some of the resorts with the biggest oversupply problem in the entire RCI system (as Bootleg told us, and he is in a position to know).


----------



## JEFF H (Apr 18, 2006)

Nightly Stays is just another RCI rental option benefit available to all RCI members where RCI happens to use excess Points system deposits.
I don't see much difference from the EXTRA Vacation program where they Use weeks inventory.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 18, 2006)

*Re: Why points exist*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> The reason for points(and it's close cousin floating weeks) existance is to allow developer to sell 10 prime(bright red) weeks to 30 buyers, letting all 30 believe that they have prime weeks. End of story!


I don't know about that. 

Let's say a person is sitting in a sales presentation and is shown a resort calendar has 30 weeks identified as red weeks over which the ownership floats.  I don't think it takes a lot of intelligence for our buyer to figuure out that he will be competing with owners of 30 weeks for the most desired weeks in that pool.

If our buyer can't figure that out, he won't be able to figure out similar problems when buying cars, making travel arrangements, selecting shoes, or making personal investment decisions.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 18, 2006)

*Re: Why points exist*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> The reason for points(and it's close cousin floating weeks) existance is to allow developer to sell 10 prime(bright red) weeks to 30 buyers, letting all 30 believe that they have prime weeks. End of story!



Two word response:  Maui Marriott.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 18, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Ah, comrade, welcome to the Peoples Points Cooperative.  Capitalist notions like the market are abolished.  Who cares about supply and demand as long as the points politburo is there to protect the proletariat consumers.  We will decide what everything is worth so those nasty capitalists won't oppress you with their market nonsense like supply and demand.  So what if we siphon off the best items for a special store only the politburo can use for ourselves?  Didn't you see that even in that capitalist movie you are supposed to ignore the man behind the curtain?  Yes, we will tell you how many roubles you are supposed to pay for everything, and if arbitrary prices often means that no items of certain types are availible, that is just one of the joys of living in the proletarian points utopia. Oh, we still do let those revisionists who still want to do things on their own have their little market, but if a good member of the proletarian points cooperative goes to their market, he gets a special price that the politburo sets where the market based revisionists have to hand over their best goods for a lot less than they are really worth to the good proletarians. Yes, we say we give them something back, but hey, where do you think we dump the shoddiest goods from our collective farms and factories.  Let those market-based capitalist pigs have our rotten tomatoes while our proletarians take their best goods (that is, except for the very best which we keep for out special store for the politburo).  And a good proletarian member of the Peoples Points Cooperative should not complain when the Politiburo decrees that his August beach week is worth the same as another proletarians late October week.  Remember, the politburo makes the rules for the greater good of the collective, and our hero Karl did give us that glorious slogan ''from those according to their ability, to those according to their need''.
> 
> And, and please do report any counter-revolutionary Weeks revisionists to the KGB!



Very Good.    That's pretty funny.  Too bad the analogy is a fairy tale.

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


----------



## JeffV (Apr 18, 2006)

Don't dignifiy those rantings as arguments. :ignore: 


			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

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


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

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



Don't have to !!!

Hey, if the shoe fits . . .


----------



## Dean (Apr 18, 2006)

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.
> ]


OK, but what's your point.


----------



## e.bram (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.



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.


----------



## huestous (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.


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.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

Dean said:
			
		

> OK, but what's your point.



Go back and read the question!''


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.


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.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.")
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.


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.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

*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.


----------



## Dean (Apr 18, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Go back and read the question!''


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.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 18, 2006)

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.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 18, 2006)

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.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 19, 2006)

*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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

*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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

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?



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.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 19, 2006)

*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...


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

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*?
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."]


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

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


----------



## Dean (Apr 19, 2006)

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.


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


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

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.



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."


----------



## JeffV (Apr 19, 2006)

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."


----------



## e.bram (Apr 19, 2006)

*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


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 19, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> 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."



For the most part, trades up tend to be marginal.  It is the exceptions that get everyone's attention.  Actually the one predictable source of trades up are the idiot resorts that bulkbank, creating a spike in supply.  Eliminate that, and you would eliminate most of the genuine substantial trades up.  It is the resort's own stupidity that they participate in bulkbanking.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 19, 2006)

Dean said:
			
		

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



The ''most'' you refer to is the same little predictable group of vocal points advocates.  Unfortunately, the shrill postings of this little group has led most Weeks people just to lurk on points/rentals discussions or even migrate to other t/s boards.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> 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



You keep making assertions about point systems when you don't even know the facts of what you are asserting.

You and your cape cod oceanfront unit.  You can only use that once a year.  I stay in an Oceanfront unit almost once per month.  I am doing it again this weekend.  Where are you staying this weekend?


----------



## geekette (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> 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



I disagree on much of this.  It also appears that you assume all points systems are the same, and they are NOT.


----------



## e.bram (Apr 19, 2006)

*To BocaBum99:*

Actually next week I staying at my oceanfront unit in Jametown, RI. I will be staying there nad Cape Cod every year to come as a right not hoping to get a reservation from the point Gods.


----------



## Dani (Apr 20, 2006)

I have deleted a few messages within this thread.  Please be mindful of the rules of this BBS which require that we refrain from name calling and behaviour lectures.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To BocaBum99:*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> Actually next week I staying at my oceanfront unit in Jametown, RI. I will be staying there nad Cape Cod every year to come as a right not hoping to get a reservation from the point Gods.



Excellent come back.   

If you want to use the exact same week every year.  I agree that a fixed week is the best alternative.

That option is not something for everyone.  And, many point systems provide owners with fixed week reservation capabilities.  That includes Bluegreen, Fairfield Fixed week conversions, Hyatt and others.  Will you acknowledge that fact?


----------



## JeffV (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*

you don't seem to understand that with RCI Points the underlying ownership does not change. You make a 3 year committment to being in Points and can get out of that arrangement at the end of 3 years and your rights and ownership has not changed.  Those anectdotal stories (and I have a bunch of them) are fact not hypothetical wonderings of what might happen. 


			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 20, 2006)

*Speaking bitterness*



			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> 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.....


Mornings and coffee must cause reflection.  Rather than concerning myself with the comment du jour, I begin to think about the forest, not the trees.

I am a self confessed consumer of the blue pill.  Since joining Points, year in, year out, I have done better than what I would have if I had stayed in Weeks.  Any accusation that I have been doing this at the expense of Weeks owners just would not stand up to the light of day.  (If Weeks owners want to claim that I deprived them of the opportunity to trade their GC July beach unit for a white, inland Texas week, then so be it.)

I do remember when I was in Weeks.  Year in, year out trade downs.  I would read these boards and wonder how others did it.  I realized that some of my problem was that most the braggers had several weeks and this allowed them to play bait and switch.  Weeks owners profiting at the expense of other Weeks owners.  You couldn't do bait and switch with just one week ownership.  I tried one of the touted alternative exchange companies with decidedly mixed success.  What else was I doing wrong?  Was RCI skimming the top resorts?  (The hidden screen of trading power _within Weeks _would enable just that.)  What was happening behind that screen of secrecy called "trading power"? (The formulas had to be kept secret _to protect me_? HA!)

Yeah, I've seen both sides now.  I have come to realize that the very worst aspect of the Weeks system is not that it allows some members to profit at the expense of others, nor, that the "rigid" one-for-one pricing scheme can be used to facilitate constant loss of value of one's unit every time you trade, but...  The veil of secrecy that is at the very heart of the Weeks system (how many credits are on my magnetic strip?) creates nothing but suspicion, hatred, and animosity -- toward RCI, toward other timeshare owners, toward timeshare ownership.

One of the more instructive posts that I've seen was on the Points board.  Someone had said that they used some of their points in a crossover trade to get a very decidedly pink week (really pink).  A Weeks owner popped up and said "Aren't you ashamed of yourself!!!  How can you live with yourself?"  Huh!  "Well you stole from the Weeks system."  (A pink week that was likely to go into the pile of excess inventory?)  "Well, I was reading a certain individual's posts on the Exchange Board and I came to the conclusion that we couldn't get summer beach weeks because of people like you."

What does Weeks foster?  Suspicion, hatred, skapegoating...  I know what it is like to be a red pill taker.  My life was filled with the same "I need to watch my back" and "Who is stealing from me" attitudes -- toward fellow TUGGERs, toward RCI, toward timesharing. (And, it wasn't because of Points.  Points did not exist then.)  I am glad to be consuming the blue pill.  The days of hatred are over.  I know what the value of my unit is and what value I receive in return.  The secrecy is gone, and, with that, the suspicions that I am being jobbed.  No more speaking bitter.


----------



## teepeeca (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re:  What are your rights ---JEFFV*

You are very correct that you can "opt-out" of points after the three year mark. (Actually I "think" you have to let RCI know that you are "opting-out" by the end of the two year mark, or you are automatically re-entered into the points system for the next three years.)

BUT, if you "opt-out", you have lost your "points conversion fee" --how much is that---$199 to $4995??? (The Pahio salespeople want to charge the $4995 to convert weeks to points !!!)

And, if you ever want to go back into points, you will have to pay another conversion fee.  I'm glad "someone" is making $$$ !!!

Tony


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Roger Post*

What a beautiful summary of life on both sides of the trade system fence. I share your exact feelings.

I had railed against the "bait n' switch" for years which was basically complaining that other fellow owners - and TUGGERS - were taking the best weeks out of the system with deposits that shouldn't have been able to do that. It was one of the worst parts of the old weeks and still exists to a smaller degree today. I also tried other weeks only venues and never saw the trades that were often spoken of here unless I spent far too much time trying to work the secret system. It was frustrating and costly and did end up making my actions create one of the select few trades that were getting far more than a simple fair trade out - which was all I really wanted. Weeks didn't let it happen. You took more than your fair share if you worked the system correctly or you took a beating in "standard" trades. 

Once I was introduced to points (in my case Fairfield) the control over my use and the ability to adjust what I traded to fit exactly what I needed was a breath of fresh air. From then on I made it a goal to get all my ownerships into a points system for trades.  With RCI Points that was 100% accomplished  so now I can use my week(s), trade as weeks if it makes sense (SFX) or use a points based system.  My satisfaction level with timesharing has skyrocketed to new heights and it is FUN to trade not a tedious, often disappointing chore. 

The claims that somehow points is ruining weeks systems simply aren't true as both exist side by side easily. Points has made the shortcomings of week for week trades far more obvious but the issues were always there just hidden from view by the closed, secret weeks systems. 

With points I know everyone in the system has the same chance at every use, that they won't take the biggest and best just because it is there and they have to take it or lose it, and that they will only take the time they can actually use (maybe only 3-4 days rather than a full 7 day week) leaving the rest for others to enjoy.  I feel good about points while there was a feeling of getting one over on the system when using weeks.  

Thanks for a great post Roger.


----------



## huestous (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> 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


It never occurred to me that my purchase was permanent and my membership forced.

I've apparently been deluded in thinking that as long as I am happy with my purchases and my exchange company that I will keep them.  Else I'll cancel the membership and sell the timeshare.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> 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


Tell me please, how to work a fixed week in my situation.  My wife is a school teacher.  She gets a full week of vacation every April, and we often spend that week in a warm location - western Mexico works well for us.  

The hooker for us is that the week that she gets in April varies from year to year.

I'll grant your premise that you know more about floating weeks and Point systems than I do.  Accordingly, I'll presume that I should dump my floating week ownership that we have to meet those vacation plans.

So tell me how I should try to work our plans using fixed weeks?

*********

Or might you be willing to admit that a floating week ownership makes sense if it:

allows us to reserve directly the week that we need
gives us our choice of about 10 locations that are quality resorts in locations that we would have requested if we tried to exchange,
avoids paying exchange fees and exchange company memberships
allows us to call up and reserve our units directly, without having to wait on an exchange that may or may not come through
enables us to book flights using FF miles early enough to get seats while there are still FF seats available.
allows us to split our single week into two weeks, allowing us two weeks of vacation for one fee and giving us the option to rent one week to defray ownership cost.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				huestous said:
			
		

> It never occurred to me that my purchase was permanent and my membership forced.
> 
> I've apparently been deluded in thinking that as long as I am happy with my purchases and my exchange company that I will keep them.  Else I'll cancel the membership and sell the timeshare.


Isn't the blue pill wonderful?

BTW - continuing the Matrix analogy.  After you take the pill, you still can't know which world is the real world.  Maybe it's the red pill that leads to the illusionary world?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 20, 2006)

*Getting Over On The System*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> I feel good about points while there was a feeling of getting one over on the system when using weeks.


Shucks, I enjoy the feeling of getting over on the system as much as the next person, maybe even a tad more. 

But buying "used" timeshares resale instead of paying full freight for "new" ones generates something like that same feeling. 

Ditto getting nice USA week-for-week timeshare reservations in exchange for depositing my low-cost overseas timeshare week. 

Ditto _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_. 

Ditto timeshare tours for freebies. 

Ditto Yahoo timeshare groups & TUG. 

Just with those, I feel I've got pretty much all the savvy insider knowledge I need in order to have fun with timeshares -- a good thing, too, since there's no way I'm smart enough or quick enough to figure out _bait & switch_ or any of those other cool trade-up tricks from the good old days of shrewd timeshare weeks exchanging. 

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


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are you rights*



			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> Tell me please, how to work a fixed week in my situation.  My wife is a school teacher.  She gets a full week of vacation every April, and we often spend that week in a warm location - western Mexico works well for us.
> 
> The hooker for us is that the week that she gets in April varies from year to year.
> 
> ...



Steve,

Solving your problem is easy with fixed weeks.  All you need to do is sell your week every year after using it and buy a new one that is oceanfront in the location you want for the week your wife has off next year.  Heck, if you buy low enough and sell high enough, those vacations could be free.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Weeks trades almost always have winners and losers*

Alan -

Not saying there is anything wrong with the items you list as they are a part of the seriously flawed weeks systems. But that is the issue.  To be satisfied with weeks someone in the system paid far more whether it was purchase cost or annual fees and got little or nothing out.  Would you be as happy if every week you owned only got something of exact equal quality/value or less? That is what is supposed to occur not regular upgrades for those who know how to play. It is a winning game for the players and a big loser for the the majority.  

Points spreads the wealth over seasons and allows the users to make the decisions without penalizing those who can't or won't figure out how weeks work. And even if they do figure there is a key there is no place to turn for values (how many posts have we seen here time and time again asking "What is the trade vaue of XXXX.." ) so there is no answer.  I didn't mind getting trade ups but I prefer just being able to know I'm using a level playing field and everyone gets the same chance for a satisfactory trade. I don't need to be the winner while realizing someone else had to lose. It doesn't make my vacation any better and could have ruined someone elses.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Weeks trades almost always have winners and losers*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Alan -
> 
> Not saying there is anything wrong with the items you list as they are a part of the seriously flawed weeks systems. But that is the issue.  To be satisfied with weeks someone in the system paid far more whether it was purchase cost or annual fees and got little or nothing out.  Would you be as happy if every week you owned only got something of exact equal quality/value or less? That is what is supposed to occur not regular upgrades for those who know how to play. It is a winning game for the players and a big loser for the the majority.
> 
> Points spreads the wealth over seasons and allows the users to make the decisions without penalizing those who can't or won't figure out how weeks work. And even if they do figure there is a key there is no place to turn for values (how many posts have we seen here time and time again asking "What is the trade vaue of XXXX.." ) so there is no answer.  I didn't mind getting trade ups but I prefer just being able to know I'm using a level playing field and everyone gets the same chance for a satisfactory trade. I don't need to be the winner while realizing someone else had to lose. It doesn't make my vacation any better and could have ruined someone elses.



I have experience in many point systems and many weeks systems.  In general, I have found it much easier to trade up in weeks than in points.  More often than not, it's close to a fair trade in points.  

When I first started timesharing, I thought that points was the best answer.  After having actually used the systems, I would say now that the best values are the weeks trade ups.  But, those aren't available all year around.  So, to cover those other times, points alternatives are a better choice.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 20, 2006)

*Winners & Losers?*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Would you be as happy if every week you owned only got something of exact equal quality/value or less?


Call me naive, but I still assume that's pretty much what happens with my trades into nice USA timeshares based on depositing a nice 2BR red-season week in a distant location. 

Sure, it's too far for me to go there on vacation (even if I could talk The Chief Of Staff into it, which is unlikely to say the least), but that's the beauty of a worldwide resort exchange system -- some resort that's too far away for me to enjoy may be a highly desirable vacation hotspot for other members of the system in other parts of the world.  Who knows? 

That is to say, I didn't buy my overseas standard-grade red-season 2BR unit with the idea in mind that it's a swampy mud shack some loser will get stuck with every time I trade it.  I bought it because the international currency exchange at the time favored the dollars in my pocket -- there may be winners & losers in foreign currency speculation, but that's a whole other field.  Not only that, the _Wiisdom Of TUG_ at the time indicated that these foreign resort gems would "trade like a tiger" -- presumably because they are highly regarded & in demand by vacationers looking for their own advantageous timeshare trades. 

I have no doubt that timeshare weeks exchanges can involve winners & losers -- especially in back in those goold old days when the newbies were up against the shrewdies. 

But the timeshare exchange dream book is thick, with lots & lots of slick color pages listing loads of resorts in many nice locations.  Is it really so unlikely that an exchange that's advantageous to me is also advantageous to the other participants? 

Are win-win timeshare trades really that rare? 

Meanwhile, hedging my bets & tuning in to more of the _Wisdom Of TUG_, I have entered into the points system myself in a penny-ante kind of way -- so that if it's true that the points people are unfairly raiding the weeks inventory, then at least there's a chance I can get in on a little of it. 

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


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Winners & Losers?*



			
				AwayWeGo said:
			
		

> Are win-win timeshare trades really that rare?


Win-win is actually the heart of the system.

After stripping away all of the smoke and rhetoric about weeks, points, fliiats, hidden values, crosover matrices, that's what it comes down.

Like any deal, I give up something of value for something that is worth more to me than what I gave up.  If I pay $20,000 for a vehicle, that's because that vehicle is worth more to me than the $20,000 in my pocket.  The dealer makes the deal because the $20,000 is worth more to him than the vehicle.  

We each swap something that is worth more to us than what we gave up.  When there is no win-win, the deals stop happening.  For all of the rumblings, he numbers indicate that all exchange companies are moving more product every year - in all types of systems.  That wouldn't happen if there weren't a lot of people believing that, on the whole, they were getting value back for what they were giving up (including exchange fees and memberships).


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: What are your rights ---JEFFV*

The North Carolina Real Estate Commission required RCI Points to drop the automatic ''re-up'' provision, and some others, in order for the Commission to agree not to treat RCI Points as a developer rather than an exchange program.  As far as I know, RCI Points made this change throughout their system. That occured in the early days of GPN.

You are correct about the financial disincentives.





			
				teepeeca said:
			
		

> You are very correct that you can "opt-out" of points after the three year mark. (Actually I "think" you have to let RCI know that you are "opting-out" by the end of the two year mark, or you are automatically re-entered into the points system for the next three years.)
> 
> BUT, if you "opt-out", you have lost your "points conversion fee" --how much is that---$199 to $4995??? (The Pahio salespeople want to charge the $4995 to convert weeks to points !!!)
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Roger Post*

Get Points hand out of Weeks pocket by eliminating the crossover grids, and then the systems can exist side by side.  As long as one is a leach on the other, well, that is an entirely different matter.  Points advocates always want to gloss over that.




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> What a beautiful summary of life on both sides of the trade system fence. I share your exact feelings.
> 
> I had railed against the "bait n' switch" for years which was basically complaining that other fellow owners - and TUGGERS - were taking the best weeks out of the system with deposits that shouldn't have been able to do that. It was one of the worst parts of the old weeks and still exists to a smaller degree today. I also tried other weeks only venues and never saw the trades that were often spoken of here unless I spent far too much time trying to work the secret system. It was frustrating and costly and did end up making my actions create one of the select few trades that were getting far more than a simple fair trade out - which was all I really wanted. Weeks didn't let it happen. You took more than your fair share if you worked the system correctly or you took a beating in "standard" trades.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Roger Post*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> Get Points hand out of Weeks pocket by eliminating the crossover grids, and then the systems can exist side by side.  As long as one is a leach on the other, well, that is an entirely different matter.  Points advocates always want to gloss over that.


The cross over grids aren't free time - it is an exchange of value like any other. If you don't like what the grid says the values are imagine how upset you would be if the secret weeks values were ever disclosed as the same group created both.  Points owners are still weeks owners and thus get the right to both sides as they should.


----------



## boyblue (Apr 21, 2006)

We have now arived at the point in the points vs weeks debate where I become convinced that Caro is just playing devil's advocate.  I'm sure that he is having a bit of fun at our expense.


----------



## Carolinian (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: Roger Post*

Who created them is really irrelevent.  The two systems function quite differently.  Points owners are only ''weeks owners'' becuase RCI wrongfully gives them a ''free'' Weeks membership, the administrative costs of which are being subsidized by real Weeks members.  This is part of what is wrong with the interface between the systems.  The problem is that Points would fall on its face if it ever had to try to stand on its own two feet without being subsidized by Weeks, so RCI engineered the looting of Weeks to prop it up.

No, the grids are not free, just highly discounted, and that is bad enough.  Nobody ever said it was free.





			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> The cross over grids aren't free time - it is an exchange of value like any other. If you don't like what the grid says the values are imagine how upset you would be if the secret weeks values were ever disclosed as the same group created both.  Points owners are still weeks owners and thus get the right to both sides as they should.


----------



## e.bram (Apr 21, 2006)

*A Hypothetical*

Suppose you owned a house or full ownership condo on a beach. Would you pay someone to give them a lease where you paid all the expenses for the promise of the use of another house or condo somewhere else if it were available. Why would you do it with a timeshare.  
            I like to look at  my timeshares as my second homes and like to know I can use them durring my intervals.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 21, 2006)

e.bram,

What you are arguing for is not weeks vs. points, fixed vs. floating, but no exchanging (and no exchange companies) whatsoever.  You are in an enviable position of being satisfied with going to your two resorts every year.  You are not alone in this.  There are many others who buy a timeshare simply to use.  If this is satisfactory to you, more power to you.

It is an undeniable fact, however, that a great many timesharers buy with the hope of going not just to their own timeshare, but other places across the world.  In the more extreme cases, some people buy a timeshare without ever thinking of using their own unit.  (Carolinian, for example, owns, or used to own, in South Africa.)  Does this entail additional risk?  Of course.  Still, many of us have successfully traded and are willing to continue to bear risk.  In my own case, I have not only used my own unit in Hawaii several times, but been to England (three times), Florida, Panama, Texas, Canada, Massachusettes, etc.

None of this is meant to say that I am right, you are wrong.  I think it is great that you can look upon your timeshares much like others I know talk about their lake cabin (something that they return to every year).  Others of us are willing to trade and gained a great deal of pleasure from doing so.  On this issue, nobody is right or wrong.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: A Hypothetical*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> Suppose you owned a house or full ownership condo on a beach. Would you pay someone to give them a lease where you paid all the expenses for the promise of the use of another house or condo somewhere else if it were available. Why would you do it with a timeshare.
> I like to look at  my timeshares as my second homes and like to know I can use them durring my intervals.



What if the local government exercised eminent domain on your property.  That is a risk.  So, nobody should buy a timeshare in Rivera Beach, Florida, right? They just went through the condemnation process and claimed eminent domain on lots of land there.

I am glad you made the distinction you did.  I agree with you.  I view my timeshares as second homes, too.  But, I know they behave more like hotels.  That's one reason why timeshares should be viewed as rental properties.


----------



## e.bram (Apr 21, 2006)

*BocaBum99:*

The Supreme Court that allows Eminenant Domain probably likes points too. Points are like Eminent Domain for weeks.


----------



## Gadabout (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: A Hypothetical*



			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> What if the local government exercised eminent domain on your property.  That is a risk.  So, nobody should buy a timeshare in Rivera Beach, Florida, right? They just went through the condemnation process and claimed eminent domain on lots of land there.



Well, if it excercised ED because of being tired of paying out tons of money every time there's a hurricane, I don't see anything wrong with it. Everyone KNOWS these places have problems (that's what disclosure is for), so maybe it's for the best.

I think that if people want to live/vacation where there are known hazards every year (flooding on certain rivers comes to mind), then it should be limited to RVs or trailers that you could tow/drive out, or little houses like these that you could tow out (look at the XS-House and the 8x12 Front Gable--they would be a really cute guest house if you have room):

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses.htm 

I remember that John Stoessel "Give me a break" segment on FEMA and the flood insurance program a while back, and it just makes sense to not allow building at all in certain areas, or have everyone assume their own risks and get private insurance if they do want to build. JMHO.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: A Hypothetical*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> Suppose you owned a house or full ownership condo on a beach. Would you pay someone to give them a lease where you paid all the expenses for the promise of the use of another house or condo somewhere else if it were available. Why would you do it with a timeshare.
> I like to look at  my timeshares as my second homes and like to know I can use them durring my intervals.



That is exactly how we look at two or our three timeshares.  But notice that one of the benefits of a whole ownership is that you can visit your property anytime of  year you want.  If I owned a beachfront house, I could spend a week on the beach any time of the year I wanted to - I wouldn't be forced to go there only one fixed week out of every year.

With our floating weeks, we can visit out resort anytime of year we want.  So a floating week is really even more like having a full ownership at a beach than is a fixed week ownership.  I hadn't thought of that before, and it's a good point.  

Thanks for helping make a better case for floating ownership!


----------



## Gadabout (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: A Hypothetical*



			
				T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> That is exactly how we look at two or our three timeshares.  But notice that one of the benefits of a whole ownership os that you can visit our property anytime of  year you want.  If I owned a beachfront house, I spend a week on the beach any time of the year I wanted to - I wouldn't be forced to go there only one fixed week out of every year.
> 
> With our floating weeks, we can visit out resort anytime of year we want.  So a floating week is really even more like owning a house or a full ownership at a beach than is a fixed week ownership.  I hadn't thought of that before, and it's a good point.
> 
> Thanks for helping make a better case for floating ownership!



Actually, with TS rentals so cheaply and widely available to anyone, it's more of case to not own, and just rent.  If the system went back to owners only, that would not be the case, but why buy when renting is often cheaper and offers better flexibility for most people (if you're exchanging most of the time anyway). If you are going to the same place every year you may be better off owning, rather than renting, but I suspect that that may not be  the absolute it once was, either, except in the case of certain resorts.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: BocaBum99:*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court that allows Eminenant Domain probably likes points too. Points are like Eminent Domain for weeks.



What's wrong with eminems?  I like eminems?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: A Hypothetical*



			
				e.bram said:
			
		

> Suppose you owned a house or full ownership condo on a beach. Would you pay someone to give them a lease where you paid all the expenses for the promise of the use of another house or condo somewhere else if it were available. Why would you do it with a timeshare.
> I like to look at  my timeshares as my second homes and like to know I can use them durring my intervals.



Homelink

Global Home Exchange

Diggsville

1st Home Exchange


Well, I guess some people are doing exactly what you said.  So, I guess that explains why people do it with timeshares.  Perhaps there are peope in this world who do things a bit differently than you do.

If you don't understand why people exchange timeshares, then there is nothing I can post that will help you.


----------



## Dani (Apr 21, 2006)

Once again, I have had to delete several messages.  PLEASE be mindful of the rules of the BBS.


----------



## e.bram (Apr 21, 2006)

*Message deletion*

Deleting messages will drive posters to Timeshareforums. Let the people be heard. Unless its' profane or intimidating, it should be allowed. I think most poster can stand so degree of insults and dish it back.Censorship is destructive ti free expression.


----------



## Dave M (Apr 21, 2006)

e.bram -

Please read the "Posting Rules" (link on the above blue bar). Personal attacks and "insults" are not permitted on the BBS. Although some bulletin boards allow such exchanges, we do not. Once upon a time, such comments became almost routine here. It wasn't pretty. We aren't going there again.

Those who wish to trade insults should do so elsewhere. Doing so here risks suspension of posting privileges or a complete ban on posting. 

Dani's deletions were in keeping with our posted rules.

Also, if you read rule #6, you'll see that your post on this topic is not allowed, although I'll leave it in. Please follow that rule in the future.


----------



## boyblue (Apr 22, 2006)

*I think I owe Carolinian an apology*

I think I owe Carolinian an apology.  My theory that he is playing devil's advocate and does not truly believe what he says, is in retrospect a put down.  Although I did not mean it that way, that is no excuse.

Caro, please accept my humblest apology.


----------

